The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12112001 - D.4 J . • O: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �•• Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ?�:, , ..�_' County DATE: October 9, 2001 SUBJECT: HEARING ON THE APPEAL BY PETER OSTROSKY(OWNER)OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO RESUBDIVIDE THE EXISTING 5.31 ACRE SITE INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMESITES AND AN 8 UNIT CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIORS 55 OR OLDER WITH 6 ATTACHED "DUET" UNITS AND TWO DETACHED UNITS. PROPOSED REZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS FROM R-20 TO P-1 TO CREATE A CLUSTER TYPE DEVELOPMENT WITH OPEN SPACE RATHER THAN CONVENTIONAL R-20 LOTS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT LIVORNA ROAD, INTERSTATE 680 AND SUGARLOAF DRIVE IN THE ALAMO AREA, AND IS REFERED TO AS ALAMO GARDENS (SD988263, RZ983069, DP983025). SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION UPHOLD the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's decision to deny Subdivision 8263 and Development Plan 983025 (Resolution # 18-2001). CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE . RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON October, 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX See attached addendum for Board's action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND XX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Michael Laughlin 335-1204 ATTESTED October 9, 2001 Community Development JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: County Counsel-Silvano Marchesi SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works-Engineering Services, Heather Ballenger Peter Ostrosky, Owner and Appellant Patricia Curtain, Owner's Representative BY_ �� I`� .1 L , DEPUTY October 9, 2001 • Board of Supervisors File#'s: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025 Page 2 ALTERNATIVE BOARD ACTIONS Listed below are two possible alternative actions that the Board could take on this appeal: Alternative 1 (Deny the Project) Adopt a motion to: A. SUSTAIN the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission decision that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate and consistent with the State CEQA guidelines and County CEQA guidelines. B. DENY the applicant's appeal and sustain the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of Subdivision 988263 and Development Plan 983025 utilizing the findings made by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission as a basis for this decision. Alternative 2 (Approve the Project) Adopt a motion to: A. SUSTAIN the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission decision that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate and consistent with the State CEQA guidelines and County CEQA guidelines. B. DECLARE the Board's intent to approve the applicant's appeal and overturn the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of Subdivision 988263 and Development Plan 983025. C. DIRECT staff to prepare findings for Board adoption and final Board action on the appeal and to prepare an ordinance rezoning the property. ,Alternative 3 (Approve the Project with modifications or reduction in density) Adopt a motion to: A. SUSTAIN the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission decision that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate and consistent with the State CEQA guidelines and County CEQA guidelines. B. DECLARE the Board's intent to approve the applicant's appeal and overturn the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of Subdivision 988263 and Development Plan 983025, and stating suggested modifications to the plans. C. DIRECT staff to prepare findings for Board adoption and final Board action on the appeal and to prepare an ordinance rezoning the property. October 9, 2001 • • Board of Supervisors File#'s: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025 Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant has paid application fees to process this project and is obligated to pay supplemental fees for staff time and material costs which exceed 100% of the initial fee payment. Conditions of approval require payment of fees and assessments and installation of public and private improvements at the applicant's expense. BACKGROUND The site is a remainder of the Sugarloaf Hill subdivision which occurred in 1984. The original subdivision area was 50 acres, 26.5 acres of which were required to be dedicated to open space. Three of the parcels (50,53,54) are already subdivided for single family residential use (shown as lots 9, 10 and 11 on the current plan). Parcels 48 and 49 are residual, vacant parcels that were not proposed to be developed at the time. The owner had originally retained the parcels for possible commercial rezoning and use, given the proximity of the property to Highway 680 and Livorna Road. The CC&R's for the homes within the Sugarloaf Hill subdivision made buyers aware of the intent to develop the property with a use potentially different than single family residential development (see attached copy of the CC&R's submitted by the applicant in Section 1 of the May 16, 2001 staff report). The owner is now proposing development of this residual property for 8 clustered residential units (reduced by two units since the December public hearing). Clustering of units serves to retain the drainage course, mature trees and to keep steeper portions of the lot free from development. Site grading will occur to create the access road, parking and pads for the residences. Retaining walls are included in the project design since the site is below Sugarloaf Drive and Livorna Road. The design of the project allows for the blocking of interior and exterior noise from Interstate 680 to an acceptable level for the future residents of the project. The development provides for a unique type of senior "step down" housing on a site which does not lend itself to conventional single family residential development. Seniors wishing to move out of their existing homes in the community would have an opportunity to do so, freeing up single family housing stock. Providing housing options and types is a goal of the County's Housing Element. Objections have been raised about the density and cluster arrangement of the development proposed, and the Alamo Improvement Association made a recommendation of denial on the current proposal. Answers to the questions raised in their review letter are discussed in the May 16, 2001 staff report, attached. Neighbors have expressed opposition to the project, primarily concerning the density and cluster housing type, which is dissimilar to the detached single- family residential character of the neighborhood (see correspondence in Section 3 of the May 16, 2001 staff report). SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONALPLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission (SRVRPC) held two hearings on this matter on December 20, 2000 and May 16, 2001. At the first hearing the Planning Commission took testimony concerning the project and indicated their intent to deny the project unless changes were made. After the December meeting, the applicant reduced the number of units October 9, 2001 • • Board of Supervisors File#'s: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025 Page 4 for the cluster portion of the development from 10 units to 8 units. At the May meeting, the Commission reviewed the revised plans and felt that the revisions did not go far enough to address their concerns. The Commission requested that staff present them with findings for denial of the project at their June 20, 2001 meeting. The findings were adopted by majority vote of the Commission, and are attached to the Commission resolution. APPEAL On June 27, 2001 an appeal was received by the owner and project proponent disagreeing with the Commission's decision. The appeal letter is attached for reference. APPEAL DISCUSSION The Community Development Department made a recommendation for the approval.of the project to the Commission. The basis for this recommendation was made on the following factors. The SRVRPC findings disagreeing with staff's findings are included in the discussion: Environmental Review: The application was not found to have any significant environmental impacts, based on the initial study and review conducted by staff, which included acoustical reports and a photo simulation provided by the applicant. Since the project is relatively small and is in an area zoned and designated for residential development, it will not create severe, unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment (also see Negative Declaration and Initial Study in Section 2 of the May 16, 2001 staff report). The property is currently subdivided into 5 residential properties, so the net increase in the number of units is 6 units. Neighbors indicated in testimony the difficulty in entering and exiting the existing subdivision from Livorna Road during peak traffic periods. Guest parking impacts along Sugarloaf Terrace were documented with photographs submitted at the May meeting, and are attached as recent information with the appeal letter. General Plan Compliance: In a review of General Plan polices which apply to the project, numerous policies and the allowed land use density were used as arguments to support the application (these are shown in italic). A discussion of these policies, with SRVRPC findings, is also included. In reviewing these policies, the discussion in the introduction requires looking at policies as a group rather than myopically focusing on a single policy which may support or not support a proposed project. Land Use and Density. The property is designated Single Family Residential-Low Density(SL). The density allowed in this category is 1.0 to 2.9 dwelling units/net acre. The proposed density is at the maximum of 2.9 dwelling units/net acre, based on the entire area of the rezoning, (5.31 acres) excluding actual road improvements. Where improvements have not been proposed, the County General Plan assumes a 25% right-of-way dedication. In this case, the road improvements are less than 25% of the total site area (18.5%). One of the arguments against the original proposal reviewed at the December hearing was that by drawing the P-1 rezoning boundary to include the undeveloped single family lots, that the cluster development area was "borrowing" that density to allow for more units on the site than would be allowed if the 3.22 acre site was October 9, 2001 • Board of Supervisors File Ws: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025 Page 5 considered by itself. The applicant reduced the number of units on this portion of the site to 8, so that this portion of the development does not borrow density. The two lots that comprise the cluster development site are 3.22 gross acres. Subtracting the interior driveway and visitor parking (0.40 acres), the net acreage is 2.82 acres. This would allow for up to 8 units under the permitted General Plan density of 2.9 units per acre. The SRVRPC made the finding that the predominant character of the Alamo area is detached, single family residential development on larger lots. This project would introduce a type of housing currently not found in the immediate area. They also felt that the density of the proposed project was too high, as described in further detail below. Land Use Element Policy 3-8 Infilling already developed areas shall be encouraged. Policy 3-18 Flexibility in the design of projects shall be encouraged in order to enhance scenic qualities and provide for a varied development pattern. Policy 3-27 Existing residential neighborhoods shall be protected from incompatible land uses and traffic levels exceeding adopted service standards. Policy 3-28 New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where it will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment and upon the existing community. This project can be categorized as an infill development, and eventual development of the site would be encouraged over development at the edge of developed areas in the County. The primary issue is the density and type of the development. The AIA and neighbors would prefer lower density single-family detached development, while the applicant sees the site as appropriate for an attached and detached residential cluster type development. Given the location of the site and site constraints, the architect has designed a project that exhibits flexibility in design, protects all existing oak trees on the site and provides a varied development pattern. As shown in the attached visual simulations in Section 2 of the May 16, 2001 staff report, the project with landscaping will be attractive. To the passer-by, the cluster development will appear as 5 large single family homes based on the massing of the project in two single and three paired units. Since the project is residential in nature, it would be considered compatible. A commercial or industrial use would be considered incompatible. However, the neighbors and AIA see the project as incompatible since the proposed unit type differs from the single-family detached units in the neighborhood. Community Development staff finds the project to be a compatible land use and within the permitted density. The adjoining property owners feel that the project will have a significant impact on the community since it differs from the single family residential character of the neighborhood. In addition, the AIA letter states a concern that the project will lower property values. October 9, 2001 • Board of Supervisors File #'s: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025 Page 6 From Staff's perspective, improvement of the property over the current undeveloped state would tend to maintain or increase neighboring home values, particularly with the perimeter landscaping on Livorna Road and Sugarloaf Drive. The target market for this project is well-off seniors who will expect a high quality living environment and home. The SRVRPC found that the project site can be categorized as an infill site, and that some flexibility in design may be appropriate due to site constraints. The proposed cluster portion of the development is not compatible with the existing residential neighborhood and neighborhood development pattern which consists of single family homes on lots averaging one half acre. The development is too dense given the visibility of the site and the site constraints. The type and mass of structures proposed does not match the neighborhood development pattern. Policies for the Alamo-Diablo-Blackhawk Area Policy 3-135 Promote the individuality and unique character of each community based on existing community images. Policy 3-136 The character of the area as one of predominantly single family residences shall be developed, and multiple family residential units shall be provided in suitable densities and locations. A range of densities shall be offered in order to provide for a variety of family sizes, income levels, and age groups. Policy 3-142 When rezoning in Alamo, the appropriate single family residential zoning will include R-20, R-40, R-65 and R-100 and P-1. Both Alamo and Diablo have special characteristics which preclude clustering in established areas. The predominant character of the Alamo area. is detached, single family residential development on larger lots. The architect has tried to mimic the mass of larger homes in the neighborhood with the duet units. The exterior architecture has significant detailing for a high quality appearance. As shown on the visual simulation, it will be difficult to distinguish the unit type from surrounding vantage points. This project would introduce a type of housing currently not found in the area. It would allow for senior residents wishing to downsize from existing homes in the community to do so and remain in the community. It can be argued that this site is appropriate for the type of housing proposed, and no variances or density bonuses are requested. The site may not be desirable for conventional single family residential development due to the freeway noise levels and exposure to Livorna Road. If houses fronted on Sugarloaf Terrace, the rear yards would be visually exposed from the freeway and other vantage points, and exterior noise would be unmitigatable due to the elevated nature of the freeway. Depending on the rear yard treatments, conventional development could be less attractive than a project with a comprehensive plan and cohesive landscaping. In this case, the applicant is proposing P-1 zoning. Clustering in this location mitigates noise and preserves the trees and land north of the drainage area. Conventional subdivision or development could place the scenic area under multiple ownerships and would not mitigate for October 9, 2001 • Board of Supervisors File Ws: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025 Page 7 noise. As shown on the visual simulations, the project would have a single story ranch style appearance with a high pitched roof. Clustering of development for this site is supported by the Community Development Department for the reasons stated in this report, and the same concept could be used with a single family detached home type. The SRVRPC found that the predominant character of the Alamo area is detached, single family residential development on larger lots. This project would introduce a type of housing currently not found in the immediate area. The site was not found to be suitable based on the density and location. A more appropriate location was identified along Danville Boulevard and other areas west of Interstate 680. The location is considered an established area, and clustering is not appropriate. The SRVRPC also found that the proposed density of the project, at approximately 2.5 dwelling units/net acre, is inconsistent with the intent of General Plan policy 3-142 (above) that the maximum net density in the residentially-designated, Alamo-Diablo-Blackhawk areas of the General Plan be 1.9 DU/net acre, rather than 2.9 DU/net acre elsewhere, as evidenced by the exclusion in Policy 3-142 of R-15 as an appropriate single family zoning designation in these areas. Transportation and Circulation Element Policy 5-34 Scenic corridors shall be maintained with the intent of protecting attractive natural qualities adjacent to various roads throughout the county. Policy 5-36 Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced, and protected to the extent possible. Policy 5-37 The existing system of scenic routes shall be enhanced to increase the enjoyment and opportunities for scenic pleasure driving to major recreational and cultural centers throughout this and adjacent counties. Policy 5-41 For lands designated for urban use along scenic routes, planned unit developments shall be encouraged in covenant with land development projects. Interstate 680 is a designated scenic corridor. Based on the visual simulations, the low base elevation of the project and proposed landscaping, staff found that the project complies with these policies. The SRVRPC found that Interstate 680 is a designated scenic corridor. Livorna Road is a gateway into the community. The project is not an appropriate gateway element, since it does not reflect the predominant development pattern found on the east side of Interstate 680. Housing Element Goal 4, Special Housing Needs Program 4.2 Design flexibility for elderly projects. The objective is to encourage the development and expansion of housing opportunities for the elderly. October 9, 2001 • Board of Supervisors File Ws: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025 Page 8 As previously mentioned, this project will provide for a unique type of senior housing within the community. Given the lack of vacant land close to significant transportation routes (Livorna Road and Interstate 680), this project would further the goals of the County Housing Element. The SRVRPC found that this site is not appropriate for senior housing. The site is isolated and limits walking opportunities for residents. The site is isolated and is not in close proximity to shopping or other amenities for seniors. Noise and pollution exposure are high, and would require that windows remain closed and mechanical ventilation be used (requiring more for energy use and requiring higher spending on energy bills for individuals on a potentially fixed income). Public Facilities and Services Element Policy 7-2 New development shall be required to pay its fair share of the cost of all existing public facilities it utilizes, based upon the demand for these facilities which can be attributed to new development. The developer would be required to pay all fees associated with development as well as provide for improvements on Livorna Road. Noise Element Policy 11-1 New projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards as established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines contained in Figure 11-6. These guidelines, along with the future noise level shown in the future noise contours. Policy 11-2 The standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a DNL of 60 dB. However, a DNL of 60 DB or less may not be achievable in all residential areas due to economic or aesthetic constraints. One example is small balconies associated with multi-family housing. In this case, second and third story balconies maybe difficult to control to the goal. A common outdoor use area that meets the goal can be provided as an alternative. Policy 11-4 Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulations requires that new multiple family housing projects, hotels and motels exposed to a DNL of 60 dB or greater have a detailed acoustical analysis describing how the project will provide an interior DNL or 45 dB or less. The also shall require new single-family housing projects to provide for an interior DNL of 45 dB or less. The site is located in a high noise area due to the proximity of Highway 680. To comply with the County General Plan, the project was designed in a circle to mitigate against exterior noise, as is discussed in the acoustical reports submitted by the applicant. The project design will allow for outdoor living areas to be at 60 dBA, and interior areas to be at 45dBA,within General Plan guidelines. Based on the two acoustical reports submitted with the application (and the opinion letter concerning reflected noise), the project can mitigate exterior and interior noise levels so that occupants can enjoy their living environment. The project will not contribute to a reflected noise October 9, 2001 Board of Supervisors Fife Ws: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025 Page 9 increase due to its location below the freeway and location of other improvements in the vicinity. The project itself will not contribute to significant noise in the vicinity since any noise generated on the site (primarily auto noise) would be less than the ambient noise level created by the freeway. The SRVRPC found that this site is exposed to high noise levels. Even though noise can be mitigated by the project design, aspects of the project are less than ideal for residents and especially seniors. Bedroom orientation toward the freeway does not permit opening of windows during the night, and there is high reliance on mechanical ventilation. ADDENDUM TO ITEM DA October 9, 2001 On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered the hearing of the appeal by Peter Ostrosky (owner)of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of the tentative subdivision map and development plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into 3 single family residential homesites and an 8 unit cluster development for seniors 55 and older with 6 attached"duet"units and two detached units and proposed rezoning of the property from R-20 to P-1 to create a cluster type development with open space rather an conventional R-20 lots. Dennis Barry,Director,Community Development Department and Michael Laughlin,Planner, Community Development Department presented the staff report and recommendations. Also present was Silvano Marchesi, County Counsel. Following the Board's questions of staff, the Chair opened the Public Hearing and invited the public to comment: Patricia Curtin, Crosby Heafey, Roach& May, (Attorney for Peter Ostrosky, Appellant) 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600, Oakland, Ca; Stephen Harriman, 47 Quail Court, #309, Walnut Creek; Ed Antenucci, 21 Tanbark Lane, Alamo; Dale Bridges, 3212 Danville Blvd.,Alamo; George Henebury, 570 Marble Canyon Lane, San Ramon, Ca Brad Horton, 1483 Danville Blvd., Alamo; Elvin L. VanZee, Walnut Creek; Roger Hill, 1154 Tilson Drive, Concord; Jack Behseresht, 1350 Sugarloaf Drive,Alamo; Karla Smith, 1335 Sugarloaf Drive,Alamo; Karol Bush,41 Sugarloaf Terrace, Alamo; Ted Upland,41 Sugarloaf Lane, Alamo; Mike Ziemann, 3975 Beechwood Drive, Concord; Chuck Schiller, 1365 Sugarloaf Drive, Alamo; George DeLima, 1315 Sugarloaf Drive,Alamo; Charles Wall, 333 Camille Avenue,Alamo; Anna Choy, 1345 Sugarloaf Drive,Alamo; The public hearing was closed. The Board resumed discussing the matter. Supervisor Gerber moved to adopt alternative#3 of the staff report, which is to approve the project with modification or reduction to density. Supervisor Gerber advised that her modifications,would be to eliminate the two single detached units, and make them attached units. This would allow for a tighter cluster, moving the retaining wall further from Sugarloaf Drive and the open space area. She directed staff work with the applicant regarding the modifications and return to the Board in 30 days for adoption and final action. Supervisor Uilkema asked Silvano Marchesi, County Counsel, if it would be appropriate to re- open the public hearing, since the recommendations had been modified. Mr. Marchesi suggested that staff make the proposed changes and notice the public hearing on the amended proposal. Supervisor Gerber moved to re-open the public hearing and Supervisor Gioia second the motion. October 9, 2001 D.4/Ostrosky Page 2 After further discussion, Supervisor Gerber restated her motion to adopt alternative#3 in the staff report as modified and continues the matter to December 11, 2001 at 11:00. Supervisor Gioia second the motion and the Board voted unanimously on the following action: 1. CONTINUED the public hearing to December 11,2001 at 11:00 a.m.; 2. SUSTAINED the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission decision that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate and consistent with the State CEQA guidelines and County CEQA guidelines; 3. DECLARED the Board's intent to approve the applicant's appeal and overturn the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of Subdivision 98-8263 and Development Plan 98-3025,and stating suggested modifications to the plans as outlined this date; 4. DIRECTED staff to prepare findings for board adoption and final Board action on the appeal and to prepare an ordinance rezoning the property. ALAMO GARDENS BOARD ORDER ATTACHMENTS • APPEAL LETTER • SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION & FINDINGS FOR DENIAL • PHOTOGRAPHS SUBMITTED BY NEIGHBORS AT THE MAY 163 2001 SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Peter Ostrosky 17 Sugarloaf Terrace Alamo,CA 94507 June 21,2001 - Application and Permit Center Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, Second Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 Re: DP983025,RZ983069, SD988263 Ladies and Gentlemen: I wish to appeal the decision and the findings made by the San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission on June 20,2001 relative to the referenced applications. Specifically, I am appealing the denial of SD 988263. I understand that the rezoning and the associated development plan items will go to the Board of Supervisors automatically. If that is not the case,then I wish to appeal the action on those items as well. Enclosed is a check for $125. and a set of stamped envelopes for all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project. Yours truly, Peter Ostrosky RESOLUTION NO.- 18-2001 (r1 1 1 A , RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF DENIAL FOR THE ALAMO GARDENS PROJECT (RZ983069 and DP983035) AND TENTATIVE MAP TRACT 8263 (SD 988363). WHEREAS, the owner, Peter Ostrosky, proposes to construct the Alamo Gardens Project, which consists of a plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acres into 3 single family residential homesites and an 8 unit cluster development (for seniors aged 5.5 or older) with 6 attached units and two detached units; and WHEREAS, notice of the hearing having been lawfully given, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held public hearings on the applicant's requests on December 13, 2000 and May 16, 2001, and during the hearings considered comments from the Contra Costa County staff, the project applicant, the project technical consultants, and all interested members of the public who wished to speak; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated all the testimony, evidence and comments submitted in this matter: and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, at their meeting of June 20, 2001 recommends to deny the project based on the findings attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Planning Commission shall respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this Resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors all in accordance with the planning laws of the State of California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on Wednesday June 20, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Gibson, McPherson, Mulvihill, Matsunaga NOES: Commissioners - Neely ABSENT: Commissioners - Jeha, Couture ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None Page 2 WHEREAS,in a letter received June 27,2001,following the decision on this application by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission,the property owner appealed the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of File#'s DP983025, RZ983069 and SD988263 (Alamo Gardens Subdivision) to the Board of Supervisors. Nancy J. Mulvihill Chair of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: 1 �1 DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary San Ramon Valley.Regional PlanninLz Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California EXHIBIT A .Alamo Gardens Findings Adopted by the San Ramon Regional Planning Commission On June 20, 2001 Rezoning County File #RZ983069 Preliminary and Final Development Plan File #DP983025 Tentative Map File#SD988263 Alamo Area PETER OSTROSKY (Owner) Project Findings • • File#!'s RZ983069,DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area under subdivision 6468 and would not be part of the new homeowner's association since none of these lots have any common areas (the CC&R's that currently apply to those properties would remain in effect). The boundary of the Planned Unit Development proposal was drawn to meet the 5-acre minimum`area required by the County for a P-1 rezoning. The three single family residential sites have graded pads and utility hookups and are ready for development. The remaining area can best be described as a bowl, with the main area of development below Livorna Road, Sugarloaf Terrace and Interstate 680. An access roadway and retaining walls are proposed to provide access to the units. A segment of a drainage course extends along the northern side of the property, and will be retained in its present location. Drainage for the project will be directed to the existing culvert which extends under Interstate 680. Existing trees occur in this same riparian area. A steep hillside area occurs to the northwest, between the back of 2 existing residences and the freeway. Due to access, slope, noise and proximity to the freeway, development of this area is not feasible. This area and the drainage course area will be part of a common area lot maintained by the homeowners association. The scenic easement (which now only covers the drainage areas and trees) would be expanded to include all of this hillside area. III. Ordinance Code Requirements and Project Findings Pursuant to Section 26-2.2022 of the Ordinance Code. it is the Project Applicant's burden to produce evidence to convince the County Planning Agency that all standards are met and the intent and purpose of the applicable regulations and goals and objectives of the General Plan will be satisfied. Failure to satisfy this burden shall result.in a denial. The applicant submitted evidence supporting the project and compliance with General Plan policies. and the Commission disagreed with the interpretation presented. Based on evidence and testimony submitted to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, the Commission determines that the Project Applicant has not met the burden of proof to convince the Commission that the Project will satisfy the following findings that are required by County Code: A. Findings Pertaining to Approval of a Rezoning Application (Section 26-2.1806 of the County Code) 1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply -with the General Plan. The Planning Commission considered the following General Plan policies: 3 Project Findings • File#'s RZ983069, DP983025,SD988263 Alamo Area Land Use Element Policy 3-8 Infilling already developed areas shall be encouraged. Policy 3-18 Flexibility in the design of projects shall be encouraged in order to enhance scenic qualities and provide for a varied development pattern. Policy 3-27 Existing residential neighborhoods shall be protected from incompatible land uses and traffic levels exceeding adopted service standards. Policy 3-28 New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where it will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment and upon the existing conununity. Finding: This Commission finds that the project site can be categorized as an infill site, and that some flexibility in design may be appropriate due to site constraints. The proposed cluster portion of the development is not compatible with the existing residential neighborhood and neighborhood development pattern which consists of single family homes on lots averaging one half acre. The development is too dense given the visibility of the site and the site constraints. The type and mass of structures proposed does not match the neighborhood development pattern. Concern was expressed about the impact of the project on existing property values. Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General Plan, observation of Commissioners. Policies for the Alamo-Diablo-Blackhawk Area Policy 3-135 Promote the individuality and unique character of each community based on existing community images. Policy 3-136 The character of the area as one of predominantly single-family residences shall be developed, and multiple family residential units shall be provided in suitable densities and locations. A range of densities shall be offered in order to provide for a 4 Project Findings File#'s RZ983069, DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area variety of family sizes, income levels, and age groups. Policy 3-142 When rezoning in Alamo, the appropriate single family residential zoning will include R-20, R-40, R-65 and R-100 and P-l. Both Alamo and Diablo have special characteristics which preclude clustering in established areas. Finding: The Commission finds that the predominant character of the Alamo area is detached, single family residential development on larger lots. This project would introduce a type of housing currently not found in the immediate area. The site was not found to be suitable based on the density and location. A more appropriate location was identified along Danville Boulevard and other areas west of Interstate 680. The location is considered an established area, and clustering is not appropriate.. fhe Commission also finds that the proposed density of the project, at approximately 2.5 dwelling units/net acre, is inconsistent with the intent of General Plan policy 3-142 (above) that the maximum net density in the residentially- designated, Alamo-Diablo-Blackha«-k areas of the General Plan be 1.9 DU/net acre, rather than 2.9 DU/net acre elsewhere, as evidenced by the exclusion in Policy 3-142 of R- 15 as an appropriate single family zoning designation in these areas. Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General Plan, observation of Commissioners. Transportation and Circulation Element Policy 5-34 Scenic corridors shall be maintained with the intent of protecting attractive natural qualities adjacent to various roads throughout the county. Policy 5-36 Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced, and protected to the extent possible. Policy 5-37 The existing system of scenic routes shall be enhanced to increase the enjoyment and opportunities for scenic pleasure driving to major 5 Project Findings • File#'s RZ983069,DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area recreational and cultural centers throughout this and adjacent counties. Policy 5-41 For lands designated for urban use along scenic routes, planned unit developments shall be encouraged in covenant with land development projects. Finding: The Commission finds that Interstate 680 is a designated scenic corridor. Livorna Road is a gateway into the community. The project is not an appropriate gateway element, since it does not reflect the predominant development pattern found on the east side of Interstate 680. Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General Plan, observation of Commissioners. Housing Element Goal 4, Special Housing Needs Program 4.2 Design flexibility for elderly projects. The objective is to encourage the development and expansion of housing opportunities for the elderly. Finding: The Commission rinds that this site is not appropriate for senior housing. The site is isolated and limits walking opportunities for residents. The site is isolated and is not in close proximity to shopping or other amenities for seniors. Noise and pollution exposure are high, and would require that windows remain closed and mechanical ventilation be used (requiring snore for energy use and requiring higher spending). Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General Plan, observation of Commissioners. Noise Element Policy 11-1 New projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards as established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines contained in Figure 11-6. These guidelines, along with the future noise level shown in the future noise contours. 6 Project Findings • • File#'s RZ983069,DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area Policy 11-2 The standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a DNL of 60 dB. However, a DNL of 60 DB or less may not be achievable in all residential areas due to economic or aesthetic constraints One example is small balconies associated with multi- family housing. In this case, second and third story balconies may be difficult to control to the goal. A common outdoor use area that meets the goal can be provided as an alternative. Policy 11-4 Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulations requires that new multiple family housing projects, hotels and motels exposed to a DNL of 60 dB or greater have a detailed acoustical analysis describing how the project will provide an interior DNL or 45 dB or less. The also shall require new single-family housing projects to provide for an interior DNL of 45 dB or less. Finding: The. Commission finds that this site is exposed to high noise levels. Even though noise can be mitigated by the project design, aspects of the project are less than ideal for residents and especially seniors. Bedroom orientation toward the freeway does not permit opening of windows during the night, and there is high reliance on mechanical ventilation. Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General Plan, observation of Commissioners. 2.. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts. Finding: The Commission finds that the use proposed in the R- 20 district (the cluster development portion with attached units) is not compatible to uses within the district and uses authorized in adjacent districts. Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General Plan, observation of Commissioners. 3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. 7 Project Findings • • File#'s RZ983069,DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area Finding: The Comnussion finds that community need has been demonstrated for the use based on the County need for senior housing. However, the site is not a desirable location for senior housing. The site is isolated and limits walking opportunities for residents. The site is isolated and is not in close proximity to shopping or other amenities for seniors. Noise and pollution exposure are high, and would require that windows remain . closed and mechanical ventilation be used (requiring more for energy use and requiring higher spending). Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General Plan, observation of Commissioners. B. Findings Pertaining to Approval of a Planned Unit District Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Development Plans (Section 84-66.1804 of the County Code) 1. Reguired Finding: The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County General Plan. Finding: For the reasons set forth in Part III A, above, the Commission does not find the proposed rezoning and development plan consistent Nvith the General Plan. Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General Plan, observation of Commissioners. 2. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and .stability, and will be in harnrom• with the character- of the surrounding neighborhood and conununity. Finding: The Commission finds that the proposed residential environment does not have sustained desirability and stability. Guest parking is limited, as well as resident amenities. Safe construction of retaining walls and proximity of retaining walls to Sugarloaf Terrace and Livorna Road was identified as a concern. As previously stated, the proposed cluster portion of the development differs from the single family residential nature of the surrounding neighborhood and community. Evidence: Posted tentative map/final development plan and project plans, testimony before the Commission, and observation of Commissioners. 8 Project Findings r File##'s RZ983069, DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area 3. Required Finding: The development of a hal7nonious integrated plan justifies exceptions froin the normal application of this code. Finding: Since the Commission did not find this project to be a harmonious plan in finding B.2. above, the Commission also finds that the exceptions to the normal application of the code are not justified for this project. Evidence: Posted tentative map/final development plan and project plans, testimony before the Commission, and observation of Commissioners. C. Finding Pertaining to Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map (Section 94-2.806 of the County Code) Required Finding=: The advisory agency shall not approve a tentative snap unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the applicable General and Specific plans required by law. Finding: The Commission did not find this project to be consistent with the General Plan in findings under section A, above, and therefore does not find the proposed subdivision consistent with the General Plan. Proposed design and improvements for the cluster development include a circular road utilizing the entire width of the lower site and retaining walls which were close to Livorna Road and Sugarloaf Terrace that could be reduced in height if the road were reconfigured and the project density reduced. Evidence: Posted tentative map/final development plan and project plans, General Plan, testimony before the Commission, and observation of Commissioners. 9 r _ c K �r y i M r • z--r - ... �! �"'7 i e _ �:•Y It '_rFs'�• RJ'S- �` - 1 va • r J j I'u ,.,]. .. _ 1 }Y„q.� r2-�- ^a�m Vii.. �� a,srt�-'�•7'�. �..�.�`+�Ar' 'S�`.� s� k::�... � _:.�, w ¢' '�� vt3,�'l�.tF�,.�;�t �� , ��,i�.i?�3i•�.a,-� �-' 1 2 �`�� a�� r�c is r � r � • r s. + � r. • r � � r ,. r_, Lr C�.. t . �` � :'. _ '��. i� ... � �M /. — - � � a�� Z. t (a.. t .n �y� �' wti 5>1 ��ts�'^ eft s5''sl 7 i s+' 4 ,T� u �.y� ��I i. /� ri �7- 5t �[ � i. ll F� J ��f: f�:Y� 1.. �.�� :+?. I' '1 .��!�r�.�f � salt}r'�'t �.G�4�4 s. +�-f � ad.rs ��,,.•�v^`•v�.-. "W'as .�`�a RA,. ��,u � 3�y s ' � 4 f�.e�''.�'G�r3`r'N�'n^s .i:�'.2'}4`+,i��.1}y ,F — - "�'�s_. - '.�'rr..-'^•:..,+k �_ �Ti.�.5..�, 1ar.. s _•f r, i` f�^ .t r i •Y t.�t .�3si} �,ri� .�`i'.g•�?�4V��t Vis... Y wyrE� NOTIFICATION . LIST 187 150 022 187 171 027 • 1.S7 171 028 Walnut Creek City Of David Wei Chen& Anne Yang Emmanuel & Teresa Ronan 1445 Civic Dr 81 Sugarloaf Ln 60 Sugarloaf Ln Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Alamo. CA 94507 Ahmo. CA 94507 187 171 029 187 171 030 1;;7 171 (.).;I Roger&Pamela Loar Irai & Elirabelh Behscreslit Dai id & Rita Little 1360 Sugarloaf Dr 1350 Sugarloaf Dr 134() Sugarloaf Dr Alamo,CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 187 171 032 187 171 033 Michael &:Diana Makieve Joseph & Nicki Hobby 1330 Sugarloaf Dr 1320 Sugarloaf Dr Alamo, CA 94507 Alatuo. CA 94507 187 171 036 187 171 037 187 1 71 038 Michael &Esther Clion Anthom Kelh DUraltte William & K;uol Bush 29 Sugarloaf Ter 35 Sugarloaf Tel I �uarloal"i"ci Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 AI;nno. CA 94507 187 171 039 187 1 7 1 040 I`;7 1 7 1 "41 1 Robert &Roseman'Zeman Jack & Wren T; for dark .lunta�-:i 68 Sugarloaf Ln 72 Su"m loaf[.,it :Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 AImmo ('A 94507 187 171 042 I ti% 17 I t t44 Richard & Sherr'Dorfivan COON-- r� & Belie Vervais 80 Sugarloaf Ln 4 5u arloal Tcr Alamo. CA 94507 -\Janco CA 94507 187 171 045 IS7 171 046 I s- I l l "A Mansour& Simin Zabelian Larn Bam &'' Elcna Estrada A1111n Anti Wit Kimia Zabetian ?? Suwarloal..l er IA t 1'ON .,?r„ 28 Sugarloaf Ter Alamo. CA 94507 \V;tltnu Crcck. CA 94598 Alamo" CA 94507 l� 187 171 048 Peter Ostrosky&OSTROSKY ENTER 17 Sugarloaf Ter Alamo. CA 94507 187 171 051 187 171 ()57 Carl Stephen&Karen Johnson Theodore & Arlene Upland II I V:ticrtc .lah;ut 61 Sugarloaf Ln 41 Su-;trlo:tl'Ln C'handlci Bled .Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 N IIolikktood. CA 91607 187330009 Iti7 :,::()010 is<7 ;;tttt11 Ncil .Arthur& Karla Smith Ronald & Katltle.en Pctetson C eowc tK- lZosa Delhim 1335 Sugarloaf Dr 1 125 Sm--;0oal Dr t 974 13ri,,luon Dr Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo CA 94i07 D11h1m. ('A 9456`, 1\7 .;;0017 I,; >;111iIN Ronald Pcicrson Rodcho k, (;1101111.► Padicrnos 1340 Sugarloaf Dr t I Rocklold Dr Alamo, CA 94507 Antioch. CA 94509 r 187 330 020 187 330 027 I til .330 025 Clement& Anna Cloy Miles Sandstrom &Lillian Ncn►ctr. Thomas c� Man, Lammers 1345 Sugarloaf Dr PO Box 528. 1301 Lai crock Ln Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94 07 192 240 007 192 240 009 192 24u 014 Rif& Candi Gester lames&Pamela Cooper & Doiva Vlasache 1251 Laverock Ln 1280 Laverock Ln 1290 L a\crock Ln Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Akmio. CA 94507 192 240 015 193 340 017 I')_' 25tt t►tt� John &.Joan Russillo J.1Son d Gffla Rennin Lco Hall 'fschm-lier III 1260 I-averock Ln 12i,1 I..;i\ciock Ln I'.� I I..nc10ck Lu Alamo. CA 94507 AL1111t1. CA 94507 .\Lmit,. ( A ')4507 < —J- 1 Eric Hasseltine Alamo Parks & Recreation Committee 3182 Old Tunnel Rd #E P.O.Box 1062 Lafayette,CA 94549 Alamo,CA 94507-9998 - n , Alamo Improvement Association Isakson& Associates,Inc. P.O. Box 271 Civil Engineering Alamo,CA 94507 2255 Ygnacio Valley Rd.,Ste C Walnut Creek,CA 94598 City of Walnut Creek 1666 North Main Street Walnut Creek.CA 94596 PETITION FROM NEIGHBORS OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT SUBMITTED OCTOBER 4, 2001 Petition to Board of S*rvisors Against Alamo Gens Rezoning Request (Contra Costa County File # SD988263, RZ9830.68,. DP983025) Partial Listing of Sugarloaf Neighbors Opposed to'Alamo Gardens The following Sugarloaf Neighbors (voters) are vehemently opposed to multi-family dwellings on Sugarloaf Drive in Alamo for the following reasons: 1. It is strongly opposed by the San P9--n Valley Planning Commission, the Alamo Improvement Association and the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). It is the wrong look for this entrance to Alamo. 2. Building high density multi-family dwellings in a small community zoned for single family residences will materially reduce property values, quality of life and violates Alamo's General Plan. 3. It violates Policy 3-142 of the County General Plan (which precludes clustered housing in established Alamo neighborhoods) and the Sugarloaf Homeowner Association CC&Rs. The ARC has not approved it. 1�OQ -T►2 I0 GL: Z y 6 d i fu �,, clil ___ : . a"\I 01laq LYSE Lou ,,e_ j H3 �12SES�-oE 102 1 ,6 $ 1114 Ila - aQ AVc.c- " Ln Vc, C0. ISS J ilii_ � - �/fb e,1 99 z, �(l� - � - _ 9 - — - f Crce L�f- --fu1a 9 a, L 1( V12 el PinX16 t P,o�. c� ZI /1",n C -+c1'�1 Ten��e �A/jasen k�_ t1-14 -0 )' Com-- -7 - fD VZ Z-1 13 70 6vic CT - I'D o ►�, �Rri0- ` ta � IS G - :� - � :. ( _- f}lao1 L J..� c v `J J 0 Petition to Board of Sorvisors Against Alamo Gens Rezoning Request (Contra Costa County File # S13988263, RZ983068, DP983025) Partial Listing of Sugarloaf Neighbors Opposed to Alamo Gardens The following Sugarloaf Neighbors (voters) are vehemently opposed to multi-family dwellings on Sugarloaf Drive in Alamo for the following reasons: 1. It is strongly opposed by the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission, the Alamo Improvement Association and the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). It is the wrong look for this entrance to Alamo. 2. Building high density multi-family dwellings in a small community zoned for single family residences will materially reduce property values, quality of life and violates Alamo's General Plan. 3. It violates Policy 3-142 of the County General Plan (which precludes clustered housing in established Alamo neighborhoods) and the Sugarloaf Homeowner Association CC&Rs. The ARC has not approved it. INS ✓�t!t_�Q YL P i� �O C �� 061 -01- i j - - - _9* -All - --�l f ig f� tj F 14 0 LIZ 4,4 - ' =to Board of 5wervisors Against Alamo Goens Rezoning Request ontra Costa County File # S13988263, RZ983068, DP983025) artial Listing of Sugarloaf Neighbors Opposed to Alamo Gardens g Sugarloaf Neighbors (voters) are vehemently opposed to multi-family dwellings on Sugarloaf Drive in Alamo for the f 5 'reason . 1. ,S strongly opposed by the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission, the Alamo Imorovement Association and .ie Architectural Review Committee (ARC). It is the wrong look for this entrance to Alamo. Z sity multi-family dwellings in a small community zoned for single family residences will materially Buildin9 nigh den ,-educe property values, quality of life and violates Alamo's General Plan. 3. It violates Policy 3-142 of the County General Plan (which precludes clustered housing in established Alamo neighborhoods) and the Sugarloaf Homeowner Association CC&Rs. The ARC has not approved it. rt -- - 7Q ..-_ -- SL-A L/164-P.l 1 �q I -DAvE_� CWe(C�zC � lo l o J47 j �2a 2 -- -2- C&I W1 ID ��if , � — �t -- ---- — — — — ------ --— -- - — __ �.� "( C, r t 1 _CZ_ ti . Petition to Board of SlOervisors Against Alamo Gens Rezoning Request (Contra Costa Count/ File # SD988263, RZ983068, DP983025) Partial Listing of Sugarloaf Neighbors Opposed to Alamo Gardens The following Sugarloaf Neighbors (voters) are vehemently opposed to multi-family dwellings on Sugarloaf Drive in Alamo for the following reasons: 1. It is strongly oppoced .1'/ the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission, the A!:�mo improvement Association and the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). It is the wrong look for this entrance to Alamo. 2. Building high density multi-family dwellings in a small community zoned for single family residences will materially reduce property values, quality of life and violates Alamo's General Plan. 3. It violates Policy 3-142 of the County General Plan (which precludes clustered housing in established Alamo neighborhoods) and the Sugarloaf Homeowner Association CC&Rs. The ARC has not approved it. LM i Y`• r ; ' w� �} q_� .amu 3 _ l (tet � c•H. - :p. ..�'.�' n�7�(i�� Jr�y t, ��.�.!s `I" [. ...'x?3h.�5":S?+.r.��'�.'+?".iet` :.-h �'fa:•. .- '^+ :rv, w �`^mmom�- _ _, _ .�. _ -_ .•.y. - •..r'-;•e.- r. _ dee ._ d!:'�i�_� '.-.'.�-_'�taa4 - nwz:..a..F.�•-!a+er'rS _.� x.��-. <.r:r::,x�r_. :�-�cya.:�N.. ":• �<`c?.R:i'si - w 210 A�av:: W i i i i Petition to Board ofervisors Against Alamo Glens Rezoning Request (Contra Costa *nty File # SD988263, RZ9 068, DP583025) Partial Listing of Sugarloaf Neighbors Opposed to Alamo Gardens The following Sugarloaf Neighbors (voters) are vehemently opposed to multifamily dwellings on Sugarloaf Drive in Alamo for the following reasons: 1. It is strongly opposed by the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission, the Alamo Improvement Association and the Al c;[itectural Review Committee (ARC). It is the wrol lg iuuk for this entrance to Alamo. 2. Building high density multi-family dwellings in a small.community zoned for single family residences will materiall reduce property values, quality of life and violates Alamo's General Plan. 3. It violates Policy 3-142 of the County General Plan (which precludes clustered housing in established Alamo neighborhoods) and the Sugarloaf Homeowner Association CC&Rs. The ARC has not approved it. 05r aaf . e%yh o Prir Sere 1 `rens rin . r ria iicie - Lie r 05/04/00 C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Filen,Content.IES\NVI3GRRH\sugarloaf°/20nb%20petition%20against%20alamo%20gardens%209%2d22[1].doc APPEAL PETER OSTROSKY (OWNER AND APPELLANT) COUNTY FILES: SD988263, RZ983069, DP983025 Hearing on the appeal by Peter Ostroksky (Owner) of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of the Tentative Subdivision Map and Development Plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into 3 single family residential homesites and an 8 unit cluster development. in the Alamo area. Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County October 9, 2001 11:30 A.M. 10 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS ALAMO AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on ,December 11, 2001 at 11:00 a.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Continued hearing on the appeal by Peter Ostrosky(owner) of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of the tentative subdivision map and development plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into 3 single family residential homesites and a cluster development for seniors 55 or older with 8 attached "Duet" units. Proposed rezoning of the property is from R-20 to P-1 to create a cluster type development with open space rather than conventional R-20 lots. (SD988263, RZ983069, DP983025). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in the Office.of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site is located at Livorna Road, Interstate 680 and Sugarloaf Drive in the Alamo area. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez,to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the. issues being considered by the Board; and (4) provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call Michael Laughlin, Community Development Department, at (925) 335-1204 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, December 10, 2001, to confirm your participation. Date: November 20, 2001 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk's _ . PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) HEOARINOBEFORETHE CONTRA COSTA STATE OF CALIFORNIA COS P RI BOARD OF County of Contra Costa ON PLANNING MATTERS ALAMO AREA I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the NOTICE Is herety given County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and that on DECEMBER 11, not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. 2001 at 11:00 A.M.,In the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times, a (Cmer of Pine and Esco- newspaper of general circulation, printed and published at .",Streets),Martinez,Call- 2640 Shadelands Drive in the City of Walnut Creek, County County tBoardoof Contra a- of Contra Costa,94598. sors will hold a public hear- Ing to consider the follow- ing planning matter:.. And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of Continued hearing on the general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of appeal by Peter Ostrosky Contra Costa, State of California, under the date of October (owner)of the San Ramon 22, 1934.Case Number 19764. valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of the tentative subdivision map The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in and development plan to resubdivide the existing type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each 5.31 are site Into 3 single regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any family residential home- supplement thereof on the following dates,to-wit: sites t and actors r deveor lop- ment er with' 8 attached "Dust" November 24 units.Proposed rezonlrgg of the property Is from R-20 to P-1 to create a cluster type all in the year of 2001 development with open space rather than conven- tional R-20 lots. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the 6SD988263, RZ9830369, foregoing is true and correct. DP983025). . The location of the subject Executed at Walnut Creek,California. property Is within the unin- corporatedOn this o No ember 001 f territory rroCosta County State of California, enerally Identified below ...... . . �a more precise descrlpdon Sign at re may be examined In the Office of the Director of Community Development, Contra Costa Times county Administration P O B x 4147 Building, Martinez, Callfor- Walnut Creek,CA 94596 nla): (925)935-2525 The subject site Is located at Llvorna Road, Interstate 680 and Sugarloaf Drive In Proof of Publication of: the Alamo area. ty the issues being consid- ered(attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that published) If you challenge this matter lde an Board*n ty(t) In Court yYou may be limit- Pdentlfy resolve, or narrow ed to raising only those is: any. differences which re- sues you or someone else main In dispute.Ifyou wish raised at the public hearing to attend this meeting with described at the public. staff, please call Michael hearing described In this Laughlin, Community De- notice, or In written corne-I velo ment Department, at spondence delivered to the, (925)) 335-1204 by 3:00 County at, or prior to, the pp.m. on Mondayy, Decem- public hearing. bar 10, 2001 to confirm your participation. Prior to the hearing, Com- munity Development De- Date:Novomber 20,2001 partment staff will be avail- able on Tuesday John Sweeten December 11, 2001 of Clerk of the board of Su- 10:30 a.m. in Room 108, pervisors and County Administration Bullding, Administrator 651 Pine Street, Martinez to meet with any.interested By: Danielle Kelly, Deputy parties In order to (1) an- Clerk swer questions; (2) review Leal CCT 3479 the. 9 procedures PuBoard: November 24,2001 used byy the the Board;)3)clad- Mike Laughlin To: Danielle Kelly . 04/25/02 11:39 PM Subject: Alamo Gardens changes Thanks Danielle, it looks good. I made my changes in orange. You can convert them to black text if you agree. The one added condition will not make sense without the added info, even though it may have been stated the way it is in your notes.. Alamo Gardens 03052002-d3.d Michael Laughlin, Project Planner Contra Costa Community Development Department Phone: (925)335-1204 Fax: (925)335-1222 REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum _before addressing the Board. -7 Name: Phone; 7G'�J `� 7` /,0,,6' Address: ,� /� City: I am speaking for myself �or organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: m �YJ V I wish to speak on Agenda Item # _y Date: / My comments will be: general for against V I wish to speak on the subject of �� 601- /f I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: ,^, / • SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda item is to be considered. 2 . You will be called on to:make your .,presentation. Please speak into the microphone .-at the ,podium. 3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative.. of. an organization. !' 4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard) . REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the &spner rostrum before addressing the Board. / • Name: C TI Phone: Address: � L��. City:_ Ala'Ivl o I am speaking for myself �r organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: ��f I wish to speak on Agenda Item Date: My comments will be: general for against • I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: SPEAKERS 1. • Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in • the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda item is to be considered. 2 . You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3 . Begin by stating your name and address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. 4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard) . REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before �a-dTd�ressing the Board. Name: a-I�� f► �'�-��S ��J/�" Phone: Address: 135 `juC��2Lo�1 City: I am speaking for myself k or organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: /Z My comments will be: general for against X • I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda item is to be considered. 2 . You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3 . Begin by stating your name and address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. 4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard) . REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' • rostrum ibefore addressing the Board. Name: JaC�'(� �� -Je - �-�:S v� Phone: Address: f3n City: I��o I am speaking for myself --,Zor organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: My comments will be: general fbr against • I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda item is to be considered. 2 . You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. 4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard) . REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place . it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: Phone: Address: O"ZJ�,Y` ��tA City: A14,I1D,, C/g. I am speaking for myself _� or organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: V I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: /Z//.. d/ My comments will be: general for against r I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda item is to be considered. 2. You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3 . Begin by stating your name and address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. 4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard) . REQUEST TO SPEAR -FORH (THREE (3). MINUTE LIMIT) Complete,.this form. and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing,+-.the.,,;Board: ' Name: t� JM �. Phonedj S :w1 Aclrress' .l � .�r ci.t''}s. yy�•. �. :. . M1 Y ' I am speaking for myself, or organization: :(name of:alga ni'nation) CHECK ONE: :,.. I wish to:speak'On.'Agenda Rein #�.. Dq Date My. comments..will-Ye: 'general for against y I wish to,-speak:"on -the'_subject'`of tri:��J. ..L�orr� I do hot.-wish to 'speak but leave these •comments forth Board to consider. t : SPEARE t to. �P eak!' form {on. the-reverse .sc :. in ,:. Deos Reques p.,..,- eore'-': :our aga; ; eake s;:.:micro on ::....::......:: Y , ::,; the box next t0: th p p . ........:........ :�.ite�=�•is.�'to� die,.�'oits` der�d. . .... .... . .. Yau ,will be all ..ma on to make your resenta ion. . _. iuin: . leae:. s ak: frtQts e, ntcrop %one ;a fYie pod . ..: mine.. and adder's and whether :'' .:;; Regn..by. ,statjng. your are:speaking €off yourset .or_.;ars the tat - f aizato en ,g - : = or ;a.:eoPY•: Your_presenta'ton: . .-,;-king . . . ... .,:. . -haat b6. i`€' ava�labl,e :before:: speang;: presentation tb. tbre'e :minutes_::;; Avoid` , w /. comments made by previous spea. ers. sr ma lmt ,length of presentations. :so all Y may be:..heard): NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS ALAMO AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on LDecember 11, 2001 at 11:00 a.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Continued hearing on the appeal by Peter Ostrosky(owner) of the San Ramon Valley Regional ' Planning Commission's denial of the tentative subdivision map and development pian to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into 3 single family residential homesites and a cluster development for seniors 55 or older with 8 attached"Duet" units. Proposed rezoning of the property is from R-20 to P-1 to create a cluster type development with open space rather than conventional R-20 lots. (SD988263, RZ983069, DP983025). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site is located at Livorna Road, Interstate 680 and Sugarloaf Drive in the Alamo arca. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review • the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4) provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call Michael Laughlin, Community • Development Department, at (925) 335-1204 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, December 10, 2001, to confirm your participation. Date: November 20, 2001 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk Q C'� o .S? x, C7 3q o41111�11�lsz -� o -a \ r rP \ rf t�n yam, U ;. N r `1 f �` �,\ � i � �,!\ t �� , �� , C'� � . , �►,�.. �� ,.` - - ;- __ , . / t j � . i :- � `� �:� � , '\ .� NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS ALAMO AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on ,December 11, 2001 at 11:00 a.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planting matter: ' Continued hearing on the appeal by Peter Ostrosky(owner) of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of the tentative subdivision map and development plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into 3 single family residential homesites and a cluster development for seniors 55 or older with 8 attached "Duet" units. Proposed rezoning of the property is from R-20 to P-I to create a cluster type development with open space rather than conventional R-20 lots. (SD988263, RZ983069, DP983025). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject'site is located at Livoma Road, I.nterstate 680 and Sugarloaf Drive in the Alamo area. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. 1 Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 108, Administration. Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3)clarify the issues.being considered by the Board; and (4) provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call Michael Laughlin, Community ' Development Department, at (925) 335-1204 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, December 10, 2001, to confirm your participation. Date: November 20, 2001 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Pl(�' CCt Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk to r� jj w�d CIV aye lei :- p0 z O O Y \ Ca \ pm O t i /( ,\ �.- �l •'/ � �( \\ � �� r �, j /(� �.\ .� NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS ALAMO AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on ,December 11, 2001 at 11:00 a.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Continued hearing on the appeal by Peter Ostrosky(owner) of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of the tentative subdivision map and development plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into 3 single family residential homesites and a cluster development for seniors 55 or older with 8 attached"Duet" units. Proposed rezoning of the property is from R-20 to P-1 to create a cluster type development with open space rather than conventional R-20 lots. (SD988263, RZ983069, DP983025). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site is located at Livorna Road, Interstate 680 and Sugarloaf Drive in the Alamo area. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and (4) provide.an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call Michael Laughlin, Community Development Department, at (925) 335-1204 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, December 10, 2001, to confirm your participation. Date: November 20, 2001 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By 1 d�`;,�,�,� / Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk as a� NVQ Ao { A , � 4' � z E: a1i r I i { CA 9 y o 0FM 0 I v� r= Om � T ��- is ut . iIN a . a �" 1- , I ��. i \�\ � I 1'I i i :::;::: ........ i ...... � ....._. ::::::: ....._. ._.... I � �� ....._. i :::::�: ....._. � ...... �� ..::. ....... ,I /� � .......; � : '16ORDINANCE NO. 2002-07 (Re-Zoning Land in the Alamo Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Page Q-14, Q-15_of the County's 1978 Zoning Map(Ord.No.78-93)is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein(see also Community Development Department File No. RZ983060 ) FROM: Land Use District R-20 ( Single Family Residential TO: Land Use District P-1 ( Planned Unit and the Cormnunity Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.003. ALAMU SCHOOL \, V 8! R-20`: of N R-20 m R-20 SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the Contra Costa Times ,a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on April 16, 2002 by the following vote: Supervisor Ave No Absent Abstain 1. J.Gioia (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2. G.B Uilkema (g) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. D.Gerber W ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. M.DeSaulnier (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. Federal Glover (X} ( ) ( } ( ) ATTEST: John Sweeten, County Administrator and C rk of the Board of Supervisors M '• ).?1 Chair of the oard By / %'`;f�ep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO. 2002-07 RZ983069 Eric Hasseltine TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ``�' ` County DATE: December 11, 2001 SUBJECT: CONTINUED HEARING ON THE APPEAL BY PETER OSTROSKY (OWNER) OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO RESUBDIVIDE THE EXISTING 5.31 ACRE SITE INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMESITES AND A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIORS 55 OR OLDER WITH 8 ATTACHED "DUET" UNITS. PROPOSED REZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS FROM R-20 TO P-1 TO CREATE A CLUSTER TYPE DEVELOPMENT WITH OPEN SPACE RATHER THAN CONVENTIONAL R-20.LOTS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT LIVORNA ROAD, INTERSTATE 680 AND SUGARLOAF DRIVE IN THE ALAMO AREA,AND IS REFERED TO AS ALAMO GARDENS (SD988263, RZ983O69, DP983O25). SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Grant the applicant's appeal, thereby approving the project with modifications recommended by the Board of Supervisors on October 9, 2001, by taking the following actions: A. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared on this project as adequate for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COM ITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON December 11, 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER. SEE ATTACH® ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND XX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT Nana ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES:I,III,IV,V NOES: II ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF .THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Michael Laughlin 335-1204 ATTESTED December 11, 2001 Community Development JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: ' County Counsel-Silvano Marchesi SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works-Engineering Services, Heather Ballenger Peter Ostrosky,Owner and Appellant Patricia Curtain,Owner's Representative BY , DEPUTY December 11, 2001 C Board of Supervisors File#'s: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025 Page 2 B. Approve the rezoning (RZ983069) of this site from Single Family Low Density (R-20) to Planned Unit District,.P71; and approve.a preliminary development plan to allow for Arid 8 attached "duet" units subject to revised conditions 3 single family residences and based on findings contained in the draft findings document,waive reading and set date for adoption. C. Approve the final development plan allowing up to three (3) single family residential units and eight (8) duet units (File #DP983025) subject to revised conditions and based on findings contained in the draft findings document. D. Approve the Tentative Subdivision Map (#SD988263) to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acres into 3 single family residential homesites and an 8 unit cluster development with 8 attached units and a common lot based on the draft findings and revised conditions. The proposal includes an adjustment and expansion of the existing scenic easement. E. Direct staff to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant has paid application fees to process this project and is obligated to pay supplemental fees for staff time and material costs which exceed 100% of the initial fee payment. Conditions of approval require payment of fees and assessments and installation of public and private improvements at the applicant's expense. BACKGROUND The Board of Supervisors reviewed this application and took testimony in support and in opposition to the proposal on October 9, 2001. The Board expressed their intent to approve the project for 3 single family residences and 8 clustered"duet"units(instead of 6 attached units and two detached units for the cluster development). By making the cluster development tighter, it was determined that there would be less encroachment into the drainage course and that the private road and retaining walls could be further away from Sugarloaf Drive. This would also allow for more perimeter landscaping along Sugarloaf Drive and more guest parking internal to the project. In response to this decision, the'applicant's Engineer, Architect.and Landscape Architect have revised plans for the project, incorporating the requested modifications (see attached plans). Comments have also been submitted by neighboring property owners. These comments have been responded to by the applicant's attorney, as outlined in the attached correspondence. A revised acoustical analysis has also been prepared to comment on project revisions. On Page 11, Condition of Approval #33. This is regarding road maintenance. #33 would become#33a with the addition of#33b, which will have two parts. This language has been agreed by the developer and meets the needs that were expressed by the neighbors. Supervisor Gerber also indicated that the language was also reviewed by Community Development Department and County Counsel. #33b shall state "The applicant shall provide evidence of the necessary documentation showing that the new 8 homeowners in the attached housing units will participate in the maintenance of the roads in the Sugarloaf Development" as indicated in a letter to the Board, dated December 3, 2001 by Patricia Curtin. The second part of 33b shall state "If all the homeowners in the Sugarloaf area that are not bound by the Road Maintenance Agreement dated October 19, 1984, agree to pay their fair share for maintaining the roads in the development, the applicant shall prepare the necessary documentation to include those homeowners in the Road Maintenance Agreement". This is addressing six homeowners in the existing development that are not required to pay for the Road Maintenance Agreement. Supervisor Gerber moved to grant the appeal of the applicant with modifications. Supervisor Gioia second. The Board took the following action: CLOSED the public hearing; GRANTED the appeal by Peter Ostrosky (Owner) of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of the tentative subdivision map and developmental plan to Resubdivide as modified today. ********** Draft Alamo Gardens Findings For Consideration of the Board Of Supervisors On December 11 , 2001 Rezoning County File #RZ983069 Preliminary and Final Development Plan File #DP983025 Tentative Map File #SD988263 Alamo Area PETER OSTROSKY (Owner and Appellant) Project Findings • File#'.s RL983069, UP983025, SD988263 Alanto Area under subdivision 6468 and would not be part of the new homeowner's association since none of these lots have any common areas (the CC&R's that currently apply to those properties would remain in effect). However, perimeter landscaping on the three sites was included on the landscape plan to be consistent with the planting for the cluster portion of the project. The boundary of the Planned Unit Development proposal was drawn to meet the 5-acre minimum area required by the County for a P-1 rezoning. The three single family residential sites have graded pads and utility hookups and are ready for development. The remaining area can best be described as a'bowl, with the main area of development below Livorna Road, Sugarloaf Terrace and Interstate 680. An access roadway and retaining walls are proposed to provide access to the units. A segment of a drainage course extends along the northern side of the property, and will be retained in its present location. Drainage foi- the project will be directed to the existing culvert which extends under Interstate 680. Existing trees occur in this same riparian area. A steep hillside area occurs to the northwest, between the back of. 2 existing residences and the freeway. Due to access, slope, noise and proximity to the freeway, development of this area is not feasible. This area and the drainage course area will be part of a common area lot maintained by the homeowners association. The scenic easement (which now only covers the drainage areas and trees) would be expanded to include all of this hillside area. III. Ordinance Code Requirements and Project Findings Pursuant to Section 26-2.2022 of the Ordinance Code, it is the Project Applicant's burden to produce evidence to convince the County Planning Agency that all standards are met and the intent and purpose of the applicable regulations and goals and objectives of.the General Plan will be satisfied. Failure to satisfy this burden shall result in a denial. The applicant submitted evidence supporting the project and compliance with General Plan policies, and the Board of Supervisors agreed with the interpretation presented. Based on evidence and testimony submitted to the Board of Supervisors, the Board determines that the Project Applicant has met the burden of proof to convince the Board that the Project will satisfy the following findings that are required by County Code: A. Findings Pertaining to Approval of a Rezoning Application (Section 26-2.1806 of the County Code) 1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with. the General Plan. 3 Project Findings File#'s R7_9830691, DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area The Board of Supervisors considered the following General Plan policies: Land Use Element filliiig �ilieady developed areas shall be Policy 3=$ lri encouraged. Policy 3-18 Flexibility in the design of projects shall be encouraged in order to enhance scenic qualities and provide for a varied development pattern. :Policy 3-27 Existing residential neighborhoods shall be protected from incompatible land uses and traffic levels exceeding adopted service standards. Policy 3-28 New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where it will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment and upon the existing community. Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that the project site can be categorized as an infill site, and that some flexibility in design is appropriate clue to site constraints and the desire to keep the northern portion of the site free from development. The proposed cluster portion of the development is compatible with the existing residential neighborhood and neighborhood development pattern since the massing of each of the duet structures is approximately the size of one large single family residence. The visual simulations for the project show that the massing of the structures as viewed from surrounding vantage points will not create a significant visual impact. The structures are also single story, which helps lower the profile of the structures as viewed from surrounding vantage points. Evidence: Testimony before the Board of Supervisors, County General Plan, observation of Board members. Policies for the Alamo-Diablo-Blackhawk Area Policy 3-135 Promote the individuality and unique character of each community based on existing community images. 4 Project Findings File##'s R7_983069, DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area Policy 3436 The character of the area as one of predominantly single-family residences shall be developed, and multiple family residential units shall be provided in suitable densities and locations. A range of densities shall be offered in order to provide for a variety of family sizes, income levels, and age groups. Policy 3-1.42 When rezoning in Alamo, the appropriate single family residential zoning will include R-20, R-40, R-65 and R-100 and P-l. Both Alamo and Diablo have special characteristics which preclude clustering in established areas. Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that the predominant character of the Alamo area is detached, single family residential development on larger lots. The site was found to be suitable for higher density cluster development based on the location. The development of single family residences was found inappropriate due to noise mitigation issues. Clustering is appropriate in this case since it allows for consistent perimeter landscaping, minimization of the development area and preservation of the northern portion of the site as a scenic easement. The existing zoning for the site is R-20. The proposed zoning to P-1 is consistent with policy 3-142. The project diversifies the range of densities and housing types in the Alamo area. The project will also provide for a unique type of senior housing. The Board also finds that the proposed density of the project, at approximately 2.5 dwelling units/net acre, is consistent with the General Plan. Evidence: Testimony before the Board of Supervisors, County General Plan, observation of Board members. Transportation and Circulation Element Policy 5-34 Scenic corridors shall be maintained with the intent of protecting attractive natural qualities adjacent to various roads throughout the county. 5 Project Findings • • File##'s RZ983069, DP983025, SD988203 Alamo Area Policy 5-36 Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced, and protected to the extent possible. Policy 5-37 The existing system of scenic routes shall be enhanced to increase the enjoyment and Opportunities for scenic pleasure driving to. major recreational and cultural centers throughout this and adjacent counties. Policy 5-41 For lands designated for urban use along scenic routes, planned unit developments shall be encouraged in covenant with land development projects. Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that Interstate 680 is a designated scenic corridor. Livorna Road is a gateway into the community. The project is n appropriate gateway element, since it mimics the predominant development pattern found on the east side of Interstate 680. Based on the visual simulations, project plans and proposed landscape plan, the 680 scenic corridor is not negatively impacted by the project. Evidence: Testimony before the Board of Supervisors, County General Plan, observation of Board members. Housing Element Goal 4, Special Housing Needs Program 4.2 Design flexibility for elderly projects. The objective is to encourage the development and expansion of housing opportunities for the elderly. Finding: The Board finds that this site is appropriate for senior housing. The project provides for a unique type of senior housing not currently found in the vicinity. Evidence: Testimony before the Board of Supervisors, County General Plan, observation of Board members. Noise Element Policy 11-1 New projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards as established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines 6 Project Findings • File#'s 87983069, DP983025,.SD988263 Alamo Area contained in Figure 11-6. These guidelines, along with the future noise level shown in the fixture noise contours. Policy 11.-2 The standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a DNL of 60 dB. However, a DNL of 60 DB or less may not be achievable in all residential areas due to economic or aesthetic constraints One example is small balconies associated with multi- family housing. In this case, second and third story balconies may be difficult to control to the goal. A cornmon outdoor use area that meets the goal can be provided as an alternative. Policy 11-4 Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulations requires that new multiple family housing projects, hotels and motels exposed to a DNL of 60 dB or greater have a detailed acoustical analysis describing how the project will provide an interior DNL or 45 dB or less. The also shall require new single-family housing projects to provide for an interior DNL of 45 dB or less. Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that this site is exposed to high noise levels. Interior and exterior noise can be mitigated by the project design to acceptable levels. Evidence: Testimony before the Board of Supervisors, County General Plan, observation of Board members. 2. Required Findi.n. : The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent di;strict.s. Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that the use proposed is compatible with the low density residential district. The massing of the proposed structures of the cluster development with attached units appears from surrounding vantage points as four large residential structures, similar to uses within the district and uses authorized in adjacent districts. Evidence: Testimony before the Board of Supervisors, County General Plan, observation of Board members. 7 Project Findings Fite#'s RZ983069, DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area 3. Required Finding,: Coinrnunit>, need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of ficture financial ,success. Finclin#;: The Board of Supervisors finds that community need has been demonstrated for the use based on the County.need for senior housing and housing in general. Evidence: Testimony before the Board of Supervisors, County General Plan (see especially Housing Element), observation of Board members. B. Findings Pertaining to Approval of a Planned Unit District Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Development Plans (Section 84-66.1804 of the County Code) 1. Required Finding: The proposed planned un-it development is consistent YV(th the County General Plan. Finding: For the reasons set forth in Part III A, above, the Board of Supervisors finds the proposed rezoning and development plan consistent with the General Plan. Evidence: Testimony .before. the Board of Supervisors, County General Plan, observation of Board members. 2. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony withthe character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that the proposed residential environment will have sustained desirability and stability. The project will utilize high quality materials and attractive landscaping. The homeowner's association will provide for the ongoing maintenance of the structures and common area landscaping. Evidence: Proposed tentative map/final development plan and project plans, testimony before the Board of Supervisors, and observation of Board members. 3. Required Finding: The development of a harmonious integrated plan justifies exceptions from. the nonnal application of this code. 8 Project Findings • File#'s R79830691, DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that the design of the cluster portion of the development to preserve trees, the drainage area and perimeter of the site free from development creates a harmonious plan that is more attractive than conventional single family residential development. Exceptions to the normal application of the code are justified for this project. Evidence: Proposed tentative map/final development plan and project plans, staff report, testimony before the Board of Supervisors, and observation of Board members. C. Finding Pertaining to Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map (Section 94-2.806 of the County Code) Required Finding: The advisory agency shall not approve a tentative snap unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its designand improveinents, is consistent with the applicable General and Specific planus required by law. Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds this project to be consistent with the General Plan in findings under section A, above, and therefore also finds the proposed subdivision consistent with the General Plan. Proposed design and improvements for the cluster development include a circular road utilizing the entire width of the lower site and retaining walls which has been redesigned to be further away from Sugarloaf Terrace than the previous approval. Evidence: Posted tentative rnap/final development plan and project plans, General Plan, staff report, testimony before the Board of Supervisors, and observations of Board members. 9 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DP983025, RZ983069, AND SD988263 BY THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, DECEMBER 11, 2001 A. Growth Management Element Performance Standards Findings 1. Traffic: The project will generate less than 100 peak hour trips and does not trigger a Measure C traffic study. 2. Water: The project is within the boundaries of the East Bay Municipal Utilities District. Water service is available for the project. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The project is within the boundaries of the Central Sanitary District. Water service is available for the project. 4. Fire Protection: The subject property is within the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District boundaries and the applicant will be required to comply with the District's requirements. 5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station area per 1,000 population. There will be a minimal impact on public protection in the area, based on an additional 11 households. 6. Parks & Recreation: Park dedication fees will be required. 7. Flood Control & Drainage: The project will be required to meet all collect and convey requirements. (Ref. The Growth Management Element, Chapter 4, of the General Plan) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DP983025, RZ983069, AND SD988263 This approval is based upon the plans, reports and exhibits received by the Community Development Department listed as follows: Approval Documents 1. This approval is based upon the plans and reports exhibit received by the Community Development Department listed as follows: 2' A. Revised project.plans received on November 29, April- 19, 2001 by the Community Development Department for a Tentative Map and Final Development Plan. B. Revised architectural drawings received on November 29, Mafeh 22, 2001.for the 8-unit cluster development. C. Revised landscape plan prepared by James Swanson and dated received November 29, Mar-eh 22, 2001 by the Community Development Department, with amendments presented at the Board of Supervisors on December 11, 2001. Indemnification 2. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provid- ed 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. Conditions to be Satisfied Prior to Filing a Final Map or Issuance of a Grading Permit 3. Submittal of a Compliance Report- At least 60 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a report on compliance with the conditions of approval with this permit and the final development plan permit for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The report shall also include a discussion of compliance with the conditions administered by the Public Works Department. The report shall list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the conditions of this report prior to filing a final map. 4. Deed Disclosures: The applicant shall record a statement to run with deeds to each of the properties acknowledging the approved Geotechnical report by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is available from the seller. In addition, a deed disclosure shall be recorded on lots 9,10 and 11 informing the purchaser of the requirement for approval of design plans by the Zoning Administrator prior to building permit submittal, and the availability of conditions of approval from the Community Development Department. 5. The scenic easement shall be extended to include the southern line delineated on the tentative map and include all of the area north of the line. No paving or permanent structures shall be constructed in this area, and it shall remain in a natural state. Tree Preservation Protection 6. To assure protection and/or reasonable replacement of existing trees to be preserved which are in proximity to project improvements, the applicant shall post a bond (or cash deposit or other surety) for the amount of$5,000 for the required work within the root zones to the Community Development Department. The term of the bond shall extend at least 24 months beyond the completion of construction. A $100 'processing fee is also required. ' An arborist shall be present on-site during all site grading operations, utility trenching, road grading and paving to assure damage is not done to existing trees on site. A log with dates and times of observations and recommendations shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to a final inspection of the units. 7. The developer and applicant shall adhere to the following tree preservation standards required by Section 816-6.1202 of the County Code: A. Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on a site with trees to be preserved, the applicant shall install fencing 5' outside the dripline or other area as determined by an arborist report of all trees adjacent to or in the area to be 4 altered. Fencing will provide visual notification to the grading contractor to keep equipment out of the area surrounding these trees. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. B. No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline unless indicated on the grading plans approved by the County and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. If grading or construction is approved .within the dripline, an arborist may be required to be present during grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Upon completion of grading and construction, an involved arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expenses shall be borne by the developer and applicant. D. No parking or storing vehicles,. equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the dripline of any tree to be saved. Landscaping Requirements 8. A landscaping and irrigation plan for all areas shown on the plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator at least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits. A cost estimate, prepared by a landscape architect or landscape contractor, shall be submitted for the implementation of the landscaping plan and a bond shall be submitted equal to 125% of the cost of the installation and held for a minimum of 18 months to assure that the planting will survive. Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation Landscape Ordinance 82-26 and shall be installed prior to occupancy of the first duet unit. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be certified to be in compliance with the County Water Conservation Ordinance. 9. A revegetation plan, using California native trees and shrubs shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator 30 days prior to issuance of building permits. The plan shall • 5 • include all areas from the drainage course north. Any temporary irrigation required shall also be submitted with the plan. 10. _ Prior to occupancy of the first cluster unit, the landscape architect shall certify, in writing, that the installation of the landscaping complies with the approved plans. If minor adjustments are required, these shall be noted in the letter. This information is subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 11. The applicant shall provide landscape plans, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, for planting in the Caltrans. right of way. The landscaping should include trees and shrubs to further screen the project from view. The landscape architect shall consult with Caltrans to determine appropriate plant types. Application shall be made to Caltrans for approval of the landscaping, with a copy of the application provided to the Zoning Administrator. Administrative 12. Both the applicant and the property owner are fully responsible for County staff costs. Invoices(s) for any additional costs beyond the initial application deposit will be mailed to the applicant and are due and payable 30 days following the date of the invoice. The unpaid balance shall be collected prior to issuance of a building permit or initiation of the use, whichever comes first. The applicant can obtain the current status of staff costs on this application from the project planner. 13. The tentative map approval shall not be effective until the rezoning and final development plan are approved by the Board of Supervisors. Final Plan Review 14. The proposed duet buildings shall be similar to those shown on submitted plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, elevations and architectural design of the building and building roofing material shall be submitted for final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator. Prior to submission of plans to the Zoning Administrator, plans shall be submitted for review and comment to the District III Supervisor. The final review by the Zoning Administrator is solely to assure that the building designs are consistent with the Board's 6 • approval. The roofs and exterior walls of the buildings shall be free of such objects as air conditioning or utility equipment, television aerials, etc. 15. A deed restriction shall be filed with the final map limiting the occupancy of the structures to adults 55 years and older, with wording subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Since approval of this project was based on the fact that it would be for seniors only, a future rescission of this restriction will require a development plan amendment public hearing. 16. Proposed building setbacks, yard distances, height of buildings, and proposed exterior wall, roof colors and materials of the three detached single family residences (lots 9, 10 and 11) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator 30 days prior to submittal of building permits. Prior to submission of plans to the Zoning Administrator, plans shall be submitted for review and comment to the District III Supervisor. The final review by the Zoning Administrator is solely to assure that the building designs are consistent with the Board's intent to assure that the remaining residences are compatible with the other single family homes in the subdivision. Development of the three single family residences shall. comply with R-20 setback standards and the following additional design standards: A. Roof materials shall be tile or concrete shake B. Exteriors of the buildings shall utilize high quality materials such as stone, brick, stucco or wood siding with appropriate trim detailing C. Building forms and roof lines shall be similar to those within the subdivision D. Architectural detailing and elements are required along both the Sugarloaf terrace side and the Livorna Road side of the home (i.e. no blank walls on the Livorna Road side) on lot 11 (the first lot entering on Sugarloaf Drive with secondary frontage on Livorna Road). E. Colors for the residences shall be muted earth tones. 17. Exterior lighting shall be directed downwards and away from neighboring residents so as not to produce glare, to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. 18. The CC&Rs shall make an adequate provision for funding road maintenance and establishing a maintenance cycle standard. This shall not only apply to the internal road, but also to Sugarloaf Drive from Livorna Road to the project entry. Maintenance may be shared with the residential subdivision homeowners that share the access. Owners of each unit in the cluster development are responsible for a maintenance share of 1/35 (8/35 total for the development). 19. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted for review with the Final Map, and shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. This document shall provide for establishment, ownership and maintenance of the common open space, landscaping and parking, fire protection, fencing, private streets and drainage maintenance, keeping of pets and establishment of signs. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) developed. for this project shall include the following deed restrictions: A. No recreational vehicle, boat, boat trailer or mobile home shall be stored on the site overnight. B. Exterior materials and colors shall not vary from the palette approved for the original homes (i.e. moderate to dark earth tones with a brown tone roof and less than 50% reflectivity). C. No external expansions or additions are permitted to the units without a development plan revision from Contra Costa County. Exterior changes, especially second story additions, are not encouraged due to visual impacts and may . be recommended for denial. D. Fireplaces are limited to gas only fixtures to minimize airborne pollutants. Water 20. The applicant shall comply with the Contra Costa County Ordinance pertaining to water conservation. Compliance with the Water Conservation Ordinance shall be designed to encourage low-flow water devices and other interior and exterior water conservation techniques. g 21. All units shall be equipped with low-flow toilets and restricted water devices. 22. Prior to recording the final map, provide proof that adequate water facilities can be provided. Sanitary Sewer 23. Prior to recording the final map, provide proof that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. Noise 24. The residential units shall be designed to comply with the Sound Transmission Control Standards of the Uniform Building Code for the State of California 1989 Amendments. Structural design shall be based on the recommendation of the acoustical study of the site prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin to assure that interior noise levels do not exceed a CNEL of 45 dB and that exterior noise levels do not exceed CNEL of 60 dB. The residence shall have mechanical ventilation and air conditioning so that the residents do not have to be exposed to higher exterior noise levels. Geology 25. At least 45 days prior to issuance of a building permit, or installation of improvements or utilities, the applicant shall submit a geology, soil, and foundation report for review and approval of the County Geologist. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall include evaluation of the potential for liquefaction, seismic settlement and other types of seismically induced ground failure by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation. Construction Management 26. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements: A. All construction activities (including the delivery of supplies and equipment) shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays. Notices shall also be posted at the 9 site. Any exceptions shall be subject to the review and approval of the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission. B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible. C. At least one week prior to commencement of construction, the applicant shall post the site with a notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter con- trol, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be ex- pressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading and construction activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. Proof of mailing shall be provided to the Community Development Department. D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances shall constitute grounds for an immediate work stoppage. Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted. E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth moving equipment. F. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site, and Livorna Road and to l Sugarloaf Drive shall be cleaned or repaired to their pre- construction condition. PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 8263, DP 98-3025 & RZ 98-3068 Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9 and Title 10 of the Ordinance Code. Any exception(s) must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the Revised Tentative Map submitted to Community Development on November 29, April 18, 2001. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED OTHERWISE, COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP OR ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST: General Requirements 27. 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 approval of this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division. 28. All first eheek submittals and a ealeulations „b Maps, f nal ��", "b ghr ofway nd atio,, plat fn and legal —rnrcrr deseriptions shall be in metr-ie units-. (Note: Public Works no longer requires plans in metric units) Roadway Improvements 29. Applicant shall construct curb, a 1.5-meter (4.5-feet ±) sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, street lighting, and pavement widening and transitions along the frontage of Livorna Road. The face of curb shall be located 3 meters (10 feet ±) from the Livorna Road right of way. Plans shall also be subject to the review of the Alamo Parks and Recreation Committee. 30. Applicant shall install safety related improvements on all streets (including traffic signs and striping) as approved by Public Works. 31. The internal subdivision street shall be constructed as a private road in accordance with County private road standards. tt 32. All retaining walls within the public road right of way, or supporting any public or private roads shall be constructed with concrete or masonry block materials subject to the review of Public Works. Maintenance of Facilities 33. Property Owner shall record a Statement of Obligation in the form of a deed notification, to inform all future property owners, of their legal obligation to maintain the private roadway. Access to Adjoining Property Proof of Access 34. Applicant shall furnish necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. Site Access 35. Applicant shall only be permitted access at the locations shown on the approved site/development plan and tentative map. Abutter's rights of access to Livorna Road shall be relinquished. Sight Distance • 36. Provide sight distance at the Sugarloaf Drive/Private Road intersection for a through traffic design speed of 55 km/hr (35 mph ±). Pedestrian Facilities 37. All public and private pedestrian facilities and access ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access) -and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks, paths, trails, driveway depressions, as well as handicap ramps. Parkin o 38. "No Parking" signs shall be installed along both sides of the new private road subject to the review and approval of Public Works. Parking shall only be allowed within driveways and designated parking bays. The west side of Sugarloaf Drive between Livorna Road and the entrance driveway to the cluster development shall be designated for no parking, and the first fifty feet on the east side of Sugarloaf Drive. l2 Utilities/Underarounding 39. All utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Soundwall/Acoustic analysis 40. Any noise studies that may be required shall be based on ultimate road widening and ultimate traffic under the general plan. The applicant shall install any soundwall:s that may be required, outside of the public road right of way. Drainage Improvements Collect and Convey 41. 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 that conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. 42. 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 Department. 43. Property owner shall dedicate a public drainage easement over any man- made drainage system, which conveys storm water runoff from public streets. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements 44. Storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s). 45. Private on-site storm drain easements shall have a minimum width of 3 meters (10 feet ±), excepting therefrom those areas where the proposed buildings encroach. 46. Storm drains shall not be installed beneath buildings. 47. To reduce the impact of additional storm water run-off from this development on San Ramon Creek, 0.75 cubic meters (one cubic yard±) of channel excavation material will be removed from the inadequate • 13 portion of the creek for each 4.6 square meters (50 square feet±) of new impervious surface area created by the development. The applicant, at his cost, shall dispose all excavated material of off-site. 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 $1.08 per square meter($0.10 per square foot±) of new impervious surface area created by the development. The added 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. Scenic Easements/Creek Structure Setbacks 48. Any encroachment into the "Scenic Easement" created under Subdivision 6468 is subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth in the Grant Deed of Development Rights granted to Contra Costa County per said subdivision. 49. Any structures or walls to be constructed within the creek structure setback area as defined under Section 914-14.012 of the County Ordinance Code, will be required to submit detailed pier/foundation analysis based on a soils and geotechnical report. Said report shall address potential soils and bank instability resulting from potential erosive creek flows, potential creek bank erosion and instability, and shall be submitted to the Building Inspection Department for review. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Requirements 50. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal construction and industrial activities promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay— Region If) Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMPs) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate, wherever feasible, the following long term BMPs in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage: 51.. Provide educational materials to new homebuyers. is 52. Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins. 53. Provide options for grass pavers or other semi-pervious paving systems for walks, drives and patios. 54. Slope driveways and weakened plane joints to sheet flow onto planted surfaces where feasible. 55. Prohibit or discourage direct connection of roof and area drains to storm drain systems or through-curb drains. 56. Filtering inlets. 57. Trash bins shall be covered to prevent leakage or located within a covered enclosure. 58. Other alternatives, equivalent to the above, as approved by the Public Works Department. ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. The applicant/owner should be aware of the expiration dates and renewing requirements prior to recording the Final Map. B. Comply with the requirements of the Sanitary District (see attached). C. Comply with the requirements of the Fire Protection District (see attached). D. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division. E. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures. F. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any is • proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code. G. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. H. The developer shall comply with all requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, including the provision of hydrants, East Bay type, every 300 feet, hydrant location(s) will be determined by the Fire District upon submittal of three copies of a tentative map or site plan. I. The following information does not constitute conditions of approval. It is provided to alert the applicant to legal requirements of the county and other public agencies to which this project may be subject: J. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay - Region II). K. . This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code. L. 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. M. Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the Tri- Valley, Alamo, and SCC Areas of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permits. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project 16 approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication, reservation, or. other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. ML 12/4/01 S:\Curr-Ping\Staff Reports\DP983025 alamo gardens coa3 11F�CA�ION NO LAS? 187 150 022 187 171 027 • 187 171 029 Walnut Creek City Of David Wei Clien& Anne Yang Emmanuel &Teresa Roman 1445 Civic Dr 81 Sugarloaf Ln, 60 Sugarloaf Ln Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Alamo. CA 94507 Ahmo. CA 94507 187 171 029 187 171 030 187 171. (.),; Roger&Pamela Loar lrai &Elizabeth Behscreslit David &. Rita Little 1360 Sugarloaf Dr 1350 Sugarloaf Dr 1340 Sugarloaf Dr Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 187 171 032 187 171 033 Michael&Diana Makieve Joseph.&Nicki Hobby 1330 Sugarloaf Dr 1320 Sugarloaf Dr Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94 07 187 171 036 187 1.71 037 187 171 038 Michael&Esther Chon Anthony& Kelli Dlliante Willmm & Karol Bush 29 Sugarloaf Ter ,5 Sugarloaf Ter 41 Stj;mloal'Tei Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 Akmio. CA 94507 187171039 187 171 040 1N'7 171 iial Robert &.Rosemary Zeman lack & Wren Taylor iJklark 68 Sugarloaf Ln 72 Sugar161- f Ln Io S11"m 10;11'Ln Alaiuo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 \Zaino. ('.A 94507 187 171 042 IN-1 171 ()44 Richard& Sherrv_ Dorfman (irc,orN & Bc1te Vervais 8o Sugarloaf Ln 4 Su�arlo;il Ter Alamo. CA 94507 =\I;IIII0. C'.A )4507 187 171 045 187 171 040 . is- 171 W7 Mansour& Simin Zabelian Lara Bam & Elcua Estrada - lhil & Ann VVLI Kinia Zabelian 22 Suoarloal'Ter 11l) 13 ox ." )6 25 Sugarloaf Ter Alamo. CA 94507 \V;ihim Crcck. CA 94598 Alamo, CA 9=4507 197 171 0=48 Peter Ostrosky&OSTROSKY ENTER 17 Sugarloaf Ter Alamo, CA 94507 d 187 171 051 187 171 05-1 Carl Stephen&Karen Johnson Theodore& Arlcne Upland III V;Ilecic khan 61 Sugarloaf Lu 41 Sugarloal'Ln 12o-13, Chandler Bled Alamo. CA 9=4507 Alamo. CA 9.4507 N' I1olkx%ood. CA 91607 187 330 009 M7 3.,0 0111 Is-, 1)).1)1 1 Neil Arthur&Karla Smith Ronald & Kathleen Pctcrsim Gcortic & Rosa Delima 13.35 Sugarloaf Dr 1325 Su'arloal'Di 0974 Brighion Dr Alamo. CA 94507 Alanio. CA 94507 Dublin. ("A 94568 1.87 :,.,ll 017 I ;;►1 II I Ronald Pelcrson Rodclio Carolina Padiemos 1.340 Sugarloaf Dr 4 I Rockford Dr Alau►o, CA 94507 Aimocir. CA 94509 r ' 187 330 020 187 330 027 1 til 330 028 Clement&Anna Choy Miles Sandstrom &Lillian Nen►ctz Thomas n. Mary Lammers 1345 Sugarloaf Dr PO Box 528. 13119 Laverock Ln Alamo, CA 94507 Ala►i►o. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 192 240 007 192 240 009 193 240 014 Rlf&Candi Gester James&Pamela Cooper Maximilian & Doina Vlasachc 1251. Laverock Ln 1280 Laverock Ln 1290 Laverock Ln Alanio. CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 192 240 015 192 240 017 19) ?ill 11117 John&Joan Russillo Jason c� Gina Renner Leo Hari Tsclrarncr III 1261.1 Laverock Ln I?i,l I..;r\crock Ln I;'4I I-m crock Ln Alamo. CA 94507 Akimo. CA 94507 Akimo. ('A 94107 D'' G 65 Eric Hasseltine Alamo Parks &Recreation Committee 3182 Old Tunnel Rd#E P.O.Box 1062 Lafayette,CA 94549 Alamo,CA 94507-9998 n Alamo Improvement Association Isakson&Associates, Inc. P.O.Box 271 Civil Engineering Alamo,CA 94507 2255 Ygnacio Valley Rd.,Ste C Walnut Creek,CA 94598 City of Walnut Creek 1666 North Main Street Walnut Creek, CA 94596 r- tS a O �' _ n Q \ cc a I C4 i - { •;t ......,';, o., y{0 R � rti :aF:es.:,o.AE:-�.:,�7 rl.x:c: a"u4•�:.vn.avff=.rr..:_<,. os os� - stra a.,olc p� l- _.0 Crt N L� t ACI d ,00's .37 ry cxr if) ck 7.14 jD.If.J G Q � O hooBz O h +�� OIF•9py �� V V n m Q� 'tit 61 407 _ BN r n O co to 4 D AD �Q 0 oA N D cp ,°rra ,lo � / � c � n ( � I' oma• }4 � ¢� oqrj v° o 'q I AA y \� �!J !�ti V wo .��;� o=�-_.--^''�4 6tn � 'rte\� ��'etil� �O� • 5r bp4 .11c -.e�a .iZ.`♦ 1. . ' Y Irk ♦, ID ' ti BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF ) Appeal by Peter Ostrosky ) County File SD988263, ) RZ983069, DP983025 ) Livoma Road, Interstate 680, ) And Sugarloaf Drive, Alamo ) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited pre-stamped mail in the United States Postal service box at 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice. SEE ATTACHED LIST I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct., Martinez, CA. Date: .November)<2001 Danielle Kelly, Deputy Cler 187 150 022 • 187 171 027 • 157 171 028 Walnut Creek City Of David Wei Chen& Anne Yang Emmanucl &Teresa Roman 1445 Civic Dr 81 Sugarloaf Ln 60 Sugarloaf Ln Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 187 171 029 .187 17 030 187 171 (.131 Roger&Pamela Loar Iraj &Elizabeth Behseresht David Rita Litfle 1360 Sugarloaf Dr 1350.Sugarloaf Dr / 1340 Sugarloaf Dr Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 187 171 032 187 171 033 Michael&Diana Makieve Joseph & Nicki Hoby 1330 Sugarloaf Dr 1320 Sugarloaf Dr Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 187 171 036 187 171 037 IN 171 1138 Michael &Esther Chon Anthom & Kelli Duramc William & Kmol Bush 29 Sugarloaf Ter 35Sugarloaf Ter 41 SuaiJoaf"1'cr Alamo. CA 94507 Alaino. CA 94507 AIa1I1o_ CA 94507 187 171 039 187 171 0-40 1.,,:7 171 u4 1 Robed &Rosemary Zeman Jack & Wren Tavloi V1;uk him'.I i 68 Sugarloaf Lu 73 Sugarloaf Ln 7(. )u :irlo;il Ln Alamo. CA 94507 Alaino. CA 94507 AI;iinu. CA 94507 187 171042 1X7 171 ti44 Richard& S1►cn-�,Dorfman (err on & Betic Vervais i 80 Sugarloaf Ln 34 Sng;u loin l cr Alamo. CA 94507 -Umii. CA 94507 187 171 045 NO 171 046 . 1`- 171 it47 Mansour& Simin Zabetian Lar- Bam & Elcna Esirad•t A11:111 & Ann \\'u Kimia Zabetian /' �3 Stigarloal'Tcr X I't t Box 315 28 Sugarloaf Ter ! Alamo. (:A 94507 \\;tlnut Cicck. CA 94598 Alamo, CA 94507 187 171 048. Peter Ostrosky&OSTROSKY ENTER 17 Sugarloaf Ter Alamo, CA 94507 187 171 051 187 171 051 1 N 7 t i ut ii Carl Stephen&Karen Johnson/ Theodore& Arlene Upland III V;il�'l1 .1:111;111 61 Sugarloaf Ln < 41 Sugarloal'Ln I I�t.1 Cluilidlet Blvd / Alamo. CA 04507 Alamo. CA 94507 N I]oil.\\\oo(l. CA 91607 1.873.5000'9 1873'300IU I`7 ;cl(III Ncil ArtllUl'& Karla Smith / Ronald & Kathleen Peterson Gcoi c & Rosa Delimit 13.35 Sugarloaf Dr I 1335 Su-m-loal-Di 6974 13righwn Dr Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 Dublin. (:A 94568 187 .1',0017 Iii Ronald Peterson Rodd if, Carolina )adicrnos 1340 Sugarloaf Dr J I Rockford Dr Alamo. CA 94507 Antioch. CA 94509 187-330 020 187 330 027 187 330 028 Clement&Anna Choy Miles Sandstrom &Lillian Nemetz Thomas & Mar}, Lammers/ 1345 Sugarloaf Dr PO-Box 528. 1309 Lavcrock Ln Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 192 240007 192,240009 111'_ 240 014 Rlf&Candi Gester / James&Pamela Cooper Ivla-\milian & Doina Vlasachc 1251.Laverock Ln 1280 Laverock Ln 1290 Lm crock Ln Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 192 240 015 192 240 017 192 2 i0 uu2 John&Joan Russillo / Jason L, Gina Renner Lco N;irl 'I'schm-ner III 1260 Lavcrock Ln / 1261 L,,\crock Ln I.IJ I L;i\c.rock Ln Alamo. CA 94507 kinin. CA 94507 ,\hmo. C'A 94107 G. 66 65 t�)�AvAm� �r r q 46c) Eric Hasseltine SktoP-o krn4l4c,h Alts A5;oe Alamo Parks&Recreation Committee 3182 Old Tunnel Rd WE 47 (jct�I C_DJ r} I S+-e. 3tx � P.O.Box Alamo,CA 94507-9998 Lafayette,CA 94549 V f k(u„{ cae-,- 64 q sijk, n , Inc. 7 Alamo Improvement Association / Isakson&Associates, � �f'Y+(,D� � . C'JM"4,"v)P.O.Box 271 V Civil Engineering D Alamo,CA 94507 2255 Ygnacio Valley Rd.,Ste Walnut Creek,CA 94598C�" i c�� 0cL01,KJ i 6A lzkv1z-367 City of Walnut Creek / 1666 North Main Street Walnut Creek,CA 94596 N 11 a� 11 ' - v C(0 �° SGP °�,�� e� 00 C1. Ov 01- Cali), j the fo]IL O� 1,�• t,�" Continued hea. Yla in9 Coes resubdivide the eYista de velo Pment for �C✓ Seniors �, t \C' ropertyisfro onventional R-20R 24 to p= 1ots. (SDy 'location o f the sub' \'Costa Count sect ProPert Y, State of y'` '�amined in the O ffceCalifo s rni pion of the off,- Building, Martinez D�ree� Califo �a — ,\locatede1 - p at Livorna Road, Intersta. VI\ 4� Court; you rna fi '`,, hearing de - Iii-nit to `` ��• •�G�NY scribed at the ra,, ?ivered to the Public 1,. County at, or prior to, t1 � O ment De Partment staff �O a� to Room 108 v'ill be aVa z , Administration B .Parties in order u�. fi �,\rif to (1) ans GO Y the issues being wer quest c,. 5� '`,°r narrow g considered by \:Please call Micferences which ren, � hael Lau 'n. on Monday, Dece been, Comm.,\ 10, 20a1, t,, \� `� � � � i ,1 1 � � '� � � �� ,� � \, � �a ,. �, �� '�, h �, ,, �, , .; ,� ,� �. ,, �� 1� '� �, \, t 0 ` �, ', A �\ h \, n \� � � �, �� . ��,, �� '�� \ �� , �, �� `,� .\ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Project: Brief Description: CONTINUED HEARING ON THE APPEAL BY PETER OSTROSKY (OWNER) OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO RESUBDIVIDE THE EXISTING 5.31 ACRE SITE INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMESITES AND A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIORS 55 OR OLDER WITH 8 ATTACHED"DUET"UNITS. PROPOSED REZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS FROM R-20 TO P-1 TO CREATE A CLUSTER TYPE DEVELOPMENT. WITH OPEN SPACE RATHER THAN CONVENTIONAL R-20 LOTS. THE ', SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT LIVORNA ROAD, INTERSTATE 680 AND SUGARLOAF DRIVE IN THE ALAMO AREA, AND IS REFERED TO AS ALAMO GARDENS (SD988263, RZ983069, DP983025). Owner: Peter Ostrosky Appellant: Peter Ostrosky . County File #'s SD988263, RZ983069, DP983025 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: December 11, 2001 @ 11:00 A.M. Briefing Meeting Date: December 11, 2001 Briefing Meeting Time: 10:30 A.M. Briefing Meeting Location: Room 108 cc: Dennis M.Barry, Director Catherine Kutsuris,Deputy Director Heather Ballenger,Engineering Services Project Planner:Michael Laughlin,5-1204 Secretary:Karen Piona 5-1211 Karen Piona,CP Application Tracking S:currentplaMboardWamo Gardens pre.hearing3 Mike Laughlin 11106101 11:35 pM To: Danielle Hi Danielle_ cc: KeJJ Subject: qla y1CO6/CCC@CCC Put mo Gardens Noticing technically/Opes, a pre pleast ,t was continued,bu once and maili ng h�aringn�h 1 have chap t 1 would like to listrepot (andce a bribe)on your d o be safe desk for this hearin ,nt0 Your notice attached teed the wordin9 of the descri g- i guess Thanks, prehaaring notice if you OtioUldi Sed on the Board action e to cut and paste the rreV sled de c the l Alamo our Gardens prehearin93 do i / ,l ' 1 • to �i r� t �w: it � \-. �� .�At► � •. t 1 ii 1, i Alamo Gardens Proj* ect Section 2: • Environmental Review Checklist ® Mitigation Measures ® Agency Comments ® Environmental Review support documentation and correspondence �w O � � � ~--..'��,.•.,-�—�"'.. ..,,,,� .,,,� Vis, � ell „ s h cz O H -* CG 41 �1,7 LEGAL PUBLICATION REQUISTION Contra Costa County From: Clerk of the Board To: Contra Costa Times 651 Pine St., Room 106 PO Box 5124 Martinez, CA 94553 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Requested by: tan wJV./ Date: Phone No: lcZr)2-. Reference No: -5qq Org: HOD Sub Object: CD Task: Activity: Publication Date (s): I�01/ ?.,(�� No. of Pages: LEGAL PUBLICATION- ""Immediately upon expiration ofpublication!•••—. — — send in one affidavit for each publication in order that the auditor may be authorized to pay your bill. Authorized Signature: Please confirm date of publication & receipt of this fax. NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS ALAMO AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on ,December 11, 2001 at 11.:00 a.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Continued hearing on the appeal by Peter Ostrosky (owner) of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of the tentative subdivision map and development plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into 3 single family residential homesites and a cluster development for seniors 55 or older with 8 attached "Duet" units. Proposed rezoning of the property is from R-20 to P-1 to create a cluster type development with open space rather than conventional R-20 lots. (SD988263, RZ983069, DP983025). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site is located at Livoma Road, Interstate 680 and Sugarloaf Drive in the Alamo area. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and (4) provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call Michael Laughlin, Community Development Department, at (925) 335-1204 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, December 10, 2001, to confirm your participation. . Date: November 20, 2001 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Development Plan,Rezoning of Property from R-20 to P-1, and Site Development Plan consideration for . 10 townhouses and 3 single family residences (DP983025, SD988263, RZ983069). 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,North Wing -4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Michael P. Laughlin, Project Planner (925) 335-1204 4. Project Location: The project is located at the intersection of I-680,Sugarloaf Drive, and Livonia Road in the Alamo area. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Eric Hasseltine 382 Old Tunnel Rd. Lafayette, CA 94549 6. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential—Low Density 7. Zoning: Single Family Residential,R-20,proposed to change to P-1 8. Description of Project: The applicant requests approval of a tentative map and development plan to divide a total area of 5.31 acres into 3 single family residential lots and creation of a 10 unit, single story senior townhouse project(divided into a series of five "duet' units). All of the properties are currently vacant. The subject site is located at the intersection of Interstate 680, Livorna Road and Sugarloaf Drive in the Alamo Area. (R-20) (ZA: Q-15) (CT 3461.01)(Parcel#'s 187-171-048,049,050.053,054). 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site lies within an established single family residential area of single family residences on larger lots. The single family residential sites have graded pads and are ready for development. The residual area can best be described as a bowl, with the main area of development below Livorna Road, Sugarloaf Terrace and Interstate 680. An access roadway and retaining walls are proposed to provide access to the units. A segment of a drainage course extends along the northern side of the property, and will be retained in its natural state.Existing trees occur in this same riparian area and will be retained. A steep area occurs to the northwest, between the back of 2 residences and the freeway. Due to access, slope,and proximity to the freeway,development of this area would be difficult.It will likely be used for a passive recreation or garden area for the residents of the , housing development, or planted with native vegetation. This area and the drainage course area will be part of a common area lot and maintained by the homeowner's association for the multi-family area. 10. Other public agencies whose Numerous affected agencies were asked to comment on approval is required: the application. Community Development Department approval is required. After Community Development Department review, approval by the Board of Supervisors is required. County Engineering approval is required for the final map. Building Permits are required for the single family residences and multi-family units. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The.environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning _ Transportation/ _ Public Services Population &Housing Circulation _ Utilities & Service X Geological Problems _ Biological Resources Systems Water _ Energy & Mineral X Aesthetics Air Quality Resources _ Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of _ Hazards X Recreation Significance X Noise 3 DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. v I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upo/thhepro sed project. Signature Dat Michael P. Laughlin,Project Planner for Contra Costa County Current Planning Division SOURCES In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation, the following references (which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street 5th Floor-North Wing,Martinez)were consulted: 1. Contra Costa Resource Mapping System—Las Trampas Ridge Quad Sheet Panel , CA 2. The(Reconsolidated) County General Plan (July 1996) and EIR on the General Plan (January 1991) 3. Field review,January 4, 1999 and August 3, 2000. 4. Project Plans and project description 5. Contra Costa County Zoning(Title 8) and Subdivisions(Title 9), April 1998 with current amendments. 6. Response Letters submitted from affected agencies. 7. Geotechnical Investigation by Bay Soils for the project,February 15, 1980 4 Ar 8. Reports concerning noise by Illingworth and Rodkin,Inc., dated April 3, 1997 and April 5, 1999 9. Visual Simulation Photographs y 10. Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map, 1998 (Calif. Dept. of Conservation) 11. Alamo Gardens Tree Inventory by Plant Health Diagnostics dated May 24, 1999 12. Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines 13. Letter from Darwin Myers Associates dated August 25, 2000 14. Cortese Hazardous Materials list,April 1998 15. FEMA Flood Hazard Area Panel Map#060025. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless less than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact lncomoration Impact Impact . I. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources:2, 3,4,9) X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 2,3,4,9) X C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 2,3,=1,9) X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources: 2,3,4,9) X SUMMARY: a., b.The project is adjacent and below State scenic Highway,Interstate 680. Some of the project will be remotely visible from Interstate 680,primarily the roofs of the proposed structures. These views are considered less than significant. Vistas of ridgelines of the surrounding hills are considered the primary visual resource. There are two existing homes above the subject site that will be more visible. Natural vegetation will be planted along the drainage area and to the north of the main site to enhance the aesthetic quality of the area.There are mature trees along the drainage area. There is a recorded scenic easement over this area. The primary resource,the mature oak trees,will not be removed.An adjustment to the easement is recommended that will restrict development of more of the area on the northern portion of the site than is currently restricted. c.Based on a review of the plans and a site inspection,implementation of the project will change the visual character of the site and surroundings. The property is surrounded by residentially developed properties. The project is well designed,and will be below the height limit of the zone. The structures are only one story,which reduces visibility 5 of the structures.The property is below the surrounding streets and freeway. Views of the project from surrounding streets and the residential neighborhood will consist of views of the roofs of the residences filtered through new and existing trees which will surround and be part of the project site. The project will not block any views from surrounding houses or roadways of the hills or other significant vistas. Landscaping will be planted at the perimeter of the site to screen views into the main project site. d.The project would include residential lighting and street lighting which would introduce additional lighting into the area. However,the predominant source of lighting in the area can be attributed to Interstate 680. Project lighting will be required to be directed downward. ll. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model.to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Sources:2,3,10) X b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? (Sources:2,3,10) X c. Involve other changes.in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? (Sources:2,3,10 ) X SUMMARY: a. Pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the site is not designated for agricultural use, and is surrounded by developed properties.The project is not designated for agricultural use in the County General Plan. III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 6 Potentially Significant Potentially unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporation Impact Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Sources:2,12) X b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources:2,12) X C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutuant for which the project region is a non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources:2,12) X d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Sources:2, 3,12) X e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Sources:2,12) X SUMMARY: a.—c.,e.The project consists of the development of 13 new units, 10 in addition to the 3 already approved as part of the original subdivision. The air emissions will not be significant due to the size of the project. The applicant will be required to utilize gas inserts in the fireplaces to reduce emissions of pollutants related to wood burning.The location of the project in proximity to Interstate 680 will allow for convenient access to essential destinations and reduce emissions by occupants. d.Due to the project location adjacent to Interstate 680,the project will expose seniors(the primary occupants) to potentially higher levels of pollutants due to auto emissions. Homes will have mechanical heating and cooling systems for noise attenuation,which will also reduce interior pollutant levels to a less than significant level. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or 7 Potentially • Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporation Impact Impact regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources:1,2,3,4,11) X b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources:1,2,3,4,11) X C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to , marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Sources:1,2,3,4,11) X d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or nvgratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources:1,2,3,4,11) X e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources:1,21,3,4,5,1.1) X f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 1,2,3,4,5,11) X SUMMARY: a. — f. Five large oak trees occur along the existing drainage course. The proposed road and multi-family residences will not require the removal of any of the trees. An arborist report was submitted which notes that $ Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Lmgd c Incorporation Impact Impact the trees will survive the construction,given the protection measures noted in the report.Based on the County overlay analysis,there are no known endangered plant or animal species which inhabit the site.Therefore,there is no significant effect on the environment with respect to plant or animal species.Additional vegetation will be added within the project area to enhance the existing setting. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in—15064.5 (Sources: 1,2,3,4,6) X b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? (Sources: 1,2,3,4,6) X C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? (Sources: 1,2.3,4,6) X d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?(Sources: 1,2,3,4,6) X SUMMARY: a.—d.The Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University has submitted a response letter indicating that in a previous study (#2630) identified that there are no identificd historical resources on the site. The applicant is legally responsible to stop work if any artifacts or remains are found. The site has previously been disturbed through grading and contains fill material. VI. GEOLOGY AND SO1LS -Would the project? a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known - 9 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Sources: 1,2,3,4,7,13) X 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? (Sources: 1.2,3,4,7,13) X 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquifaction" (Sources: 1,2,3,4,7,13) X 4. Landslides? (Sources: 1,2,3,4,7,13) X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Sources: 1,2,3,4,7,13) X C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquifaction or collapse? (Sources: 1,2,3,4,7,13) X d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources: 1,2,3,4,7,13) X e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Sources: 1,2,3,4,7,13) X SUMMARY: a.-e.The site is relatively level and is located in close proximity to an existing drainage area. The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone,and the applicant's soil engineer discovered no slides mapped at the site,nor any active faults across the site. The applicant's geotechnical engineer determined that the liquefaction potential of the site is low. However,the majority of the site contains fill materials which have high expansion potential. The project is feasible,but will require a more extensive soils investigation and also remediation by removal or recompaction of fill materials. A peer review by the Community Development Department Geologist will be required. 10 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incomoration Impact lmnact V VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources: 4) X b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources: 4) X C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 4) X d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65862.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources:L2.4, 14) X e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within . two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. (Sources: 1,2,4) X f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources:1,2,4) X g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 2) X 11 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1,2,3,4) X SUMMARY: a.-d. The project does not involve the.use or transport of hazardous materials,nor is the site in close proximity to a hazardous materials site. In compliance with Government Code Section.65962.5 the California Department of Toxic Substances Control issued a list of hazardous waste and substances sites(Cortese List). According to the list(dated April 1998)there are no sites within the property or in close proximity to the project area. The Cortese List cosnsists of all sites known to a)Department of Toxic Substances Control;b)California State Water Resources Control Board;and c) California Integrated Waste Management Board. Furthermore, there are no sites on a list maintained by the County Health Services Department,Hazardous Materials Division. e.-f. The project is not within the vicinity of a public use airport or private airstrip. g. Implementation of the project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. In the event of an emergency at the site,evacuation would occur by way of Interstate 680 or surface roads. h. Since the property is in a developed urban area,there is a minimal wildfire danger. A wildland fire would have to burn through other developed areas before reaching the site. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY- Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source:2,4,6) X b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?(Sources: 1,2,3,4) X 12 Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Wact lncomoration imp Lmnact C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? (Sources: 1,2,3,4,6) X d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? (Sources:1,2,3,4,6,15) X e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources:1,2,3,4,6,15) X. f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources:1,2,3,4,6) X g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources:1,2,3,4,6,15) X h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources:1,2,3,4,6,15) X i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources:1,2,3,4,6) X j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Sources:1,2,3,4,6) X 13 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporation Impact Itnpact SUMMARY: a.-j.The project site is in close proximity to a drainage course and is below the grades of surrounding properties. None of the site lies within a FEMA designated Flood.Zone.(the site is in Zone C).The grading of the project would direct run-off to existing catch basins along the west side of the property, which have sufficient capacity for the additional run-off. Improvement to the road and drainage improvements will direct drainage to the drainage course, as is currently the case. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant impacts to water resources. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING-Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 2,3,4) X b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or the regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1,2,3,4) X C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source:2) X SUMMARY: a.-c.The site is designated Single Family Residential-Low Density(1 -2.9 units per net acre) in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. A rezoning to P-1 is requested to permit cluster development at the maximum density.The proximity of the site to Highway 680 does not make the site desirable for conventional single family residential development. The presence of a drainage course,significant trees and a hillside area make a portion of the site inappropriate for development,thus the applicant's request to cluster development and leave sensitive or highly visible sites undeveloped. The project will not divide an established community. 14 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact , X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 1,2) X b. Result in the loss or availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? (Sources: 1,2) X SUMMARY: a.-b.The Conservation Element of the County General Plan identities three mineral resource areas in the County (P. 8-53) and policies for the protection of mineral resources are presented on P.8-54. No valuable mineral resources have been identified in the project vicinity. There are no known mineral resources on the subject :property,and no history of quarrying. XI. NOISE-Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 1,2,3,4,8) X b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? (Sources: 1,2,3,4,8) X C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 1,2,3,4.8) X d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources:1,2,3,4,8) X e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a 15 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise .levels? (Sources: 1,2) X f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1,2) X SUMMARY: a.-c.The proposed development is within an area of high noise,estimated at up to 71 dBA,which is considered •:normally unacceptable under the Noise Element of the General Plan for residential development. However, .given the unique design of the units and the orientation of the outdoor living areas, it is estimated that the average noise level will be within the General Plan parameters for multi-family residential(65 dBA)and within the parameters for single family residential noise(60 dBA).The units will be sound insulated,with an acoustical report required to be followed to bring the interior noise level to below the 45 dBA required in the General Plan and Building Code.The units themselves will mitigate exterior noise to an acceptable level.Mechanical heating and air conditioning will be required so that occupants will not have to open windows during high noise periods. d. There will be a temporary increase in noise levels during the construction of the project. Hours of operation and types of construction equipment will be limited through conditions of approval. e.-f. Since the project is not within the vicinity of a public or private airstrip, the project would not expose people residing in the subdivision to excessive noise levels. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING- Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources:2,3,4) X b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?(Sources: 2,3,4) X C. Displace substantial numbers of 16 Potentially Simificant ' Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 2,3,4) X SUMMARY: a.-c. Due to the size of the proposed project (13 new residences) there are no significant impacts related to population and housing. The project will provide housing for seniors,and is in close proximity to a major road (Livorna Road) and Highway 680 for access. The provision of additional housing, especially for seniors, is considered a positive benefit of the project. The project will not induce growth in thearea, since there are limited vacant sites for new development. The project is considered an infill development and has a General Plan designation for residential development. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical .impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services (Sources: 1,2,3,4,6): 1. Fire Protection? X 2. Police Protection? X 3. Schools? X 4. Parks? X 5. Other Public facilities? X SUN MARY: a. 1.The project would be served by the San Ramon Fire Protection District. The nearest station to provide service to the site is located south of the site on Stone Valley Road at Highway 680 . Road widening and provision of a turn around are required by the Fire Protection District,as well as the installation of fire hydrants. The project will add existing residences into the service area for this station. a. 2. The project would be served by the Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department. Due to the central location and ease of access,the project would have an insignificant increase in service. 17 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless less than Significant Mitigation Significant No lmnact Incorporation Impact lmmpact a. 3. The project site is within the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. The project would have an insignificant impact on the District,since 10 of the 13 units will be for seniors, who will.not have school aged children. The three additional homesites are already approved for development. a. .4. The project includes a small outdoor common area for resident use. Residents would be required to use area parks for most types of active recreation. a. 5. Private utilities such gas;electric,phone and cable will be provided by private utilities.through line extensions. XIV. RECREATION- a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 1,2,4,6) X b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources: 1.2,4,6) X SUMMARY: a. The project will minimally increase the use of existing,parks.The developer will-be required to pay a fee, in lieu of dedicating parkland,for the minor addition of people using existing parks. :. b. The project does include a small, shared recreation area. The project would not require the expansion of existing recreational facilities. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections? (Sources:1,2,3,4) X 1$ Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No 1wact Incorporation Impact Impact b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources:1,2,3,4) X C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources:1,2,3,4) X d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Sources: 3,4.6) X e. Result in inadequate emergency access?(Sources: 3,4,6) X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 3,4,6) X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Sources:3,4) X SUMMARY: a.-b.The project consists of the development of 13 new residential units.(3 previously approved) in an already developed area adjacent to an existing major •road and.highway. The traffic and circulation impacts associated with 13 new residences (8 net above existing number of lots)will not be significant enough to further degrade the level of service at surrounding intersections. Vehicle trips for the ten unit complex are anticipated to generally be at off-peak times due to the senior population. Existing residents of the main subdivision will not have drive through trips through their neighborhood since the access point into the multi-family area occurs before the existing single family residences. Thus,there will be no more additional traffic on the upper portion of Sugarloaf Drive and Sugarloaf Terrace from the multi-family units. Since Sugarloaf Drive is a private roadway, a maintenance agreement must be reached with existing homeowners for maintenance of the roadway. Conditions of approval will be added to the application for this purpose.. 19 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact c. Implementation of the project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns. d.-e. Project roadways have been designed so that emergency vehicles can access the site safely. No parking will-be permitted on.the private roadway for the duet units. Since the roadway.has been designed for firetruck access, it is also safe for general vehicle traffic. f. Parking for the three residential units.will be in the garages, in the driveways and on the street. Parking for the duet units will be provided in garages,in driveways and in parking turnouts for guest parking. An access stairway to Sugarloaf Drive will allow for spillover street parking is also available. g. The project does not conflict with plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. As previously mentioned, the project is infill in nature, and utilize existing infrastructure rather.than creating new roadways. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 16) X b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 2,6) X C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources:2,3,4,6) X d. Have sufficient water supplies available serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements ` needed? (Sources: 2,4,6) X e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it 20 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incormoration Impact Impact has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 2,4,6) X f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's waste disposal needs? (Sources: 2,4,6) X g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 2,4,6) X SUMMARY: a.,e. Contra Costa County Sanitary District will provide sewer service to the project. The project will tie into existing improvements located in Sucarloaf Terrace and Livorna Road. There is adequate capacity to serve the development,and Regional Water Quality Control standards will not be exceeded. b.,d.Water service will be provided by the East Bay Municipal Utility District(EBMUD),and the project is already annexed into the district. There is adequate supply to serve the development, and the construction o f new facilities is not required. f. The project will be served by a landfill facility within Contra Costa County,which has sufficient capacity to serve this development g. The project will comply with federal,state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and 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 b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but 21 Potentially Significant Potentially unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact cumulatively considerable? .(Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? X C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X SUMMARY: a.-c.The proposed project, with added mitigation measures,will not have a significant impact on the environment, nor will the project have a significant cumulative impact. MPL C:Mydoc\ContraCosta\EnvironRev.\sd9863 it 9/1/00 cl. —0 4) 011 U A .:: t —. :� vi cj C— ca 13 M. 0 21 0 u 00 mO CA, tr; 00 00 u r– C. a. Ult Cl. rb zs > to > trj CL z to) �'�Z r3 tr,.z or L a O a U — -a Ot-I 7-- z L:l ta) cr lo: '0 c; W -ob tz tz Cr 0 tz tb .0 u on Z: - G E c z a a ^ J Q - < Ctti t-0 = F CD C� z o0 lj� o 0 < U U J U �pE c7j ' "l � a U -1Z a � a M OD J � �n Er C� n. c v J NCY < < < cu tju to /1 N z � U u C7 _ 7 •h,G 'O F '�— G 72 — � 3 c•� o ° _ c pu 0 � •^ � O y Y � � C J O � J d G G ^'' r U P+•U C. E cnC425 y . c C o OU E 5 'C v Q u U < c _ o _ � c G ^ c _ 4 G U L U J vUi •U to cu U � I.G. '� � � �,C C U •D ,y u •y c c ,D p N CZ :J y' N © Ld x VIA o bw 1 - r i� tel% P�4 ii .,,n►,ijr�i��-7 N.•i� M-'.`.:� � �l �bel 1 ' .K,•, I 4� i7 • A Al ytt`, F• •�:iii 11 i� ` IIrnI!� {{r•Sy,,.;1�� 114 REVIEW OF AGENCY :LANNING APPLICATION EBMUD .4.d, : f.. .. " ...i:.... .... ...... .. .......... ,..,_.._,.:,;,,., THIS:IS NOT::AbPROP",OSAL TO PROVIDE WATER;SERVICE ` r....: :. I �. The technical data supplied herein is based on preliminary information,is subject to revision and is to be used for planning pur�oFUL�.tPH a-:e n ,-......s F'. r. .•4._-..1..:.,34'!?. . .,. �... :... .. .. ._'5....... DATE 1/28/98 EBMUD MAP(S) 1557 B 500 EBMUD FILE S-6198 t:';'i ,�. L•LE; i AGENCY Contra Costa County AGENCY FILE ❑ TENTATIVE MAP Community Development Department SD 98 8263 ❑x DEVELOPMENT PLAN ATTN: Michael Laughlin RZ 98 3068 ❑ REZONING/GPA 651 Pine Street,41"Floor,North Wing DP 98 3025 Martinez,CA 94553-0095 ❑ OTHER APPLICANT Mr.Eric Hasseltine OWNER Mr.Peter Ostrosky 3182 Old Tunnel Road,Suite E 17 Sugarloaf Terrace Lafayette,CA 94549 Alamo,CA 94507 i...,....:.....F. .,:,•.,..._. . , .. ....,.......-�. .�.. DEVELOP:.MEN. ATA , LOCATION: Comer of Livorna Road and 680 Freeway on ramp TOTAL ACREAGE 5.3±acres NO.OF UNITS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT 13 0 Single Family Multi-Family ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Other Residential Residential a. ..:..... .. .... ....... s'j:. ...,.... ..... .. .�.. :.._.,. x. ...r...:, . _. .. ... �,...:.>. 'bra".: .;• . :>,, .r�.. >.,.... ... ...: .::,WATER•.SERVICE'DATAr PROPERTY ELEVATION RANGE OF STREETS ELEVATION RANGE OF PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED ❑X In EBMUD ❑ Require Annexation ±265' ±260-345' ❑X ( ALL,_X PART) ❑ (_ALL,_X__PART) ❑ Water service would require of development would be served from of development would be served by construction of major facilities EXISTING MAIN(S) MAIN EXTENSION(S) LOCATION OF ❑ RESERVOIR LOCATION OF MAINS)Sugar Loaf Terrace EXIST.MAIN(S) Sugar Loaf Terrce El PUMPING PLANT ❑ TRANSMISSION MAIN EJ Other PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION RANGE PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION RANGE Danville(F3A) 250'-450' Danville(F3A) 250'-450' .a .,.. . .. .. a ...s...::�....... ... A.�`:�:;: :.., Lots 11,12 and 13 can be served off the existing main on Sugarloaf Drive. A main extension,at the applicant's expense,will be required to serve lots 1-10 of the proposed development. Off-site improvements,also at the applicants expense,may be required depending on fire flow requirements set by the local fire department_ When the development plans are finalized,the applicant should contact EBMUD's New Business Office and request a water service estimate to determine costs and conditions of providing water service to the proposed development. Engineering and installation of water mains often requires substantial lead time which should be provided for in the applicant's development schedule. FOR INFORMATION REGARDING: -THIS REVIEW CHARGES&OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE Contact The EBMUD Water Service Planning Section(510)287-1199 Contact The EBMUD New Business Office(510)287-1008 Water Service Planning FX1 GAy4ow.A/County New Business Office 0 Applicant E.T.A. Owner PATRICIA E.DUSTMAN,SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER WATER SERVICE PLANNING SECTION / SAN I'AMON VALLEY FIRE;;f, PTFCTION DISTRICT PROJECT NAME ALAMO GARDENS FP # SD 8263 99 FEB -8 AM 8; 4 ADDRESS LIVORNA RD @ 680 , „ ,. ,,T., X-REF # ; i/VRIT DEPT CONTACT: CC CO PLANNING DEPT. PHONE: 3`3 -010 OCCUPANCY CLASS R-3 DESCRIPTION SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION TYPE VN DESCRIPTION WOOD FRAME CHECK ONE: ❑ NEW CONST ❑ TENANT IMP ❑ PLANNING APPLICATIONS ❑ ADDN ❑ AFES ❑ FIRE ALARM ® DEV OTHER PLAN BLDG/PLAN AGENCY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY APN# 187-171-048,49,50,53,54 AGENCY# DP 980025 APPLICABLE CODES/ORDINANCES 1994 UFC, SRVFPD ORD. #15 ADD'L INFO: BLDG AREA FLR AREA 13 LOTS # OF FLRS SPECIAL FEES WATER ACCESS EBMUD ACCESS GATES LOCK BOX OTHER REVIEWED BY: MICHAEL MENTINK DATE FEBRUARY 1, 1999 FIRE DISTRICT COMMENTS: Michael Laughlin Community Development Dept. Contra Costa County 1. Fire hydrant(s) are required. All hydrants shall be EBMLJD standard steamer type (1-4 1/2" (114.3 mm) and 1-2 1/2" (63.5 mm) outlet). (UFC, 1994, Sec. 903, S.KV.F.P.D. Ord. #15)(s-1) 2. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN: Identify the fire hydrant locations by installing reflective "blue dot" markers :-adjacent to.the hydrant 6" (152.4 mm)off center from the middle of the street. (UFC; 1994, Sec. 901.4.3)(s- 2) : ` , 3. Fire apparatus_.roadways shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet (6 m) and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (4 m). Streets under 36 feet (11 m) shall be posted_with signs and red curbs painted with labels on one side and under 28 feet (8.5 m) on both sides of the street as . follows:"NO STOPPING FIRE LANE-CVC 22500.1". (UFC, 1994, Sec. 902.2.2.1)(s-5) 4. Fire apparatus roadways shall be capable of supporting the imposed weight of fire apparatus and shall be provided with an.all weather.driving surface. Only paved surfaces are considered to be all..weather driving surfaces. (UFC 1994 Sec. 902.2 2.2)(s 5. : NOTE ON.FIELD PLAN; ,. Fire apparatus roadways shall 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 HYDRANT'S.(UFC, 1994, Sec. 8704)(s_lo) 6. Prior to the issuance of a Buildirig Permit, submit a full set of building plans to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District for review and approval. (UBC/CBC 1994, Sec. 103.3.2.5)(r_13) 7. 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, 1994, Sec. 901.4.4)(p_19) 8. 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 1994, 1109.7)(P_23) 9. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN: Approved smoke detector(s) shall be installed according to current UBC standards. (UBC 1994, Sec. 310.9.1)(P_24) 10. Any/all new street names and addressing shall be submitted for approval to Administrative Mapping Division of San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. (UFC 1994, Sec. 901.2.2.3, S.R V.F.P.D. Ord. #1,5)(P_26) 11. Adjacent to fire hydrants, access roadways shall be a minimum of 28 feet in width for at least 20 feet (6 meters) in both.directions from fire hydrant. (UFC 1994, Sec. 902.2.2.1)(P_32) 12. Residential Automatic Fire Extinguishing Sprinkler Systems are required in residential occupancies exceeding 5,000 sq. ft. (464.5 sq. m)(S.KV.F.P.D. Ord. #15)(P-39) 13. Plans are acceptable contingent upon compliance with the above-listed comments.(c_92) 14. Only one set of plans were received and will be retained at this office for reference. Applicant will only receive this comment sheet.(c_93) 15. 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. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District is not responsible for inadvertent errors or omissions pertaining to this review and/or subsequent field inspection(s) i.e., additional comments may be added during subsequent drawing review or field inspection. Please call if there are any questions.(c-98) Michael Mentink, Fire Inspector San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District 838-6686 Plan Review Fee: 40.00 CALIFORNIA -- AMEDA JLUSA MARIN Northwest Information Center HISTORICAL CONTRA COSTA MENDOCINO SAN MATEO Sonoma State University DEL NORTE MONTEREY SANTA CLARA 1801 East Cotati Avenue RESOURCES HUMBOLDT NAPA.,..,, SANTA CRUZ LAKE SAN B6Mid')rr A C..08gLANO Rohnert Park,California 94928-3609 INFORMATION sAN FRANCIsco SONOMA Tel:707.664.2494•Fax:707.664.3947 SYSTEM YOLO E-mail: nwic@sonoma.edu 99 FES , „ 2 February 1999 ,:,_., File No.: 99-CC-4 Michael Laughlin, Planner .1. `` I Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Fourth Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 re: SD 98 8363, RZ 983068, DP 98 3025, APN 187-171-048,-049, -050, -053 &-054, Alamo Gardens Dear Mr. Laughlin Records at this office were reviewed to determine if this project could adversely affect historicai resources. The review for possible historic structures, however, was limited to references currently in our office. The Office of Historic Preservation has determined that any building or structure 45 years or older may be of historic value. Therefore, if the project area contains such properties they should be evaluated by an architectural historian prior to commencement of project activities. Please note that use of the term historical resources includes both archaeological sites and historic structures. The proposed project area contains or is adjacent to the archaeological site(s) ( ). A study is recommended prior to commencement of project activities. The proposed project area has the possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological site(s). A study is recommended prior to commencement of project activities. The proposed project area contains a listed historic structure ( ). See recommendations in the comments section below. Study# identified one or more historical resources. The recommendations from the report are attached. XX Study#2630 identified no historical resources. Further study for historical resources is not recommended. There is a low possibility of historical resources. Further study for historical resources is not recommended. Comments: If archaeological resources are encountered during the project, work in the immediate vicinity of the finds should be halted until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation. If you have any questions please give us a call (707)664-2494. Sincerely, 2 .� ,L Leigh Jordan Coordinator 1_1�rvcy E. Bragdon Community Contra Director of community [)cv, Development ...005ta 99 FEB P1 12: 07 Department County Administration Building 4 199, unty 9 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 (510) 335-1210 Phone: Date: AGENCY C01\flk1E NIT REQUEST We request your comments regardif ig the attached application currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Y\ Building hispoctioff Please submit your comments as follows: ..4;' -�_HSD,Environmental Health 11-3,9__q� HSD,Hazardous Materials Project Planner: � P/W-:Flood Control(Full Size-) _)4 Engineering Svcs (Full Size)_P/W-E County File Number:-R:77 qq&�t� 1:5pc�3wm Date Forwarded (I-3� -') 5�' _V_P/W-Traffic(Reduced) Prior to: __J1W-Special Districts (Reduced) _Comprehensive Planning _Redevelopment Agency Historical Resources Information System Fish&Game, Region :S We have found the following special programs Fire District S+OR4kA PLY R41E apply to this application: ,<--Sarutaiy D1strictCe_.,7Y---.J Sa_x, � -8,0"P �Vatex District .—� /\/ Redevelopment Area x School District &4,Ua W0AJ am I P)r---T) Nearby City 1 . Cv-ttt(' . - Active Fault Zone Shm'frs Office-Adm.&Comm. Svcs. Alamo Improvement Association El Sobrante P[g.&Zoning Committee CZ-Flood Hazard Area, Panel 11 (_R� Gen. Svcs.-De-p. Director,Communications 60 dB A Noise Control Community Oreanizat.lons 104fs^1rJ,al(�1)/eirs/Cocc�tr��!��' �j�sr Within 2,000 ft of Hazardous Waste Site Traffic Zone Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by IINV or ordinance Please send copies of your response to the Applicant and ONvncr. No comments on this application Our Comments ares Comments: Ar W Ot ft i i nature 0 1 Kgen l IL 111 &n le A 1-10 2113196- BAY SOILS, SOIL, FOUNDATION AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERS 1180 CANOAS GARDEN AVENUE, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95125 (408) 167.9040 4/ Project No. 404-GE 15 February 1980 Ostrosky — Patmont 3013 Oakraider Dr. Alamo, Ca. 94507 Attention : Pete Ostrosky Subject: Subdivision 5739 Livorna Road at Interstate 680 Alamo, California SOIL & GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION Gentlemen: In response to your written authorization, BAY SOILS , INC. has completed a soil and geologic investigation of your pro- posed development in Alamo, Contra Costa County , California. The data gathered during the course of this investigation in- dicated that the development of the site for single-family , wood-frame residences is feasible providing the recommenda- tions given in this report are followed. Should you have any questions or require additional infoi-ma- tion, please do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience . Very truly yours , Reviewed by BAY SOILS , INC . Bruce Gavi fio t Project Engineer L�ngineering1Geologist CE 23838 CEG 674 z Project No. 404-CE 15 February 1980 DISCUSSIONS , CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS General 1 . The area under study is suitable for the proposed resi- 6ential development. There are certain conditions which will require special attention for its successful development. These conditions are discussed in the follo,,,ing paragraphs a- long kith recommendations for their treatment during grading . 2 . Special grading consideration should be given to re.-noval cf unsuitable materials , potentially unstable areas , cut and fill slope construction , subdrainage , and protection against detrimental soil expansion and erosion . Construction Observation 3 . The Soil Engineer should review and approve all grading plans and specifications prior to construction so that sup- plemental recommendations can be made , if necessary . A review , also, should be made of foundation plans and of the proposed locations of residences in the cut and fill areas to determine which type of foundation system should be used for support. Site Preparation and Grading 4 . Site clearing , placement of fill and all the grading oper- ations must be conducted in accordance with the following par- agraphs and as outlined in the "Recommended Grading Specifica- Project No . 404-GE 15 February 1980 tions" , Appendix B, of this report. 5 . All stripping and grading operations should be observed and approved by the Soil Engineer. During building construc- tion., all pier drilling work should similarly be observed unless such work is done under the inspection of the respon- sible building official . 6 . The Soil Engineer should be notified a minimum of two working days prior to the start of any stripping or grading operations so he can coordinate the work with the grading contractor. 7 . It is recommended that all unstable areas noted on Figura No. 41)e regraded , be avoided as building areas or use spec- ial. pec-ial foundations in support . 3 -e corrective grading will consist of : a) Removing the unstable material under the observation of the Soil Engineer in the field. b) The construction of subsurface drains , if required . c) The construction of fill keys . d) The rebuilding of the slope as a compacted buttress fill . 8 . The top 3 to 4 inches of native soil has been highly con- taminated with organic matter . This layer should be stripped 11 i Project No. 404-GE 15 February 1980 and removed from all building sites or areas to receive fill. . _ These materials should be disposed of or stockpiled for later use in landscaping . With the exception of any contaminate" surface materials , the ons-site soils may be used for fill . 9 . In the areas near the creek , . deeper excavation may be re- quired to remove soft organic and compressible soil . The areal extent of the excavation should be as required in the field by the Soil Engineer during the grading operations , 10. After stripping , the next six inches of native soil should be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary , arid recompacted to a minimum relative compaction as follows : a) Critically expansive soils , such as on-site sur- face and near surface dark brown sandy and silty clays and/or claystones that are within three feet of finished desian . grade should be compacted to a minimum of 85% and preferably less than 90% relative compaction at a moisture content at least 3% wet of optimum. b) Non-expansive fills generated from sandstones , silt- stones , and approved imported material , as well as expansive soils placed at a depth greater than 3 feet below finished design grade should be compacted 12 L Project No. 404-GE 15 February 1980 to at least 90% relative compaction. 11. After the surface areas are prepared , fill material shall be Placed in layers which when compacted shall not ex- ceed six inches in compacted thickness . Each layer shall be compacted to the relative compaction based on the aforemen- tioned compaction requirements . All engineered fill should conform to both the recommendations outlined in this section and, also, with the "Recommended Grading Specifications" , Appendix: B, of this report. 12 . Should import material be required , it must be approved by the Soil Engineer and must meet the following require- ments : a) Plasticity index not to exceed 12 . b) R-Value not less than 25 . c) Should not contain rocks larger than six-inchE:s maximum size. d) Not more than 15 percent passing the No . 200 siere . General Construction Requirements 13 . The compaction of trench backfill within the building pads and paved areas should be to the same degree of com- paction as the engineered fill adjacent to the trench. No Project No. 404.-GE 15 February 1980 jetting of trenches should be permitted without prior ap- proval; by the Soil Engineer. Excavation and Cut Slopes 14 . It is expected that rock underlying the ridges can be . excavated to depths of 15 feet by heavy earthmoving equipment, such as dozers equipped with hydraulic rippers . Blasting is not anticipated but very heavy ripping may be required. 15 . Since the dip or slope angle of the rock bedding is not consistent, a certain amount of care should be taken in the planning and construction of cut slopes . with presence of any adverse dipping, claystone beds or shears within the cut section , a safe allowable slope gradient would be much less or the construction of buttress fills woild be required . Therefore , all cut slopes greater than ten feet in vertical height-should be inspected by an Engineering Geologist in the field. If adverse bedding , claystone zones , seepage areas or other indications of instability are noted, remedial construc- tion measures will be recommended in the field . 16 . For preliminary planning purposes , permanent cut slopes should be no steeper than 2� : 1 (horizontal to vertical) unless fill buttresses are utilized. 17 . All excavated slopes higher than ten feet (vertical mea- surement) should be provided with interceptor ditches at the top of slope and intermediate benches at 25 foot vertical in- Project No. 404-GE 15 February 1980 tervals. The benches should be least - six feet wide or as required by construction and maintenance equipment. 18. A lined gutter with a minimum of 2s slope and suitable outlet facilities should be provided on the bench . Embankment Design and Construction 19 . It is recommended that all fills be constructed with fin- iEhed slope no steeper than 2 : 1 (horizontal to vertical) . The T _`ill slope surfaces should be track-walked . If higher slones than 20 feet are desired , intermediate benches should be pro- vided in the slope as described previously for cut slopes . '2 G . Particular attention must be given to the provisions of adequate keys where fill is to be placed on the hillside slopes . On the sideslope fills , the base key should be at least 15 feet in width, cut into firm natural ground and sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than 2% . Subsequent keys should be placed at vertical heights of not more than 20 feet and should have an adequate width as determined by the Soil Engineer in the field based on field conditions . Subsurface drains will be required in the road fill area. Surface Drainage =' 21 . Positive surface drainage should be provided in all areas . Therefore , it is recommended that: i i5 ' Project No . 404-;E 15 February 1960 a) nil lots be graded to provide for runoff of surface water and to prevent ponding, both during and after construction . The finished grade should be construct- ed with slopes of at least 2% to the streets or other collection points . b) Continuous gutters and downspouts leading to splash blocks and surface drainage ways should be provided. Positive drainage must be provided away from -the tops of slopes . 22 . Six inches of soil shall be backfilled against thy: exter- ior foundations or the pad grade should be TDrovided with su`- ficient slope to create positive drainage away from the struc- tures . 23 . Care must be exercised in the location of all improvements so that the natural drainage is not blocked . 24 . The building and surface drainage facilities and features must not be altered , nor any filling or excavation work per- formed in the future without proper engineering recommendations . Erosion Control 25 . All permanent cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion by measn of erosion control planting. A quali- fies? landscape architect should be consulted. P i� Project No. 404-GE 15 February 1980 26 . The tops of cut slopes should be rounded or provided with interceptor ditches as required by the Soil Engifl eer in order to reduce the effect of erosion and surface sloughing. 27 . Erosion protection should include track-rolling and planting of the exposed surface of the slope and the construc- tion of drainage berms or ditches at the top of all cut and fill slopes as discussed in Paragraph 17 of this report . The object of this facility is to prevent accumulated water from flowing down the face of the cut or fill slope . Foundations 28 . The type of foundation systems required will depend on the extent of grading and the location of the lot. a) For lot pads cut down to sandstone, a spread footing- type foundation system may be used to support the residential structure. b) For lots partially cut into sandstone and for struc- tures on slopes greater than 5 : 1 (horizontal to ver- tical) , end-bearing pier and grade beam-type founda- tion systems may be used to support the residential structures . - a c) For lots with expansive clay at the surface, or those which are located on claystones , friction pier and .17 Project No. 404-GE 15 February 1950 grade beam-type foundation systems should be used to support the residential- structures . These may also be used for (a) and (b) above . Perimeter and Interior Spread Footings 29. A spread footing type foundation system should be found- ed a minimum of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade in en- gineered fill or native sandstone and be a minimum of 12 in- ches wide. :30 . An allowable bearing capacity for the cont=nuous an(2 iso- lzteu spread footing foundations of 2 , 200 u . s . f . for dead plus live, loads may be used . For the above conditions , the bear- ing capacity value nay be increased by one-third to include short-term seismic and wind effects . End-Bearing Pier and Grade Beam Foundation System 31 . Concrete end-bearing piers having a 16-inch diameter may be used to support the designated residential structures . The piers should have a minimum embedment depth of two feet into competent sandstone . All pier holes should be rein- forced with a minimum of a No. 4 bar for the full length and the reinforcement should extend to tie into the ton steel of the grade beam. Grade beams should be founded a minimum of six inches below final exterior grade and must be reinforced with a minimum of two No . 4 bars , one ton and one bottom. Project No. 404-CE 15 February 1980 Provided the foregoing conditions are met, an allowable enc?- bearing design value of 3 , 500 p. s . f . for dead plus live load may be used for design purposes . The allowable design val- ue may be increased by one-third to include temporary effects of seimsic and wind loading . 32 . All end-bearing vier excavations should be inspected by the Soil Engineer in order to ascertain penetration into the bedding layer. Friction Pier. and Grade Beam Foundation System 33. Concrete friction piers having a ten inch minimum diam- eter should be used to support those designated residential structures . The piers should have a minimum depth of five feet below the lowest adjacent grade . Each perimeter pier should be reinforced with a No. 4 bar for the full length and the reinforcement should extend to tie into the top steel of the grade beam. Grade beams should be founded a minimum of six inches below final exterior grade and must be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars , one top and one bottom. Provided the foregoing condtions are met , an allow- able skin friction design value of 500 p . s . f . for dead plus live load may be used for design purposes . The allowable de- sign value may be increased by one-third to include temporary effects of seismic and wind loading. No design friction val- ue should be assigned to the upper 18 inches of embedment. Project No . 404-GF 15 February 1980 34 . For expansive soil conditions , subgrade soils should be thoroughly and uniformly wetted to a moisture content: in ex- cess of optimum moisture and kept saturated for at least 24 hours prior to placing concrete. Foundation Setbacks 35 . Spread footings should be set back a minimum distance of ten feet from the shoulder of any cut or fill slope . If foun- dations are required near the shoulder of slopes , end-bearing piers should be used. 36 . Pier and grade beam foundations above slopes should be so designed that the bearing point of piers is a minimum of ten feet horizontally from the face of the slope . Interior Slabs-on-Grade 37 . Slabs-on-grade for living areas should not be used in those lots designated as underlain by expansive soil or rock . } 38 . there slabs-on-grade are to be constructed , a four-inch layer of free draining gravel , sand and gravel mixture or clean crushed rock should be placed under the slabs in order to serve as a cushion and capillary break . Refer to our "Guide Specifications for Rock Under Floor Slabs" , Appendix B, . for an acceptable cushion rock specification. For highly expansive soil covering the finish pad grade , living area slabs are not recommended. Where floor coverings are antici- Iv +o � . Project *:o. 404-GF. 15 February 1980 pated , a visqueen-type vapor barrier should be placed on top Of the rock base in order to assist in preventing moisture condensation below the floor covering . The concrete slabs should be structurally independent of the foundations where possible for pier and grade beam foundations . The slab area should not exceed 400 to 600 square feet in surface area without the provision of crack control joints . All slabs should be reinforced with a minimum of wire mesth. It is very important that the subgrade soils be thoroughly wetted prior to placing of concrete slabs . This pre-soaking or wetting o the subgrade soils must be completed at least 48 hours prior to placing of the concrete to allow the soil to expand and adjust to the higher moisture content . Earth Retaining Walls 39 . Should retaining walls be required , they should be de-- sinned to resist lateral pressures exerted from a media havi.nc an equivalent fluid weight as fol.lows : Gradient of Backfill Equivalent Fluid Weight Type of Backfill p.c . f . Flat 30 Sand 2 : 1 50 Sand Flat 50 Clay 2 : 1 70 Clay 40 . The above criteria are based on fully drained conditions and the top of the wall unrestrained . For the fully drained f I'l, 21 Proiect No. 404 -G . 15 February 1980 condtitions , we recommend that all retaining walls have a crushed rock or gravel drain blanket behind the wall , having a minimum width " of 12 inches and extending the full height of the wall to within 12 inches of the surface . A four- -4nch diameter perforated drain pipe should be installed in the bottom of the drain and discharged to a suitable location . The granular crushed rock or gravel material should meet the following gradation: Sieve Size Percentage Passing. 3/4" 100 3/8" 85-100 No. 4 10-80 No. 50 10-30 No. 200 0-2 In those cases where grade beams are used as retaining walls , the above criteria should be used in design of the grade bean. Swimming Pools 41 . Any swimming pools should be located at least ten feet (horizontal projection) from any foundation supporting any structure and twenty feet (horizontal projection) from any fill or cut slope . All pools should be founded upon firm undisturbed soil or properly compacted fill . The pools should be founded on a six-inch blanket of granular material meeting the gradation requirements of Paragraph 40 . This blanket will. act as a drain, therefore, the drain system must be extended Project No . 404-GE 15 February 1980 to an approved discharge point downhill by means of a four-. . inch pipe. Since the exact locations of swimming pools is uncertain at this time , design pressures for pool walls can- not be given. Such design parameters will depend upon exact soil , slope and hydrologic conditions . The Soil Engineer should be consulted for swimming pool design criteria when plans become more definite. Pavement 42 . lifter rough grading on the site is completed prior to construction of the pavement sections , it is recommended that samples of the subgrade soils be obtained and resistance R- Value tests be performed on the samples . After results of these tests have been obtained , the pavement section can be designed based upon the R-Value test results and the antici- pated design traffic index. 43. The top six inches of subgrade, subbase , and base mat- erial should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95% based on the ASTM Test Procedure D1557-70. 3 / DARWIN MYERs ASSocIATES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ® ENGINEERING GEOLOGY August 25, 2000 Michael Laughlin, Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 2nd Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 Subject: Geologic Review Services Contract SD988263, RZ983068 &DP983025 NE Quadrant, Livonia Road/I-680 Interchange Alamo Area, Contra Costa County DMA Project# 3049.00 Dear Michael: In response to our January 28, 1999 letter the project proponent submitted a letter from Bay Soils Inc. (dated August 6, 1985). That letter provides documentation of earthwork performed 4 years earlier(in June 1981), The data submitted included the results of four compaction tests and two moisture-density tests. The data indicate that the fill is a silty clay which may be highly expansive. The compaction tests were taken at 1 and 3 feet below the surface. Two tests were less than 90 percent relative density, and the compaction of fill at depths of greater than 3 feet are not established by Bay Soils Inc. The report offers a lukewarm endorsement of the fill by stating: ...basically.speaking(the existing fill is) adequate for the wood frame (one) or two-story (single family) residential structures. ff larger buildings.such as apartments, light commercial or other such structures are contemplated, a review offoundation conditions in reference to the proposed structure will be required. In summary,the conditions of approval should require a geotechnical report whose scope includes analysis of the existing fill and evaluation of expansive soils, as well as providing specific standards and criteria to guide site grading, drainage and foundation design. If the existing fill is found to be unsuited/marginally suited for support of the proposed structures, it should be over-excavated and properly engineered. We trust this letter provides the evaluation an } ou requested. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, /�� W. DARWIN I MYERS DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES C NO. 946 1 �. CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST�'' • Darwin Myers, CEd94 Principal o 1308 PINE STREET 0 MARTINEZ. CA 94553 ® 925/370-9330 /LL/NGV bORTH&RODK/N,IMC. /111 Acoustics Air Quality 311[ April 5, 1999 Pete Ostrosky Ostrosky Enterprises 17 Sugarloaf Drive Alamo, CA 94507 Subject: Alamo Gardens — Results of the Environmental Noise Analysis Dear Mr. Ostrosky: We have completed our environmental noise analysis for the Alamo Gardens project. Our analysis is based on architectural plans dated 8/09/98 and grading plans revised on 6/26/98, noise measurement data collected in March 1997 and Caltrans Interstate 680 traffic volumes for 1997 (most recent counts available.). On April 3, 1997, we provided recommendations for the prelinunary site design to reduce environmental noise to acceptable levels. Our primary recommendations, which were incorporated into the design, were that (1) buildings be at least 18 feet high, (2) gaps between buildings are designed to prevent substantial traffic noise intrusion and (3) buildings closest to the freeway be aligned as to shield traffic noise from primary outdoor use areas and buildings further away. Fundamentals of Environmental Noise Noise may be defined as unwanted sound and is perceived subjectively by each individual. The objectionable nature of sound could be considered by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the depth of a tone, depending on the frequency, while loudness is the intensity of sound waves. Typical sounds heard in the environment consist of a range of pitches or frequencies at different levels. Human hearing is not sensitive to sounds at all frequencies; therefore a frequency adjustment (called A-weighting) has been devised so that sound may be measured in a manner similar to the way the human hearing system responds. Sound pressure magnitude is measured and quantified in terms of a logarithmic scale called the decibel (dB), where 0 dB is the lowest sound level that the healthiest human ear can detect. An increase of 10 dB represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy and a 20 dB increase represents a sound that is 100 times more intense. Environmental sounds are usually evaluated as A-weighted sounds and expressed as dBA. Research on human sensitivity to noise indicates that a 3 dBA increase in the sound level is just detectable, while a 10 dBA increase is perceived being twice as loud. Definitions of terms commonly used to describe environmental noise are presented in Table 1. The day/night noise N ... .. . RM DE Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound,equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals(20 micronewtons per square meter). Frequency, I-z The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. A-Weighted Sound The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter Level, dBA using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de- emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this r ort are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise. 1-01, L10, L50, 1-90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%,and 90% of the time during the measurement period. Equivalent Noise Level, The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. L Community Noise The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after Equivalent Level, CNEL addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 prn and 7:00 am. Day/Night Noise Level, The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after Ld„ addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. Li. The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. Definitions Of Acoustical Terms Table 1 ILLINGWORM& RODKIN, INC/Acousncat Engineers i Pete Ostrosky April 5, 1999, Page 3 level or Ldn is the noise level descriptor commonly used by communities to evaluate environmental noise. It is the average A-weighted noise level (expressed as dBA) during a 24- hour day, obtained after addition of 10 dBA to noise levels measured at night between.10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Introduction The Alamo Gardens is a 5-building residential duet project located adjacent to Livorna Road and the Livorna Road - Interstate 680 northbound on-ramp in Alamo, California. The project would have 10 residential units. Noise from.Interstate 680 (1680) traffic affects the site. The project is located in an unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County. Noise requirements for new multi- family residential construction are subject to the policies and standards of the Noise Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan and Title 24 of the State Administrative Code. Regulatory Noise Environment The project would be considered a multi-family residential land use under the Noise Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan. New projects are required to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards as established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (Policy I 1-1). Under these guidelines, multi-family residential land uses are considered Normally Acceptable for noise levels up to 65 dBA Ldn (or CNEL), Conditionally Acceptable for noise levels of 60 to 70 dBA Ldn, Normally Unacceptable for noise levels of 70 to 75 dBA Ldn, and Clearly Unacceptable for noise levels in excess of 75 dBA Ldn. State of California Title 24 requires that interior noise levels in new multi-family residential units not exceed 45 dBA Ldn. Existing Noise Environment A 24-hour noise measurement was made at the western portion of the site on March 20-21, 1997. The measured Ldn noise level was 71 dBA, due to 1-680 traffic noise. Simultaneous short-term noise measurements made at the site indicate that noise levels across the site range from 71 dBA Ldn at the western portion closest to I-680 to 69 dBA Ldn at the center of the site, and 68 dBA Ldn at the eastern portion of the site. At the western portion of the site, hourly noise levels ranged from 60 dBA during the late night and early morning, to 68 dBA during the early morning rush hour and 66 dBA during midday hours. Under the Noise Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan, the project is considered to be Conditionally Acceptable to Normally Unacceptable with respect to the noise environment. Under the noise and land use compatibility guidelines, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features must be included in the project. Project Noise Analysis Pete Ostrosky April 5, 1999, Page 4 The project design includes 10 residential units constructed as 5 duet buildings that form a circular orientation. Each duet building is connected by a solid fence that is at least 17 feet high. This provides shielding of traffic noise to the patios and courtyard area. The building pattern opens to the north. The primary outdoor use area would be the patios and courtyard area within the circular pattern of the building layout. Traffic noise modeling was conducted to predict the future noise environment with the project in place. The Traffic Noise Model (TNM) developed by the Federal Highway Administration was used to predict the effectiveness of the buildings and fences to reduce noise levels within primary outdoor use areas. The combined buildings and fences were considered to form a 18-foot high noise barrier. Average annual daily traffic counts for 1997 were used in the model. This data included truck traffic percentages. A travel speed of 65 miles per hour (mph) for automobiles and light-duty trucks and a speed of 55 mph for trucks were used as input to the model. Predicted Exterior Noise Levels With the project in place, the future Ldn noise levels would range from about 58 to 61 dBA Ldn at patio areas outside of the residential units. Noise levels at the outside area between Unit 1 and 10 north of the inner circle (possible putting green area) would range from about 60 to 65 dBA Ldn. These noise levels would be considered Normally Acceptable under the county's noise and land use compatibility guidelines. This analysis is contingent on the inclusion of solid fences (with a height of at least 17 feet) that join units 9 and 8, units 7 and 6, and units 5 and 4. Interior Noise Levels Noise levels at building facades of Units 5 through 10, which face towards 1-680, would be exposed to noise levels of 71 to 72 dBA Ldn and Units 1 through 4 would be exposed to noise levels of 65 to 68 dBA Ldn. Noise reduction features would be needed to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn. This is a requirement of State law. An analysis of the noise reduction features necessary to meet the interior noise standard is usually conducted during final design; and therefore, was not conducted as part of this analysis. At a minimum, forced air mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning) would be needed for all units so that future occupants would have the option to shut windows to control environmental noise. Sound-rated windows may be needed for units that directly face I-680. Pete Ostrosky April 5, 1999, Page 5 This concludes our environmental noise analysis of the Alamo Gardens project. If you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact us at (415) 459-5507. I 70L) Si ely4Re ) James Project Scientist Illingworth &Rodkin, Inc. COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LAND USE CATEGORY L6,OR CNEL,d8 ss sa as m Ts so RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY,DUPLEX, MOBILE HOMES BEE RESIDENTIAL-MULTI FAMILY s: :�.... 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 OFFICE BUILDINGS,BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL,MANUFACTURING, UTILITIES,AGRICULTURE NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE Specified land use is moslactory,based upon to Mew construction of dsveloPrnem 81+otAd assumption that any bur<dings involved are of normal generally be dsoouroged.K new oortct waw or conventional construction,without any special noise development does proceed,a detailed analysis inwlabom requirements. of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features ® included in ttw design. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE mm New construction or developm om should be CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE wx*Uken cr+M after a detailed anstyso,of the noise New oonstruction or davebpment clearly should eduction requirements is nude and needed nose rot be vw*naken. inswaaat lsatures inducted in the desKn. For lands within 3 miles of Buchanan Feld and the East Contra Costa County Airports noise Compatibility shall be adjusted to those of the ALUC which are Toughy S CNEL lower than shown on this table. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS FIGURE I ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC./Acoustics • Ail Quality N C� a.. :-� ��. � tea► � � • `•.!r 4,x.1 � Y � arc �F -�1'7 .q INCe UNI Acoustics Air Quality. 11111 April 3, 1997 Stephen E. Harriman, A.I.A. 47 Quail Court, Suite 309 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Subject: Alamo Senior Village -- Results of a Preliminary Noise Assessment Dear Mr. Harriman: We have completed a preliminary noise assessment for the proposed senior residential project near Livorna Road and Interstate 680. Our assessment included a 24-hour noise measurement and traffic noise modeling. Noise levels at the proposed site are about 71 dBA Ld„ which is considered normally unacceptable under the Noise Element of the.Contra Costa County General Plan. However, with mitigation measures and proper site design the project could provide outdoor use areas that meet the intent of the County's noise policies. The project should have outdoor use areas where noise levels are 65 dBA Ld, or lower. This could be accomplished at this site without constructing sound walls along Interstate 680. A 24-hour noise measurement was made at the project site.- The day/night noise level was 71 dBA, as a result of traffic on Interstate 680. Traffic on the northbound on ramp and Livoma Road also contribute noise at the project site. Typical daytime noise levels at the project site range from 66 to 68 dBA. At nighttime, the noise levels are about 60 to 63 dBA. Interstate 680 traffic noise is difficult to mitigate since the roadway is elevated about 15 feet above the site. The Noise Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan contains noise and land use compatibility standards (Figure 1). There is some ambiguity in these standards in that "normally acceptable" noise levels are considered to be 65 dBA Ld or lower and "conditionally acceptable" noise levels are considered to be above 60 dBA Lam,. We believe that the county would accept multi-family residential projects with noise levels up to 65 dBA L,,, at outdoor use areas. We performed traffic noise modeling to evaluate noise levels at outdoor use areas with the project built. We found that the residential buildings could be effective noise barriers, provided that: (1) the buildings closest to Interstate 680 are at least 18 feet high (units 6 through 10); (2) gaps between building structures are designed so that noise cannot come through (these are the gaps between units 6 and 7, between units 8 and 9, and between unit 10 and the creek); and (3) the site plan is changed so that buildings closest to the freeway (units 7 through 10) are realigned to reduce noise at the buildings further away (units 1 Mr. Stephen Harriman April 3, 1997 Page 2 through 4). Units 1 through 4 are the most difficult to provide a compatible noise environment. It may be necessary to build a short sound wall or fence along Livorna Road. Our preliminary recommendations are shown on Figure 2. With the proper building layout aided with small sound walls, a noise environment of 60 to 65 dBA Ld. could be provided in the patios of the individual units. A common area between the units Cin the horseshoe area) could be provided with a noise level of 60 to 65 dBA Lda or slightly lower. Noise levels at portions of the swimming pool area could be reduced to about 60 to 65 dBA L,. using a sound wall. It would be difficult to reduce noise levels below 65 dBA L4 at the tennis courts, even with a sound wall. Recommendations to provide compatible outdoor noise environments would need to be evaluated in much greater detail when a more detailed site plan, which takes into account these preliminary recommendations, is developed. The housing units would require special acoustical treatments to provide a compatible interior noise environment. A noise study detailing how the multi-family residential dwellings would meet the interior noise standard would be required under the Uniform Building Code. The County will require a detailed acoustical analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed.noise insulation features that would be included in the project design. This completes our preliminary assessment for the subject project. If we can answer any questions you may have, or if we can be of any further service, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, James A. Project Scientist JAR:gfl Attachments (97-019) y 1 s . R. =ate 04 a 4 F s Pg M1,Y s' b L r6. 1 1 z � ti: { yam. _ � rte. �w $q.}��r7tiH yv Mei F ^"JhM1 4 _ -j � . % yV?_�'-�.`�SY"'�s•�i 44cMny��.-may- rt sdpkt �1� itF'} 4 a K�Y,t 5yi 1 f _ meq- ^ r 'a -ry-• yam F� ate'-x+�-..�.,::s• :'.:f*"' Y c - ySi{ n .r 7St l t d i ,.�t`.r2,ji r`.'-'"k z+ 'A V.I,',oz ,�„ira._.�j` 4j : r�F,## 3•„ie.'i' � -5- �. :MS "2Y ,�, �giy-t' -•. X"i✓4ps8.�"''ti4 x. 8." 'V 's':yb .:Y l t f �3 �Jq, - "'" Al �"�'i + � tat 4'c* �,4.`"isf• �� a� ,✓��"" r -'�' iv. `-+.. 'i�rkk��yF.`�.�vr�s•,.= "� is }}�sr fk",vS't'��' D_ `�s.r\2F�.�trf '��bti;YiK n!^f g``%�AE`�$.� �4�a;♦ �F. C` 2z - <�t'i 1} I � F i •�{��,J,, �rMyb ti'y f+Tyy�,,�y.gi �� j�: �..lf!' _� { "4µ„4t � 'j` {'!`[. .. Y4•.i -..f V(.3..h y 'ly 4,}`'°4 Alm �4iAlt . ,� � �•4Y� � 4 'K � .3k d� xs ?, y�"d '4.Y�, ^Ca;tt��.-�#� '' �.t`�4 :�'i�,._ 'f}e..� - q'! •.{�'. t" v_ � R 1 .F l a-� ,J�' ry�`r "+t�T�t�na S� �:r. �: _ � F� ar•+ a#s � �; T .��Y� � �'�L s+.� r �14�' :�` -� tea.-� •o-.°:;�i��s'°'S" rp�,� } 7 ",?R5"y�`d'. �G `� �..w '�� hr'�ir3l.JTL •tri ", rsi r,K�a.v,'. 'x �'4 �`+'�'iy�v�t.4Ys�' i"Y.'�� 1'�.t�.�[�} d 3 '8 � t t�` �_3'� d t� ,a,1F��S• - Ty C;J. 4 1 r• li�'s'G!. �""giv t 'S TZ Zvi .:�-y,.'F_sT+ �` a"• t� s„4 �Y�"4T"...-h��rf,a�i"f, P S"t Z r� 'k k y.} .`�� • � at��"Ya' �...,. ra I F�fi�c y 41 �'�."`a,`.s" : �i °`CS r. � •y '�'kA*� .,,,ts- -��+G� ,i '< f•. t� Z�z i.,T XF `27 wr'm AM { 4 f ba> PLANT HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS 327 Nancy Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-2824 Office:(925) 825-8793 FAX(925) 825-8795 % E-mail to: PHDAbeyta@juno.com May 24, 1999 Mr. Eric Hasseltine Hasseltine Consulting Old Tunnel koad Lafayette, CA 94549 Re: Alamo Gardens Tree Inventory Summary There are three different types of tree issues at this site. First, the trees that are in danger of falling or breaking. Second, trees at the edge of the construction areas that can be protected and retained. Third, young trees that should be protected and enhanced. This project can be an asset to the creek trees, wildlife and community with good design and management. Site review A creek winds through the north side of the primary parcel (lots 1 - 10) and lot 13. Native valley oak trees (Quercus lobata) stand along both sides of the creek banks. Previous work along the creek includes installation of a culvert and sacked rip rap on the west end of the creek. A storm drain was installed at the east end of the creek starting at Sugarloaf Drive and ends at the east end of parcel number 13 where the creek continues. Near freeway: The trees closest to the freeway(#1 - #3)' are dead or in advanced stages of decline. Two trees in this area have failed from the roots; one failed fairly recently. West creek near culvert: The trees at the west end of the proposed scenic easement (#4 - #I 2)are also showing symptoms of advanced stages of decline. Several of the trees are dead. The decline symptoms range from twig death to death of large branches six inches in diameter or greater. Most of the trees on the southwest bank are damaged by wires placed years ago that have girdled the tree trunks and accelerated the decline in health. The base of the trunks appear be perpendicular to the surrounding soil and no buttress roots or root flair are exposed. Debris and weed growth are abundant o n this site. The trees have received no care or management although they have been adversely impacted by previous construction. Midcreek/proposed scenic easement: The oak trees near the middle and east end of the scenic easement (#14 - #16) are in better condition. There is also a small stand of valley oak tree saplings in good condition near the middle of the easement. Lot 13: The trees(group #17) at the east end of this lot appear to be in fair condition in structure and in health. All of the valley oak trees have been moderately damaged by oak moth larvae this year. ��c Hasseltine Consulting: Tree inventory for Alamo Gardens Page 2 of 3 Construction impacts 4 previous construction Changes in the grades around the trees for the construction of freeway, roads and uphill homes changed the drainage patterns and appear to have deposited fill soil around the base of these trees and left the soil moisture at a higher level than normal during the summer months. O proposed construction The primary impact from the proposed construction is the potential for soil moisture during the summer months to increase significantly or for additional fill soil to be deposited around the base of the trees. Both of these potential impacts can be avoided with proper planning and design. Condition of the trees Potential tree failures: The breakage or failure of trees from roots has occurred to the trees along the west end of the creek several times in the past. Branch breakage or failure of large branches is also evident. The cause of the root and branch failures is primarily the result of the previous construction impacts that were never mitigated. The remaining trees along this west end of the creek that are in advanced stages of decline now have a very high potential for failure. Unfortunately, the decline can not now be reversed or arrested. The trees in advanced stages of decline will continue to decline and die and fail. Effects on new development: At present the failure of the trees on this creek is of little or no consequence to pedestrian or vehicle traffic. The area under and surrounding these trees is seldom frequented. The introduction of homes and a roadway brings both foot traffic and vehicle traffic within this potentially dangerous area. Recommendations Declinuic trees (41 - 412): If the proposed development is to go forward the dangerously declining trees should be made safe by removing them or by severely pruning them where possible to leave the already established wildlife habitat. Prior to deciding which trees should be removed I suggest the following: 1. The soil engineer should determine the depth of excavation required to stabilize the soil for roadway construction. The engineer also must determine the proximity of the key way to the trunk of each tree. 2. The structural roots of the living trees should be exposed and tested to determine structural integrity of the root system and ability to withstand grading and soil stabilization. This process of root collar excavation is explained on an attachment accompanying this report. With the information from above the arborist can determine with better accuracy which trees should be removed and which can be pruned to improve safety. Plant Health Diagnostics May 24, 1999 Hasseltine Consulting: Tree inventory for Alamo Gardens Page 3 of 3 Trees with potential to retain (#14 - 17): Once the details of the grading plans are available it will be possible to set up tree protection zones, construction monitoring schedules and tree management during construction. The following minimum requirement are presented: 1. Clean weeds and debris from the base of all of the trees to be retained. 2. Place a six inches deep layer of coarse wood chip mulch under each tree from six inches away from the trunk to six feet outside the drip line (extent of the spread of the branches) wherever possible. 3. Silt fence should be place at the top of bank (where possible) to protect the trees and creek from soil moved by construction equipment. 4. Tree protection fencing should be six foot high construction grade chain link placed with metal poles driven into the ground. 5. Placement of the fencing should be determined by the consulting arborist and located by the engineer on the construction grading plans. Young trees (413): This group of saplings is an asset to the creek and surrounding area. It is recommended that this group of young trees be retained by use of the following methods: 1. Clean weeds and debris from the base of all of the trees to be retained. 2. Remove undesirable trees (mostly wild plum saplings). 3. Place a six inches deep layer of coarse wood chip mulch throughout the area surrounding these trees. 4. Silt fence should be place at the top of bank (where possible) to protect the trees and creek from soil moved by construction equipment. 5. Tree protection fencing should be six foot high construction grade chain link placed with metal poles driven into the ground. 6. Placement of the fencing should be determined by the consulting arborist and located by t ineer on the construction grading plans. i �1Doroth Ab ta, M.S. Plgnt Pa olo ' Registered Consulting Arborist 9303 American Society of Consulting Arborists 1. Tree numbers refer to the tree location on the attached tree inventory map and numbers in the inventory spreadsheet. Plant Health Diagnostics May 24, 1999 r C C 4„ C O m m C v v o l/1 n, a (D :o N E .N + aa) a��i co C U C L m C C N Nvi N L c rn O 2) o m Cd cCLami a) v �o mm O � c 3 c c a) E c m E ° E c E a) 0 m m cc > L OO U U U a) a)c C pp (ca N 8 m 8 L L F- d F- p J p . !n -jL w O y N O d) (D O 'a ,O CL C �p O U O ''p '-0 O to w (D Et E E E a) v a� m a) w cu (n '0 C N '2 C N N C L w- ( m -E p m - �s •- w C p (Na a) C ffl a) 3 S a) L m E L N 0 -0 E L E E aci C O m O O O o r m a a) a) O` w CL w .L w CL C cu C m CL O L m O L m m (p L C a) a) a) a) _ N c U L (a m m �N U L L L L o � O m (n - m (n m m C Cc O m a) O > _ CCcc(n O m m m m m Q C LOO) O N N N mO C w ~ d a) v) C N 7 7 3C O wU'p O m Q) m m m p > cs)C N w v V5 v � aC a) aUN 0 -0 2O O O O O O 0 F- L I- CU 5 T`o C') U0I;IpUO3 -�T -0 ch •O co N 'a N to '0 t- m to m m m £ a) a) 0 N N �� 'a 'D '0 "acu L C N N N Cf)L '1- 00 00 00 00 00 O W N LO 00 00 E (O O C N O Z�a;awe!P�IU�l N M - co M N p Y L � U Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y c O m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m y c 4--J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O --�� [ OUJeN UOW WOE r � - l4 ld m m (d /a Sd td (C f0 m lC m Ld m N ca f9 Co c [ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Y •�°- ' _ c (� c� v (n m r� m rn O N c� v m m ti a 2 U (U Z v —04 CO L .f vo,,yy • i...5ea L, ,y. ZVI ,;, �•..� .,,` SNS � i�r �..,�;,;;: '..(^ cn !/ ��• to.. �r , � ' .'4S� 'per �•� � wry' )li!jl f r ol t Ca d w. CIA co t4 k! / o tD :• o m U 4r_;\ o F 4 G pNV(D' M 'a) co d Q Q� _�.� DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ■ ENGINEERING GEOLOGY August 25, 2000 Michael Laughlin, Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 2°d Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Geologic Review Services Contract S13988263, RZ983068 & DP983025 NE Quadrant,Livorna Road/1-680 Interchange Alamo Area, Contra Costa County DMA Project#3049.00 Dear Michael: In response to our January 28, 1999 letter the project proponent submitted a letter from Bay Soils Inc. (dated August 6, 1985). That letter provides documentation of earthwork performed 4 years earlier(in June 1981), The data submitted included the results of four compaction tests and two moisture-density tests. The data indicate that the fill is a silty clay which may be highly expansive. The compaction tests were taken at 1 and 3 feet below the surface. Two tests were less than 90 percent relative density, and the compaction of fill at depths of greater than 3 feet are not established by Bay Soils Inc. The report offers a lukewarm endorsement of the fill by stating: ...basically speaking(the existing fill is) adequate for the wood frame (one) or ttivo-story (single famil}) residential structures. If larger buildings such as apartments, light commercial or other.such.structures are contemplated a review of foundation conditions in reference to the proposed structure will be required. In summary,the conditions of approval should require a geotechnical report whose scope includes analysis of the existing fill and evaluation of expansive soils, as well as providing specific standards and criteria to guide site grading, drainage and foundation design. If the existing fill is found to be unsuited/marginally suited for support of the proposed structures, it should be over-excavated and properly engineered. We trust this letter provides the evaluation and coi requested. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, �C? W. DARWIN DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES MYERS NO. CERTIFIED ENGINEERING Darwin Myers, CEG 46 N� GEOLOGIST Principal �F 30491tr.wpd �F C 1308 PINE STREET ■ MARTINEZ, CA 94553 ■ 925/370-9330 7. ;754! 7 x4z`y MOPE 1558 'y 57 49 1.5 5945 31 q`+46, I 27 1560 0O P561S ' 5" •1 PVPG�pU 9 41 2Nm 4 �/c �.�is d Ory C7 A 23 4iy1 ZP � 19 z10z Siiz /. 90 �ES 6q�tl63 ' 44.i�� iSS, zeia 25 - 3,�8 I � I SUB' 24•ro °j .4 p S j0i I• 4%3 x]%x <e 6y,7 79 79 i »I . 2 J� '�: 131 4 .'9 �.x2 IS •''�° n-�� 4q.x rJSP °-r rJsx t:3t- ^ II 5 61114 / < / 4 _fir II �1 �• lq 95 q7 r eS° 77�� tl0 - e ..•' 10 /'-,S j Y]i 3 • %Se] •4 5 ~.. 69 76 - _ / 4J i] .7_ BZI'S4 eJc1 ,•4.54 37 -- 71 20 r9 2...M..... a _ a �'S9 't•j elV PrV,,.. a E:y, _ ' ��v� ]9 YSq•,51333 Pp ��a QreS '6 * z>t, O° 6 Jze 9 10 I G,55 lT a 12 p•�70~ 9 I69 + rr 71.°..x.65 IS ez li 13 ! '•i ve i'9 00 0 :B5h. ,�� 5g 66 gIOp55 4 14; id44 IV o tlA„5 ry 5•c °� 1,466•t I (II\ [• I63z NOP.^r 1 "a 9 . 50r•°i . 4.% )5b SUB B 9� 43 x O 5°5 �tlBB 5'P 6e 7��r_.:r % 1 3.5 6% • a C7 STgi t< r 91 °e7 EG r 17 s 'IB mai (tON 42 7 a r A0P 3 h�S) ]51 f5\ 40e4 _ •�! ....1 9 �j1 r•Sz 7e rs z>er C 445 x5 59x1 14 61 62 zer 9 Sec ��0 2�en 6h40 44U'1 a 69= � 40;;;. 503 21 41 1515 -4 451 35 Se 62 NS> zaee 63 r'' e - �..�o Iq I Y=J•: 57 x5 4 .,! .,> 101 b°102 tS� . I`�r✓; ^°'1_,3®` 25� 2el e\.� ��r S y �e I 331 37 55 3.0pv APpq q�e5O3 73 rnJ 4�/k. LARIAT r6a -o 5�+ T>sr rJ>♦ yy C�a�9 °.\'<B 64 iC O re, 9se l rz CU 2 ° D OSP °5•M1 35 h''9 5 P 36 54 ,} rs0 •]0 e'39 J 10 110O 26y 27 m o 13 fm a 50 'vr 100 7 rsrJ rJd. ° LN 39 G 47> 65 IOSJ J Sol ° J° v♦�32 ry�<4,y e1111 SAMANTHA CT 4 3( 1 2e'0 CUT11N 33 �, r - a Ps:3 t40 4N 52�. �',•r G6 eS 106 5 1 \''e h ,1'•,4 r pT err � O: �°. 112 zID 7,, �•• h r`'v 311, z.,r32 =4 �/ 0 29 Y5 9..[ eSaEe2' .+4445•a r� 97 7 J z611r3 r reJ wtZ, 6 6�)29 10 30 e;, 10e 53s5 Ila �� errr � 26 427 PN p X69 96 r fsY rase i zr0 tJi rs s . 'A .2526 71 73 74� 9555]5] IIS _I� t,r r >26 40y39.^„^,3p ZONE CPcl24 P __ ___ 75'e y ' ° 7c� 411 X75 CINNAMON } 23F,GPP °�9 4,0,3 P9'0� �C 764 r°3 r•°e / zsn z9r' _z92 'i'n Ceiq 502 1 22 Q4� 9a Ej4 S 8 e B2 T 4]'•77 92 J trir z.S CJ ri.° 1q3` P 17J II 7 e3�r:. 91 91 117 95, Q .,.55x) DN 4e�`1 gel• 1>a ..79 7> 1s S/' r, 21 IG nPv 1L ^°1 YeiS 1'" rr ?Ie — z r z> 6 PYI/I JT_�Rr��,l 20 5 ab 3 eT, 79 90 Sr 6p5 3973 3 'el9n 1<a a eS1 £Pe St,•_ T ^�69 •rll9 r _1.3 53/ '46 I> • , f' 9j PP\P ,e l2l - �r' °rq/ 5 �•2 7 11 I4 z f =� r0 a ,r tr, r rJ zeJ 5. A ISI r 124s� C S I SOJ O �AMO SUBA99123 122 1 i 1246 x:125 3J S7(.'i5 1 or Z ' >e17°, v60 59a 39 t'f. 32,1 �' 120 '— W � [-\ Sr — 1 a, Imoz92S �a SCHOOL a V IELVET, p} TROT,ER 12 J re ° e9e1 \C7ma 16o?,Iu g20'',i! ',,,f'2'•1:.23\4IM1. 5 n IYI w 130 - IIVORNA { • • \ ®..®..0o.s IB nl 501+ m �4Z- .•�•• U;N;1i .I 1 130 / .> to 2 R64 8 RP 25 wo 166 i 1 sr _P \. ,5 I \\�\.pa 1 r,rFR x40, $� 7 S\•� �\/\\ I ,_ 500�: 1 9 ' 9 J ,1 44° e s0 j7 I i>ro T Is° \\ \ \\ a01 8-70 S _r---__ \\\\\ LAURENlTA \\\�\\\ 4p i i-- ---hy y ZONE :br \ � ZONE B VERA P \\\\ sue 77:.. IISADA. 499 . \ So2T>„ r% 41 o�' I Z:NE... 9\ \ \ \ \\\ 4T L 1p�sue asp '•io. _ \��o�� ,`\ °\ _ /- - � .OC'N5:-•$?' .x .; y may+. 3-70 E \\ C1 \\\ 6\ 9-68 D 2-69 C ZONE 4 4-66 A p 7 / 1 OI YE B :�;.9= +c.1r 097 498 M'' ..'1.�o�s,"Y�t4"'...'Y G.aS .�x'1Y'• \ \\ ',t r / 1 - 1�}N•�i y 34 HASSELTINE CONSULTING Government Relations ' Planning and 3182 Old Tunnel Road Suite E Development �;, Lafayette,CA 94549 `�: 2 1 (925)938-7870 (925)938-8045 FAX November 2, 2000 Mr. Michael P. Laughlin Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North Wing-2"d Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: SD988263, DP983025 Dear Michael: We have reviewed your Evaluation of Environmental Impacts for the referenced project. In particular, we have reviewed the Mitigation Monitoring program. We are in agreement with your findings and the components of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, with the stipulation that the measure to maintain buildings within the Duet area at a one-story height is meant to validate the designs as submitted, which are one story, but do contain a loft area. Since the elevations of the proposed units were included in your review document, we interpret this mitigation measure to allow this design, but to prohibit anything of greater height, and we agree to this measure on that basis. Sincerely yours, Eric Hasseltine 6F•�L'• STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Gra),DavisSteve Nissen _.. ACTING UIRLCTIh ERNORGOA October 31, 2000 '•lichael Lau1:1hlin Contra Costa.Conununity Colle-e District 651 Pine Street,North\Nina 2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94507 Subject: SD9882163,RZ983068,DP983025 Alamo Gardens SCI-19: 2000102010 Dear Michael Laughlin: The State C]earinghoLlse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state aeencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on October 31, 2000,and the comments . from the responding agency(ies) is(are)enclosed. If this comment package is not in order,please notify' the State Clearinghouse irrtruediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Nuase note thai Section 21104(c) of the California Public ReSOUrces Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. "Those conunents shall be supported by specific documentation." These conunents are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. I lli� leiter acLnowledues thai you leave complied with the St_'!e Clearinghouse revicv.,requirements for dlai environmeattal documents,ptu scant to the.California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environrnental review process. Sincerely, Terry Roberts tienior Planner, State Clearinghouse i-nclosures :'c: Resources Ai-,encu s 1400 TLNTH STREET P.O. BOX 3041 SACRAMENTO, CA1.11-ORNIA 958T2-3044 q16-445-0613 PAX 916-323-3014 NN-V c.OPR.CA.G0V CLEARING1O SE.HTML Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2000102010 Project Title SD988263, RZ983068, DP983025 Alamo Gardens Lead Agency Contra Costa County Community Development : Type Neg Negative Declaration Description The applicant requests approval of a tentative map and development plan to divide a total area of 5.31 acres into 3 single family residential lots and creation of a 10 unit, single story senior townhouse project(divided into a series of five"duet'units). All of the properties are currently vacant. The subject site is located at the intersection of Interstate 680, Livorna Road and Sugarloaf Drive in the Alamo Area. (R-20)(ZA:Q-15)(CT: 3461.01)(Parcel#'s 187-171-048, 049,050, 053, 054). Lead Agency Contact Name Michael Laughlin Agency Contra Costa County Development Department Phone 925-335-1204 Fax email Address 651 Pine Street, North Wing 2nd Floor City Martinez State CA Zip 94507 Project Location County Contra Costa City Alamo Region Cross Streets Livorna Road/Sugarloaf Drive Parcel No. 187-171-048,049,050,053,054 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 1-680 Airports Railways Waterways San Ramon Creek Schools Elementary& Middle Schools Land Use The site is vacant,the zoning is single family residential R-20, and the general plan is for low density residential (SC). Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual;Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Recreation/Parks Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Department of Housing and Community Development; Department of Health Services; Regional Water Quality Control Bd.,Region 5(Sacramento); Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission Date Received 10/02/2000 Start of Review 10/02/2000 End of Review 10/31/2000 TATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS.TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS.Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P O BOX 23660 OAKLAND,CA 94623-0660 Tel:(51 0)286-4444 Fax:(510)286-5513 `��(�Z- f TDD(510)286.4454 �+t 1 ` 13 October 19, 2000 CC-680-11.28 2000102010 CC680436 Mr. Michael Laughlin,Project Planner Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,North Wing,2" Floor Martinez, CA 94533 Dear Mr. Laughlin: ALAMO GARDENS—SD988263, RZ983068,DP983025 -Negative Declaration Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. We have examined this Negative Declaration and have the following comments to offer. Please note that any work or traffic control proposed within the State right-of-way (ROW) will need an encroachment permit. To apply for an encroachment permit, the applicant will need to submit a completed application form, final environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans (in metric touts) which also show State ROW, to the following address: Office of Permits Caltrans,District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Stephanie Bertollo of my staff at (510) 622-1643. Sincerely, HARRY Y. YAHATA District Director Y ) JEAN C. R. FINNEY District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA cc: Ms. Katie Shulte (State Clearinghouse) ALAMO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE fiii y... County Service Area R7-A June 27, 2000 Bob Drake Community Development 651 Pine St. Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Sir: Re: Development of property on the north side of Livorna Road and east of I-680 Among the interests . of Alamo Parks and Recreation is installation of sidewalks. These are particularly important in school areas but also useful for those res- idents who enjoy walking in their neighborhoods. Beyond that there' s the R7-A long-term plan for a circumferential trail which will begin on Livorna Road just north of the freeway, proceed east to Miranda Avenue and south to Stone Valley Road. From Stone Valley Road a creek trail is planned which will take hikers back to Livorna Road. With respect to Livorna Road it is not possible to run a sidewalk on the south side of Livorna east of the freeway - the north side is, however, already graded and suitable for paving. It is requested that in the planning for the proposed subdivision on the north side of Livorna a paved sidewalk be a part. Sincerely Andrew H. Youn9, Sta 938-9450 FAX 938-940 cc John Osher, Chair David M. Edmonds, CCC Public Works AIA Planning Committee s POST OFFICE BOX 1062 PH: 938-9450 ALAMO, CALIFORNIA 94507-9998 ' CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRI T 5019 IMHOFF PLACE, MARTINEZ, CA 94553 Voice: (925) 229-7255 Fax: (925) 228-4624 E-Mail: rileavitt@centralsan.dst.ca. s DATE: November 28, 2000 SENT TO: Michael Laughlin ADDRESS: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor - North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 PHONE NO.: (925) 335-1204 FAX NO.: (925) 335-1222 ��nn SENT BY: Russell B. Leavitt, AICP, Management Analyst SUBJECT: SD 988263, RZ 983068, DP 983025; 10 Residential "Duet" Units Northwest Corner of Livorna Road And Sugarloaf Drive, Alamo; Jo X3542; APNs: 187-171-048, 049, 053, 054, 060; WS 29; Map No. 77E1 The above-referenced project has been reviewed by this office. ° 1. SEWER SERVICE AVAILABILITY AND GENERAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The project site is within the CCCSD boundaries, and sewer service has be n planned for this area. To ensure timely sewer service, the developer needs 'o contact the District's Plan Review Section at (925) 229-7371 prior to applying for a grading permit or working on the existing public sewer system. The plans submitted for District review indicate that the proposed project w II be served by gravity, which is consistent with the District's policy requiri g gravity sewers in preference to pumped systems. The plans also indicate that the project is in compliance with the Districts policy that public sewers be located in streets rather than in off-street locatior s to the extent possible. Each parcel (residential or commercial lot, townhou e unit, condominium building, or apartment complex, as appropriate) shalt te served by an 8-inch public sewer, as a minimum. The plans indicate that the project includes private streets. A 10-foot exclusive ' public sewer easement must be established over the alignment of each pubic sewer in a private street location to provide access for future maintenance. 1 2. SOURCE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS The District has reviewed this project for source control requirements. Ba e wastewater flow from this project appears to be domestic wastewater such as from residential, office, or church sources. Specific source control requirements are normally not applicable to domestic wastewater. However, materials such as gasoline, oil, sand, paint, pesticide residues, or other tox c substances are prohibited from being introduced into the District's sewer system. 3. SEWER CAPACITY The District has completed a limited analysis for the sewer system downstrearn of the proposed project. This analysis consisted of a review of District records for capacity deficiencies and a determination that the proposed project will generate less wastewater than our "trigger" for further analysis. The existing main sewer is adequate for the additional wastewater which will be generat id by this project, but District facilities farther downstream do not have adequa e flow carrying capacity under the District's current design criteria for ultimaIe 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 applicab e District fees and charges. The developer will be required to pay these fees a d 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. T e side sewer begins at the point of connection to the building plumbing systern 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 oft e side sewer, and the property owner be responsible for operation Ord maintenance of the side sewer. District review of the design and inspecti n of the work on the side sewer shall in no way constitute our acceptance of a 'y responsibility for maintenance or damage to property due to construction a d subsequent operation and maintenance of the side sewer. The design intent of the typical side sewer details included in the Districts current Standard Specification document is to reduce the amount of rainf�ll and groundwater that will infiltrate the sewer, thereby avoiding unnecessa y pumping and treatment costs. The typical side sewer details are not intend d 2 to meet the geotechnical, structural, or drainage requirements of special situations. 5. HILLSIDE AND CREEK AREA SEWER POLICY The District has a Hillside and Creek Area Sewer Policy which addresses Oe design and installation of sewers in hillsides. or unstable areas. T e requirements of this policy must be followed when construction plans a e prepared. For your convenience, a copy of the policy is enclosed. 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 District's Permit Section will receive and process the construction plans. Also, contact the District's Permit Section regarding fees applicable to this project. RBL Enclosure c: Isakson & Associates Inc. 2255 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite C Walnut Creek, CA 94598 K. Darner, CCCSD 3 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT •• HILLSIDE AND CREEK AREA SEWER POLICY PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED FOR , DESIGNING SEWERS TO BE LOCATED IN HILLSIDE AND CREEK AREAS 1 . Soils reports will be required where: a. Slopes of hills where sewers are proposed for installation exceed 15 percent. b. Sewers are proposed for installation within 50 feet of creek beds. c. Sewers are proposed for installation within the range of influence of a possible landslide from adjacent hill. d. Sewers are proposed for installation in historical slide locations. 2. A soils report covering the proposed project must be prepared by a registered civil engineer practicing in Geotechnical Engineering and be submitted by the job engineer: 3. If the project geotechnical report does not cover an off-road sewer alignment, the Distri t may require a supplementary report. This report, at a minimum, must address the following: a. Supplementary geological setting, general soils and bedrock conditions along t e. proposed sewer alignment and recommended setbacks from slides and creeks. b. Stability or instability of selected sewer alignment. c. Potential groundwater problems. d. Effect of trenching on slope stability (negative impacts on slope). e. Special backfill, special trenching requirements, or special supports that may 6e recommended. f. Erosion potential of soils around sewer near waterways. g. Recommended corrections if an instability exists or may develop. 4. Installation of sewers in unrepaired slide areas is to be avoided. a. If an acceptable gravity route is feasible around the unrepaired slide, the sewer mu5t be installed around the slide. b. If the only feasible gravity route is through a slide area, a complete study of the slide must be made by a Geotechnical Engineer. The Geotechnical Engineer must propose a solution which is satisfactory to the District. The normal solution is repair of t e slide. ,i c. If a satisfactory gravity solution does not exist, the pumping of sewage from individual homes will be considered. 5. The project engineer must furnish a map which shows existing creeks or swales which may convey water in the vicinity of any proposed sewer main alignments. 6. Sewers shall not be designed to be located in the bottom of swales or creeks. 7. For sewers which will be parallel to swales or creeks, the sewer must be designed far enough away from the drainageway to eliminate the possibility of future eroding arourld the sewer. A Geotechnical Engineer shall review the proposed alignment and furnish recommendations regarding long-term erosion potentials. a. If it is infeasible to locate sewer mains on the downslope side of future homes and maintain a safe distance from drainageways, consideration will be given to installing the sewers in street areas and installing residential sewage pumps on individual homes. 8. For sewers which cross creeks or swales, the crossing shall be as nearly perpendicul Br to the drainageway as feasible. a. Bank and bottom protection shall be designed per the recommendation of a Geotechnical Engineer and shall be installed in the drainageway as a part oft e overhead or underground crossing. b. The project engineers shall pay particular attention to designing adequate support foundations and protection for the foundation. 9. An access easement (minimum width of 10 feet) shall be granted by the developer fro the nearest public street to the creek crossing structure along the route of the sew r main, if possible, for future maintenance. 10. The following design standards shall be used by the project engineer when designirig sewers in hillside and/or creek areas. a. Sewers to be installed across hillside slopes (generally parallel to contours) shall e ductile iron (no bedding) if the cross slope of the hill exceeds 25 percent. b. Sewers to be installed parallel to defined creeks shall be located no closer than 20 feet from the top of the bank if the creek bank is defined; if not, no closer than 110 feet from the centerline of the creek. c. Sewers to be installed parallel to defined creeks from 20-50 feet away from the top of the bank shall be ductile iron (no bedding). P d. Manholes to be installed on either ends of creek crossings shall be located no clos r than 20 feet from the top of the creek bank. ;1= CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH & MAY PROF ESSIONA.L CORPOPATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1999 HARRISON STREET :0E n �oOAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 k k�W i�(510) 763-2000 FAX(510) 273-8832 0 0 4 2001CENTURY CITY LOS ANGELES SAN FRANCISCO SOt O A(310) 734-5200 (213) 896-8000 (415)543-8700 CLERKRDO'SUpfpM8� 1775 TRA COSTA CO. Patricia E. Curtin Dial: (510) 763-2000 E-mail Address: pcurtin agchrrn.com December 3, 2001 Supervisor Donna Gerber Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 309 Diablo Road Danville, CA 94526 Re: Hearing on December 11 , 2001 at 11 :00 a.m.- Continued from October 9, 2001 Revised Project Plans for Alamo Gardens File No. 26359.00010 Dear Supervisor Gerber: As you know this office represents Peter Ostrosky, the applicant and appellant on the Alamo Gardens Project ("Project"). The purpose of this letter is to identify the changes made in the Project in response to your direction provided at the Board of Supervisor's hearing on October 91 2001 . Additional changes were also made to address some of the comments raised by the Sugarloaf neighbors and Alamo Improvement Association ("AIA"). This letter also responds to additional comments raised by the neighbors and AIA. !. CHANGES TO THE PROJECT A. Changes Made in Response to Board Motion At the October 9 hearing, the Board adopted a motion of intent to approve a modified Project that would eliminate the single unit located at the northeastern portion of the Project (originally Lot 1 ) and convert the single unit at the opposite end of the curve (originally Lot 8) into a "duet" unit. As such, the modified Project would have four buildings, each with 9568965.1 CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH & MAY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Donna Gerber December 3, 2001 Page 2 two units, for a total of eight units. You did not want this modification to jeopardize the scenic easement area being offered as part of the Project. It was your hope that this modification would allow additional guest parking and increase the landscape area between Sugarloaf Drive and the new access road. In addition, you also stated that you did not want to have any oak trees removed to accommodate the Project and wanted assurances that the architecture of the units would be of high quality and consistent with the existing homes in the Sugarloaf area. In response to this direction, the Project has been modified as follows: 1 . One Single Unit Eliminated; other Single Unit Converted into Two Units. The single unit on original Lot 1 was eliminated and the other single unit on original Lot 8 was converted into two attached units. The total number of units remain at 8 but the number of buildings has been reduced from 5 to 4. The configuration of the courtyard was modified and tightened slightly to accommodate the modification. This allowed the buildings and access road to be shifted to the northwest. The entry courtyard space (side yard setback area) between the buildings increased slightly. In addition, the floor plan for each unit was widened slightly in order that the acoustic entry gateway would not become overly wide and awkward. The area of the storage loft was decreased so the overall habitable space of the unit remained as originally submitted to the Board. 2. Scenic Area. The modifications do not change the scenic easement area. The new scenic easement area remains at approximately 1 acre. There is an existing scenic easement of .5 acres on the property. 3. Increased Landscape Area. The landscape area between Sugarloaf Drive and the new access road (Section B-B on the Civil. Plan) increased from 6 feet to 15 feet. 4. Additional Guest Parking. The parallel type guest parking stalls were increased from 5 to 8 spaces. Overall, there are 5 9568965.1 CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH & MAY PROFESSIONAL CORPORA?ION Donna Gerber December 3, 2001 Page 3 parking spaces for each unit. The number of parking spaces exceeds the County requirements. 5. No Oak Trees Will be Removed. No oak trees will be removed to accommodate the Project. Rather, extensive landscaping will be provided. 6. Architectural Design. In an effort to provide assurance that the Project will consist of a high quality design consistent with the existing Sugarloaf area we have done the following. First, we have prepared all drawings that would be required for design review consideration. The floor plans and elevations were redrawn to a '/4 inch scale to show full detail and information regarding the design of the Project. A color board was also developed. Colored elevations were also developed to better demonstrate the appearance of the final product. All these documents are contained in the Board packet and we suggest that these drawings be adopted as part of the Project approval. Second, we are committing to the following design features in an effort to ensure a high quality design: a. Cultured stone wainscot and cap trip wrap around all sides of the building, not just the front elevation as is typical of single family homes. b. Exterior siding will be either cedar or hardi- plank (a very high grade cement board which is non-combustible and very stable), not masonite and other recycled wood products which are common but prone to warping and swelling with moisture. B. Changes Responding to Comments by Neighbors and AIA 1 . Increased Amount of Landscaping. A more detailed landscape plan (dated 11/20/01 ) has been prepared which includes more intensified landscaping. Specifically, more landscaping has been identified between Livorna and the new access road, and Sugarloaf Drive and the new access road. In addition, we are hereby making a commitment to 9568965.1 CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH & MAY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Donna Gerber December 3, 2001 Page 4 place 10% of the total new trees with 24 inch box trees and a commitment to plant 50% of all new trees as evergreens. 2. Reduced Height of Retaining Walls Between Sugarloaf and Access Road. Pad elevations for several of the units were raised slightly which allowed the height of the retaining walls between Sugarloaf Drive and the access road to be reduced from 13 feet to 7 feet in height. There are two retaining walls in this area. The retaining wall closest to Sugarloaf Drive was reduced in height from 7 feet to 3 feet (at the highest point) and the retaining wall closest to the new access road was reduced in height from 6 feet to 4 feet (at the highest point). 3. Eliminated Retaining Wall. The retaining wall that was originally proposed between Livorna and the new access road at about Lots 3 and 4 (Section A-A on the Civil Plan) was eliminated. 4. Entry Features. The landscaping plan also includes new entry features. a. A decorative stone wall is proposed along the curved portions of Lots 2, 3 and 4 (between Livorna and the new access road and Sugarloaf Drive and the new access road). A sign identifying the project as "Sugarloaf" will be part of the decorative wall. If possible, berming will also be used in conjunction with the decorative wall. The decorative wall will also be erected along the eastern corner of Livorna and Sugarloaf Drive. b. Textured paving will be placed at the entrance to Sugarloaf Drive. 5. No Parking Zone. No parking will be permitted along the western portion of Sugarloaf Drive and along a portion of the frontage of Lot 11 on the eastern portion of Sugarloaf Drive. 6. Stop Sign. A stop sign is presently located on Sugarloaf Drive. This sign will be replaced with a new stop sign. 7. Trash Cans. Trash cans will be placed along the new access road and not on Sugarloaf Drive. 9568965.1 CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH & MAY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Donna Gerber December 3, 2001 Page 5 8. Mailboxes. It is our intention to have mailboxes located on each individual lot. However, if the post office requires a centralized mailbox, it will not be located on Sugarloaf Drive, but rather on the new access road. II. ADDITIONAL ISSUES A. Consistency with General Plan As explained in the various staff reports and at the Board hearing, this Project is consistent with the General Plan. The density is consistent with the General Plan designation of Single Family - Low (1 - 2.9 units/acre). The "bowl area" wherein the 8 units are located is 2.82 acres. This allows up to 8 units under the General Plan designation. The Project was configured to meet the noise requirements in the General Plan. Significant noise is generated from vehicle traffic along Livorna and 1-680. As explained in the noise studies, special acoustical treatments need to be provided to allow for outdoor living areas to be at 60 dBA and interior areas to be at 45 dBA, within the General Plan requirements. Two or three single-family attached homes with spacing similar to those that exist in the area could not be built without intrusive and unacceptable acoustical treatments (i.e., a continuous high sound wall all around each unit). Policy 3-142 states that when rezoning in Alamo, an appropriate zoning will be P-1 , in addition to other rezoning categories. The Project includes a rezoning request to P-1 . This policy further states that "Alamo and Diablo have special characteristics which preclude clustering in established areas." The fact that this Project includes attached units, which some may argue constitutes "clustering", does not make the Project inconsistent with the General Plan as a whole. Moreover, the portion of the Project area that includes the attached units does not necessarily qualify as an area with "special characteristics" as referred to in the Policy. This area is unlike other areas in Alamo and Diablo because it is located immediately adjacent to Livorna Road and 1-680, two heavily traveled roadways. As such this area must be treated differently (especially with 9568965.1 CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH & MAY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Donna Gerber December 3, 2001 Page 6 respect to the noise requirements) so that it can comply with the other polices in the General Plan. As explained in the General Plan at page 1-8, consistency cannot be achieved by comparing an action with a single policy. Rather all polices of the General Plan must be viewed together to determine consistency. The fact that some may argue that this Project may be inconsistent with a portion of Policy 3-142 does not make it inconsistent with the entire General Plan. The Project is consistent with the overall polices and spirit of the General Plan. B. Not Precedent Setting The Project site is a very unique piece of property unlike any other property in the Alamo area. The majority of the site is located on approximately 3 acres. This 3-acre portion is located in a "bowl" area (below natural grade) adjacent to Livorna Road, the on-ramp to 1-680 and 1- 680. This site is the subject of extensive noise generated from Livorna Road and 1-680 which are heavily traveled. The attached duet style was developed and in fact is necessary so that the Project can conform to the noise requirements in the General Plan. The unique site constraints that preclude large detached single family homes do not exist on other properties in the Alamo and Diablo areas. C. Road Maintenance The Project applicant has committed to require the 8 new homeowners to contribute their fair share toward maintenance of all the roads in the Sugarloaf area (the new access road, Sugarloaf Drive, Sugarloaf Terrace). Currently, 27 lots are required (by way of a Road Maintenance Agreement) to maintain the roads. The other 3 single family lots that are also part of this approval are already subject to the Road Maintenance Agreement. There are 6 lots that front along the eastern side of Sugarloaf Drive that are not subject to the Road Maintenance Agreement. These 6 lots were not part of the original subdivision that was required to have the Road Maintenance Agreement. While it is only fair that those 6 lots also share in the road maintenance, we cannot require those homeowners as part of this 9568965.1 CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH & MAY PROF ESSIONAL CORPORATION Donna Gerber December 3, 2001 Page 7 Project to do so. We can however, require that the 8 new homeowners pay their fair share of the maintenance. As such we will require that those homeowners pay 8/35ths of the maintenance for all the roads in the Sugarloaf area. If the 6 homeowners agree to contribute to road maintenance, then the overall responsibility of the other homeowners would be reduced accordingly. We hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, Patricia E. Curtin PEC:tIg cc: Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor Federal Glover Supervisor John Gioia Clerk of the Board Sarah Hawkins, Assistant to Supervisor Donna Gerber Michael Laughlin, .Planner Peter Ostrosky, Applicant 9568965.1 CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH & MAY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1999 HARRISON STREET OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3572 (5 10) 763-2000 FAX(5 10) 273-8832 MAILING ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 2084 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94604-2084 CENTURY CITY LOS ANGELES PALO ALTO SAN FRANCISCO SONOMA WESTLAKE VILLAGE (3 10) 734-5200 (213)457-8000 (650)251-9880 (415)543-8700 (707)996-1776 (805) 777-8420 TRANSMITTAL MEMO VIA U.S. MAIL DATE: December 3, 2001 TO: Clerk of the Board Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 SUBJECT: Hearing on December 11, 2001 at 11:00 a.m. Continued from October 9, 2001 Revised Project Plans for Alamo Gardens ENCLOSURES: Four(4) copies of the letter addressed to Supervisor Donna Gerber. REQUESTED Please distribute a copy to the following Supervisors: ACTION: Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor Federal Glover Supervisor John Gioia Thank you. Very truly yours, A. fic-� Sonoe A. Hum for Terry Gray, Secretary to Patricia E. Curtin 9570252 CENTURY CITY • LOS ANGELES • OAKLAND • PALO ALTO • SAN FRANCISCO SONOMA • WESTLAKE VILLAGE APPEAL PETER OSTROSKY (OWNER AND APPELLANT) COUNTY FILES: SD488263, RZ983069, DP983025 Continued-hearing un the appeal by Peter Ostroksky (Owner) of the San Valley Regional Panning Commission's denial of the Tentative Subdivision and Development Plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into S1nj, ,.:.,. family residential homesites and an 8 unit cluster development. in the Alamo area. Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County December 11, 2001 11:00 A.M. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS `f" \ Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: December 11, 2001 SUBJECT: CONTINUED. HEARING.ON THE APPEAL BY PETER OSTROSKY (OWNER) OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF'THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO RESUBDIVIDE THE EXISTING 5.31 ACRE SITE INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMESITES AND A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIORS 55 OR OLDER WITH 8 ATTACHED "DUET" UNITS. PROPOSED REZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS FROM R-20 TO P-1 TO CREATE A CLUSTER TYPE DEVELOPMENT WITH.OPEN SPACE RATHER THAN CONVENTIONAL R-20 LOTS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT LIVORNA ROAD, INTERSTATE 680 AND SUGARLOAF DRIVE IN THE ALAMO AREA, AND IS REFERED TO AS ALAMO GARDENS. (SD988263, RZ983069, DP983025). SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Grant the applicant's appeal, thereby approving the project with modifications recommended by the Board of Supervisors on October 9, 2001, by taking the following actions: A. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared on this project as adequate for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COM ITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER_ VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF .THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Michael Laughlin 335-1204 ATTESTED Community Development JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: County Counsel-Silvano Marchesi SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works-Engineering Services, Heather Ballenger Peter Ostrosky, Owner and Appellant Patricia Curtain, Owner's Representative BY , DEPUTY December 11, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#'s: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025 Page 2 B. Approve the rezoning (RZ983069) of this site from Single Family Low Density (R-20) to Planned Unit District, P-1; and approve a preliminary development plan to allow for 3 single family residences and 8 attached "duet" units subject to revised conditions and based on findings contained in the draft findings document,waive reading and set date for adoption. C. Approve the final development plan allowing up to three (3) single family residential units and eight (8) duet units (File #DP983025) subject to revised conditions and based on findings contained in the draft findings document. D. Approve the Tentative Subdivision Map (#SD988263) to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acres into 3 single family residential homesites and an 8 unit cluster development with 8 attached units and a common lot based on the.draft findings and revised conditions. The proposal includes an adjustment and expansion of the existing scenic easement. E. Direct staff to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant has paid application fees to process this project and is obligated to pay supplemental fees for staff time and material costs which exceed 100% of the initial fee payment. Conditions of approval require payment of fees and assessments and installation of public and private improvements at the applicant's expense. BACKGROUND The Board of Supervisors reviewed this application and took testimony in support and in opposition to the proposal on October 9, 2001 . The Board expressed their intent t.o approve the project for 3 single family residences and 8 clustered"duet"units (instead of 6 attached units and two detached units for the cluster development). By making the cluster development tighter, it was determined that there would be less encroachment into the.drainage course and that the private road and retaining walls could be further away from Sugarloaf Drive.. This would also allow for more perimeter landscaping along Sugarloaf Drive and more guest parking internal to the project. In response to this decision, the applicant's Engineer, Architect and Landscape Architect have revised plans for the project, incorporating the requested modifications (see attached plans). Comments have also been submitted by neighboring property owners. These comments have been responded to by the applicant's attorney, as outlined In the attached correspondence. A revised acoustical analysis has also been prepared to comment on project revisions. December 11, 2001 Board of Supervisors File Ws: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025 Page 3 ANALYSIS Design Changes The attached plans exhibit the following changes: 1. The cluster of units and roadway was shifted away from the drainage area. Unit 1 has been shifted further south to provide a greater distance between the unit and the drainage area. 2. A tightening of the cluster allows the retaining wall parallel to Sugarloaf Drive to be pulled in an additional six feet, for a total of 12 feet (15 feet from the curb on Sugarloaf to the curb.on.the edge of the roadway of.the cluster development). This allows for more planting and a greater distance between walls and the roadways. 3. The grades for the units closest to Sugarloaf Drive have been raised slightly so that the retaining walls will not need to be quite as tall — from a combined average height of 13 feet to approximately 7 feet. A large section of retaining wall parallel to Livorna Road has been eliminated. 4. Additional guest parking has been added. The total amount of guest parking has increased from 5 to 8 spaces, with distribution for better access to the individual units. Each unit has a two car garage and two car driveway. 5. The landscape plan has been modified based on the changes, and uses a.variety of native and ornamental trees and shrubs. About 50% of the trees will be evergreen. The amount of landscaping for the Livorna Road and Sugarloaf Drive frontages has increased dramatically. Over 30 trees will be planted on the Livorna Road and Sugarloaf Drive frontages. As requested, the applicant has provided materials and color information for the units. To emphasize and clarify the design elements, the elevations of the building have been drawn at quarter inch scale. Exterior materials include stonework at the base of the structures, horizontal wood siding and concrete shake roof, all of which have been used in the Alamo area. Paint colors are shades of beige and gray to blend with the surroundings. Color elevations will be shown at the meeting. Response to Neighborhood Issues and Sidewalk The attached letter from Jack Behseresht was responded to in the letter from the applicant's attorney. The following additional comments are also offered: Revision to original zoning. The letter recommends that construction be carried out within 18 months or else revert back to the existing zoning. County and State Laws provide various time limits for action by the applicant for the filing of the subdivision map and keeping building permits active. These limits can not be arbitrarily modified on a project by project basis. December 11, 2001 Board of Supervisors File #'s: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025 Page 4 Berming, walls and landscaping along Livorna Road and Sugarloaf Drive. Given the lack of response time to this request, the landscape plans in the Board packet do not reflect these requested changes. The Landscape Architect for the project will be presenting plans for a wall, low berming where there is room, and entry detail. Since the site slopes down from Livorna Road and Sugarloaf Drive, berming along these roads aggravates the slope differential requiring higher internal retaining walls. The Landscape Architect will be presenting plans at the Board hearing that will incorporate walls and some berming. Evergreens bordering the project. About 50% of the 30+ trees on the Livorna Road and Sugarloaf Drive frontages will be evergreens. Ornamental and deciduous trees will also be used to add seasonal variety and color. Sidewalk along Sugarloaf Drive onto Livorna up to onramp. Sidewalk improvements are required along Livorna Road, as noted in condition 29. Consistent with the entire subdivision, no sidewalks are proposed along Sugarloaf Drive. For the cluster development side, as shown on landscape cross section B-B, planting is proposed up to the back of the curb to maximize the planting and screening. Addition of a sidewalk would minimize this planting area. The existing 8 foot wide equestrian easement on the north side of the street is still in place, and available for pedestrian use. No parking zone and stop sign. Condition 38 is recommended to be amended to require that the west side of Livorna Road be designated for no parking, and the east side designated for no parking for the first 50 feet, consistent with this request. This designation will improve the ability of emergency vehicles to enter and exit the project. The applicant will replace the existing stop sign. Pillars to mark entry to Sugarloaf area. The diagram indicates a desire to have an entry feature, located within the subdivision, at the intersection of Sugarloaf Drive and Sugarloaf Terrace. The applicant is proposing that the entry statement be made at the intersection of Livorna Road and Sugarloaf Drive. This will include a stamped concrete paving detail and signage on the walls with the word "Sugarloaf." Staff supports the entry feature at this location, since one house and the cluster development would be physically excluded from the rest of the subdivision. Trash and mail. Trash will be picked up at each residence. The applicant will request door to door delivery. If a shared mailbox is needed, the applicant has agreed, through his attorney to locate the box off of Sugarloaf Drive. Other issues related to developer obligations. Mr. Behseresht has also included other recommendations for items that the developer should repair and fund, and connections to the existing homeowners group (it should be noted that the existing subdivision does not have a formal homeowner's association). The Board may wish to consider these items. . Staff is not recommending any further changes to the conditions of approval as a result of these items. Environmental Review The Environmental Review Checklist, support documentation and Mitigation Measures are included in section two of the attachments for reference and for final adoption by the Board of Supervisors with the modified project. The study is for the originally submitted 13 unit proposal. December 11, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#'s: SD988263, RZ983069, FDP983025 Page 5 The same document would cover the 11 unit proposal under consideration, since it would have fewer impacts. Additional review by the Acoustical Consultant to verify that the new proposal still adequately mitigates exterior noise was conducted. Findings and Conditions Attached is a draft of the detailed findings for all aspects of the project approval. The findings include General Plan Policies which are used to support the Board's action. The findings adopted by the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission were the same findings but made in the negative to support a denial of the project. Minor amendments to the wording can be made as part of the adoption, if necessary. The draft conditions of approval were not adopted as part of the action by the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission. Based on the Board Hearing on October 9, 2001 and input from individuals and groups, staff has made the following additions to the conditions, as shown in bold type and summarized below: ♦ References to approved plans (pages 2 and 9): All references to approved plans have been changed from April 18, 2001 to reflect the most current revised plans. ♦ Tree preservation (page 3, condition 6): In addition to bonding, the new wording would require that an arborist be present during grading, utility trenching and road grading and that the arborist report observations and recommendations back to the Community Development Department prior to release of the bond. ♦ Final Plan Review(pages 5&6, conditions 14&16): In addition to final review of the building plans and materials by the Zoning Administrator, plan review would also occur by the District Supervisor. ♦ Design Standards for lots 9, 10 and 11(pages 5&6, conditions 14&16):The residences on the existing single family lots will be required to meet R-20 setback standards and design standards listed in the conditions of approval. Condition four has been amended to require recordation of a deed restriction on each of the three single family lots in the event that they are sold individually for development. ♦ Share of Road Maintenance (page 7, condition 18): Each owner of a unit in the cluster development and each of the three detached single family residences will pay 1/35 of a share for road maintenance. ♦ Metric Units (page 10): Condition 28 is proposed to be removed since plans in metric units are no lonaer required. ♦ No Parking (Page 11, condition 38): The wording for this condition has been expanded to prohibit parking on the west side of Sugarloaf Drive and the first 50 feet of the east side of Sugarloaf Drive. Draft Alamo Gardens Findings For Consideration of the Board Of Supervisors On December 11 , 2001 Rezoning County File #RZ983069 Preliminary and Final Development Plan File #DP983025 Tentative Map File #SD988263 Alamo Area PETER OSTROSKY (Owner and Appellant) Project Findings File#'s RZ983069, DP983025, SD988263 - Almno Area I. General Considerations A. Reliance on'Record. Each and all of the findings and determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project and constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors v B. Nature of Findings. The Board of Supervisors intends that these findings be considered as an integrated whole, whether or not any part of these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings. If any required finding is contained in any portion of this findings document, it shall be deemed to have not been satisfied. II. General Plan and Existing Zoning The property is designated Single Family Residential-Low Density (SL). The density allowed in this category is 1.0 to 2.9 dwelling units/net acre. The proposed density is close to the maximum of 2.9 dwelling units/net acre;'based on the entire area of the rezoning, (5.31 acres) excluding actual road improvements. Where improvements have not been proposed, the County General Plan assumes a 25% right-of-way dedication. In this case, the road improvements are less than ")5% of the total site area, approximately (18.5%). The areas to the south, north and east of the project site are also designated Single Family Residential-Low Density (SL). The subject parcel is currently zoned Single Family Residential, R=20 (minimum 20,000 square foot gross parcel size required). A rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (P-1) is requested by the applicant, which requires a minimum of 5 acres to establish. Thearea to the south, north and east of the project site is also zoned Single Family Residential, .R720 (minimum 20,000 square foot gross parcel size required). Interstate 680 is directly west of the project site. H. Project Description The applicant is proposing to create 8 new residential parcels with one common area parcel for a senior housing development (area is currently two lots): Each person would own the property on which the unit, driveway, and outdoor living area sit. Each of the units share half of the entry courtyard that is shared with an adjoining owner. Each owner- would have partial ownership of the common area. The remaining 3 lots for single family development were previously divided Project Findiiags File#'s RZ983069,DP983025, SD988263 Alaino Area under subdivision 6468 and would not be part of the new homeowner's association since none of these lots have any corrunon areas (the CC&R's that currently apply to those properties would remain in effect). However, perimeter landscaping on the three sites was included on the landscape plan to be consistent with the planting for the cluster portion of the project. The boundary of the Planned Unit Development proposal was drawn to meet the 5-acre minimum area required by the County for a P-1 rezoning. The three single family residential sites have graded pads and utility hookups and are ready for development. The remaining area can best be described as a'bowl, with the main area of development below Livorna Road, Sugarloaf Terrace and Interstate 680. An access roadway and retaining walls are proposed to provide access to the units. A segment of a drainage course extends along the northern side of the property, and will be retained in its present location. Drainage for the project will be directed to the existing culvert which extends under.Interstate 680. Existing trees occur in this same riparian area. A steep hillside area occurs to the northwest, between the back of 2 existing residences and the freeway. Due to access, slope, noise and proximity to the freeway, development of this area is not feasible. This area and the drainage course area will be part of a common area lot maintained by the homeowners association. The scenic easement (which now only covers the drainage areas and trees) would be expanded to include all of this hillside area. III. Ordinance Code Requirements and Project Findings Pursuant to Section 26-2.2022 of the Ordinance Code, it is the Project Applicant's burden to produce evidence to convince the. County Planning Agency that all standards are met and the intent and purpose of the applicable regulations and =coals and objectives of the General Plan will be satisfied. Failure to satisfy this burden shall result in a denial. The applicant submitted evidence supporting the project and compliance with General Plan policies, and the Board of Supervisors agreed with the interpretation presented. Based on evidence and testimony submitted to the Board of Supervisors, the Board determines that the Project Applicant has met the burden of proof to convince the Board that the Project will satisfy the following findings that are required by County Code: A. Findings Pertaining to Approval of a Rezoning Application (Section 26-2.1806 of the County Code) 1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with. the General Plan. Project Findings File#'s RZ983069,DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area The Board of Supervisors considered the following General Plan policies: Land Use Element Policy 3-8 Infilling already developed areas shall be encouraged. Policv 3-18 Flexibility in the design of projects shall be encouraged in order to enhance scenic qualities and provide for a varied development pattern. Policy 3-27 Existing residential neighborhoods shall be protected from incompatible land uses and traffic levels exceeding adopted service standards. Policy 3-28 New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where'it will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon. the environment and upon the existing community. . Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that the project site can be categorized as an infill site, and that some flexibility, in design is appropriate due to site constraints and the desire to keep the northern portion of the site free from development. The proposed cluster portion of the development is compatible with the existing residential neighborhood and neighborhood development pattern since the massing of each of the duet structures is approximately the size of one large single family residence. The visual simulations for the project show that the massing of the structures as viewed from surrounding vantage points will not create a significant visual impact. The structures are also single story, which helps lower the profile of the structures as viewed from surrounding vantage points. Evidence: Testimony before the Board of Supervisors, County General Plan, observation of Board members. Policies for the Alamo-Diablo-Blackhawk Area Policy 3-135 Promote the individuality and unique character of each community based on existing community images. 4 Project Findings File#'s RZ983069,DP983025, SD988263 Alanco Area Policy 3-136 The character- of the area as one of predominantly single-family residences shall be developed. and multiple family residential units shall be provided in suitable densities . and locations. A range of densities shall be offered in order to provide for a variety of family sizes, income levels, and age groups. .Policy 3-1421 When rezoning in Alamo. the appropriate single family residential zoning will include R-20, R-40, R-65 and R-100 and P-1. Both Alamo and Diablo have special characteristics which preclude clustering in established areas. Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that the predominant character of the Alamo area is detached, single family residential development on larger lots. The site was found to be suitable for higher density cluster development based on the location. The development of single family residences was found inappropriate due to noise mitigation issues. Clustering is appropriate in this case since it allows for consistent perimeter landscaping, minimization of the development arca ` and preservation of the northern portion of the site as a scenic easement. The existing zoning for the site is R-20. The proposed zoning to P-1 is consistent with police 3-142. The project diversifies the range of densities and housing types in the Alamo area. The project will also provide for a unique type of senior housing. The Board also finds that the proposed density of the project, at approximately 2.5 dwelling units/net acre, is consistent with the General Plan. Evidence: Testimony before the Board of Supervisors, County General Plan, observation of Board members. Transportation and Circulation Element Policy 5-34 Scenic corridors shall be maintained with the intent of protecting attractive natural qualities adjacent to various roads throughout the county. 5 Project Findings File#'s RZ983069, DP983025, SD988203 Alanzo Area Policy 5-36 Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced, and protected to the extent possible. Policy 5-37 The existing system of scenic routes shall be enhanced to increase the enjoyment and opportunities for scenic pleasure driving to. major recreational and cultural centers throughout this and adjacent counties. Policy 5-41 For lands designated for urban use along scenic routes, planned unit developments shall be encouraged in covenant with land development projects. Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that Interstate 680 is a designated scenic corridor. Livorna Road is a gateway into the community. The project is n appropriate gateway element, since it mimics the predominant development pattern found on the east side of Interstate 680. Based on the visual simulations, project plans and proposed landscape plan, the 680 scenic corridor is not negatively impacted by the project. Evidence: Testimony before the Board of Supervisors, County General Plan, observation of Board members. Housinp-Element Goal 4, Special Housing Needs Program 4.2 Design . flexibility for elderly projects. The objective is to encourage the development and expansion of housing opportunities for the elderly. Finding: The Board finds that this site is appropriate for senior housing. The project provides for a unique type of senior housing not currently found in the vicinity. Evidence: Testimony before the Board of Supervisors; County General Plan, observation of Board members. Noise Element Policy 11-1 New projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards as established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines 6 Project Findings File#'s RZ983069,DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area contained in Figure 11-6. These guidelines, along with the future noise level shown in the future noise contours. Policy 11-2 The standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a DNL of 60 dB. However, a DNI, of 60 DB or less may not be achievable in all residential areas due to economic or aesthetic constraints One example is small balconies associated with multi- family housing. In this case, second and third story balconies may be difficult to control to the goal. A common outdoor use area that meets the goal can be provided as an alternative. Policy 11-4 Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulations requires that new multiple family housing projects,'hotels and motels exposed to a DNTL of 60 dB or greater have a detailed acoustical analysis describing how the project will provide an interior DNL or 45 dB or less. The also shall require new single-family housing projects to provide for an interior DNL of. 45 dB or less. Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that this site is exposed to high noise levels. Interior and exterior noise can be mitigated by the project design to acceptable levels. Evidence: Testimony before the Board of Supervisors, County General Plan, observation of Board members. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the lwid use district are compatible within the distract and to uses authorized in adjacent districts. Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that the use proposed is compatible with the low density residential district. The massing of the proposed structures of the cluster development with attached units appears from surrounding vantage points as four large residential structures, similar to uses within the district and uses authorized in adjacent districts. Evidence: Testimony before the Board of Supervisors, County General Plan, observation of Board members. Project Findings File#'s RZ983069, DP983025,SD988263 Alamo Area 3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration o_f ficture financial success. Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that community need has been demonstrated for the use based on the County.need for senior housing and housing in general. V Evidence: Testimony before: the Board of Supervisors, County General Plan (see especially Housing Element), observation of Board members. B. Findings Pertaining to Approval of. a Planned Unit District Rezoning. Preliminary and Final Development Plans (Section 84-66.1804 of the County Code) 1. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit developrn.ent is consistent with the COUnty General Plan. Finding: For the reasons set forth in Part III A, above, the Board of Supervisors finds the proposed rezoning and development plan consistent with the General Plan. Evidence: Testimony before the Board of Supervisors, County General Plan, observation of Board members. 2. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environrilent of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and comnn pity. Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that the proposed residential environment will have sustained desirability and stability. The project will utilize high quality materials and attractive landscaping. The homeowner's association will provide for the ongoing maintenance of the structures and common area landscaping. Evidence: Proposed tentative map/final development plan and project plans, testimony before the Board of Supervisors, and observation of Board.members. 3. Required Firidin.g: The development of a ha171207tiOUS integrated plan justifies ea:ceptions from the nornial application of this code. 8 Project Findings File#'s RZ983069, DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area _ Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds that the design of the cluster portion of the development to preserve trees, the ' drainage area and perimeter of the site free from development creates a harmonious plan that is more attractive than conventional single family residential development. Exceptions to .the normal application of 'the code are ,justified for this project. Evidence: Proposed tentative map/final development plan and project plans, staff report, testimony before the Board of Supervisors, and observation of Board members. C. Finding Pertaining to Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map (Section 94-2.806 of the County Code) Required Finding: die advisory agency shall not approve a tentative 7nap unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisionsfor its design and 1771p]•oveMents, is consistent i ith the applicable General and Specific plans required by law. Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds this project to be consistent with the General Plan in findings under section, A. above, and therefore also finds the proposed subdivision consistent with the General- Plan. Proposed design and improvements for the cluster development include a circular road utilizing the entire width of the lower site and retaining walls which has been redesigned to be further away from Sugarloaf Terrace than the previous approval. Evidence: Posted tentative map/final development plan and project plans, General Plan, staff report, testimony before the Board of Supervisors, and observations of Board members. 9 FINDINGS AND 'CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DP983025, RZ983069. _ AND $D988263 BY THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, DECEMBER 11, 2001 A. Growth Management Element Performance Standards Findings 1. Traffic: The project will generate less than 100 peak hour trips and does not trigger a Measure C traffic study. 2. . Neater: The project is within the. boundaries of the East Bay Municipal Utilities District. Water service is. available for the project. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The project is within the boundaries of the Central Sanitary District. Nater service is available for the project. 4. Fire Protection: The subject property is within the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District boundaries and the applicant will be required to comply with the District's requirements. 5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station" area per 1,000 population. There will be a minimal impact on public protection in the area, based on an additional 11 households. 6. Parks & Recreation: Park dedication fees will be required. 7. Flood Control. & Drainage: The project will be required to meet all collect and convey requirements. (Ref. The Growth.Management Element, Chapter 4, of the General Plan) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DP983025, RZ983069, AND SD988263 This approval is based upon the plans, reports and exhibits received by the Community Development Department listed as follows: Approval Documents 1. This approval is based upon the plans and reports exhibit received by the Community Development Department listed as follows: A. Revised project plans received on November 29, Apffl 1-8, 2001 by the Community Development Department for a Tentative Map and Final Development Plan. B. Revised architectural drawings received on November 29, TMare r22, 2001 for the 5-unit cluster development. C. Revised landscape plan prepared by James Swanson and dated received November 29, Mar-ch , 2001 by the Community Development Department, with amendments presented at the Board of Supervisors on December 11, 2001. Indemnification 2. Pursuant to Govenunent Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provid- ed 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. Conditions to be Satisfied Prior to Filinia a Final Map or Issuance. of a Grading Permit 3. Submittal of a Compliance Report- At least 60 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a report on compliance with the conditions of approval with this permit and the final development plan permit for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The report shall also include a discussion of compliance with the conditions administered by the Public Works Department. The report shall list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the conditions of this report prior to filing a final map. 3 4. Deed Disclosures: The applicant shall record a statement to run with deeds to each of the properties acknowledging the approved Geotechnical report by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is available from the seller. In addition, a deed disclosure shall be recorded on lots 9,10 and 11 informing the purchaser of the requirement for approval of design plans by the Zoning Administrator prior to building permit submittal, and the availability of conditions of approval from the Community Development Department. 5. The scenic easement shall be extended to include the southern line delineated on the tentative map and include all of the area north of the line. No paving or permanent structures shall be constructed in this area, and it shall remain in a natural state. Tree Preservation Protection 6. To assure protection and/or reasonable replacement of existing trees to be preserved. which are in proximity to project improvements, the applicant shall post a bond (or cash deposit or other surety) for the amount of $5,000 for the required work within the root zones to the Community Development Department. The term of the bond shall extend at least 24 months beyond the completion of construction. A $100 processing fee is also ,squired. l G An arborist shall be present on-site during all site grading O� operations, utility trenching, road grading and paving to assure damage is not done to existing trees on site. A log with dates and times of observations and recommendations shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to a final inspection of the units. 7. The developer and applicant shall adhere to the following tree preservation standards required by Section 816-6.1202 of the County Code: A. Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on a site with trees to be preserved, the applicant shall install fencing 5' outside the dripline or other area as determined by an arborist report of all trees adjacent to or in the area to be 4 altered. Fencing will provide visual notification to the grading contractor to keep equipment out of the area surrounding these trees. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. B. No grading, compaction, stockpiling., trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline unless indicated on the grading plans approved by the County and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, an arborist may be required to be present during grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Upon completion of grading and construction, an involved arborist shall prepare a report outliivng further methods for tree protection if any are required. All. arborist expenses shall be borne by the developer and applicant. D. No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the dtipline of any tree to be saved. Landscaping Requirements 8. A landscaping and irrigation plan for all areas shown on the plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator at least 30 days prior to the issuance of'building permits. A cost estimate, prepared by a landscape architect or landscape contractor, shall be submitted for the implementation of the landscaping plan and a bond shall be subinitted equal to 125% of the cost of the installation and held for a minimum of 18 months to assure that the planting will survive. Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation Landscape Ordinance 82-26 and shall be installed prior to occupancy of the first duet unit. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be certified to be in compliance with the County Water Conservation (lrrlinanra 9. A revegetation plan, using California native trees and shrubs shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator 30 days prior to issuance of building permits. The plan shall 5 include all areas from the drainage course north. Any temporary irrigation required shall also be submitted with the plan. 10. Prior to occupancy of the first cluster unit, the landscape architect shall certify, in writing, that the installation 'of the landscaping complies with the approved plans. If minor adjustments are required, these shall be noted in the letter. This infonnation is subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 11. The applicant shall provide landscape plans, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, for planting in the Caltrans. right of way. The landscaping should include trees and shrubs '.to further screen the project from view. The landscape architect shall consult with Caltrans to determine appropriate plant types. Application shall be made to Caltrans for approval of the landscaping, with a copy of the application provided to the Zoning Administrator. Administrative 12. Both the applicant and the property owner are fully responsible for County staff costs. Invoices(s) for any additional costs beyond the initial application deposit will be mailed to the applicant and are due and payable 30 days following the date of the invoice. The unpaid balance shall be collected prior to issuance of a building permit or initiation of the use, whichever comes first. The applicant can obtain the current status of staff costs on this application from the project planner. 13. The tentative map approval shall.not be effective until the rezoning and final development plan are approved. by the Board of Supervisors. Final Plan Review 14. The proposed duet buildings shall be similar to those shown on submitted plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, elevations and architectural design of the building and building roofing material shall be submdtted for final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator. Prior to submission of plans to the Zoni nistrator, plans shall be submitted for review a �eonthng to the District III Supervisor. The final review bAdministrator is solely to assure that the building designs are consistent with the Board's 6 approval. The roofs and exterior walls of the buildings shall be free of such objects as air conditioning or utility equipment, television aerials, etc. 15. A deed restriction shall be filed with the final map limiting the occupancy of the structures to adults 55 years and older, with wording subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Since approval of this project was based on the fact that it would be for seniors only, a future rescission of this restriction will require a development plan amendment public hearing. 16. Proposed building setbacks, yard distances: height of buildings, and proposed exterior wall, roof colors and materials of the three detached single family residences (lots 9, 10 and 11) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator 30 days prior to submittal of building permits. Prior to submission of plans to the Zoning Administrator, plans shall be submitted for review and comment to the District III Supervisor. The final review by the Zoning Administrator is solely to assure that the building designs are consistent with the Board's intent to assure that the remaining residences are compatible with the other single family homes in the subdivision. Development of the three single family residences shall comply with R-20 setback standards and the following additional design standards: A. Roof materials shall be tile or concrete shake B. Exteriors of the buildings shall utilize high quality materials such as stone, brick, stucco or wood siding with appropriate trim detailing C. Building forms and roof lines shall be similar to those within the subdivision D. Architectural detailing and elements are required along both the Sugarloaf terrace side and the Livorna Road side of the home (i.e. no blank walls on the Livorna Road side) on lot 11 (the first lot entering on Sugarloaf Drive with secondary frontage on Livorna Road). E. Colors for the residences shall be muted earth tones. 17. Exterior lighting shall be directed downwards and away from neighboring residents so as not to produce glare, to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. 18. The CC&Rs shall make an adequate provision for funding road maintenance and establishing a maintenance cycle standard. This shall not only apply to the internal road, but also to Sugarloaf Drive from Livorna Road to the project entry. Maintenance may be shared with the residential subdivision homeowners that share the access. Owners of each unit in the cluster development are responsible for a maintenance share of 1/35 (8/35 total for the development). 19. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted for review with the Final Map, and shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. This document shall provide for establishment, ownership and maintenance of the common open space, landscaping and parking, fire protection, fencing, private streets and drainage maintenance, keeping of pets and establishment of signs. The Covenants, Conditions and:Restrictions (CC&Rs) developed for this project shall include the following deed restrictions: A. No recreational vehicle, boat,- boat trailer or mobile home shall-be stored on the site overnight. B. Exterior materials and colors shall not vary from the palette approved for the original homes (i.e. moderate to dark earth tones with a brown tone roof and less than 50% reflectivity). C. No external expansions or additions are pernutted to the units without a development plan revision from Contra Costa County. Exterior changes, especially second story additions, are not encouraged due to .visual impacts and may be recommended for denial. D. Fireplaces are limited to gas only fixtures to minimize airborne pollutants. Water ?0 The applicant shall comply with. the Contra Costa County Ordinance pertaining to water conservation. Compliance with the Water Conservation Ordinance shall be designed to encourage low-flow water devices and other interior and exterior water conservation techniques. s 21. All units shall be equipped with low-flow toilets and restricted water devices. 22. Prior to recording the final map, provide proof that adequate water facilities can be provided. Sanitary Sewer 23. Prior to recording the final map, provide proof that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. Noise 24. The residential units shall be designed to comply with the Sound Transmission Control Standards of the Uniform Building Code for the State of California 1989 Amendments. Structural design shall be based on the recommendation of the acoustical stud), of the site prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin to assure that interior noise levels do not exceed a CNTEL of 45 dB and that exterior noise levels do not exceed CNEL of 60 dB. The residence shall have mechanical ventilation and air conditioning so that the residents do not have to be exposed to higher exterior noise levels. Geology 25. At least 45 days prior to issuance of a building pen-nit. or installation of improvements or utilities, the applicant shall submit a geology, soil, and foundation report for review and approval of the County Geologist. Iimprovement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall include evaluation of the potential for liquefaction, seismic settlement and other types of seismically induced ground failure by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation. Construction Management 26. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following cons+nzction, noise, dust and litter control requirements: A. All construction activities (including the delivery of supplies and equipment) shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays. Notices shall also be posted at the 9 site. Any exceptions shall be subject to the review and approval of the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission. B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers.as far away from existing residences as possible. C. At least one week prior to commencement of construction, the applicant shall post the site with a notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter con- trol, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall -be ex- pressly x pressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading and construction activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. Proof of mailing shall be provided to the Community Development Department. D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances shall constitute grounds for an immediate work stoppage. Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted. E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. This Shall Include provision for an Qn_Site area in which to parr Kn. 1tV I.Ll V 111 I11 X11 L LLl 1 earth moving equipment. F. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site, and Livorna Road and 10 Sugarloaf Drive shall be cleaned or repaired to their pre- construction condition. PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 8263,DP 98-3025 & RZ 98-3068 Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9 and Title 10 of.the Ordinance Code. Any exception(s) must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the Revised Tentative Map submitted to Community Development on November 29, April 1 , 2001. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED OTHERIATISE, CONIPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDATIONT OF THE FINAL MAP OR ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERNIITS, NAT HICHEVER COMES FIRST: General Requirements 27. 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 approval of this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division. r .. 8 All first �,, t, t,.,,;++.,t.• a „ y t t.,+; t, t; y � subdivision Fading plans. b legalMaps, final inaps, of way and pla, maps a d desefiptiens shall be in fnetfzie un (Note: Public Works no longer requires plans in metric units) Roadway Improvements 29. Applicant shall construct curb, a 1.5-meter (4.5-feet ±) sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, street lighting, and pavement widening and transitions along the frontage of Livoma Road. The face of curb shall be located 3 meters (10 feet ±) from the Livoma Road right of way. Plans shall also be subject to the review of the Alamo Parks and Recreation Committee. 3v. IAP pilCani Shaii install Safety related improvements Gil ail streets (including traffic signs and striping) as approved by Public Works. 31. The internal subdivision street shall be constructed as a private road in accordance with County private road standards. 11 32. All retaining walls within the public road right of way, or supporting any public or private roads shall be constructed with concrete or masonry block materials subject to the review of Public Works. Maintenance of Facilities 33f Property Owner shall record a Statement of Obligation in the form of a deed notification, to inform all future property owners of their legal obligation to maintain the private roadway. Access to Adjoining Property Proof of Access 34. Applicant shall furnish necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. Site Access 35. Applicant shall only be permitted access at the locations shown on the approved site/development plan and tentative map. Abutter's rights of access to Livorna Road shall be relinquished. Sight Distance 36. Provide sight distance at the Sugarloaf Drive/Private Road intersection for a through traffic design speed of 55 km/hr (35 mph±). Pedestrian Facilities 37. All public and private pedestrian facilities and access ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks, paths, trails, driveway depressions, as well as handicap ramps. Parking 38. "No Parking" signs shall be installed along both sides of the new private road subject to the review and approval of Public Works. Parking .shall only be allowed within driveways and designated parking bays. The west side of Sugarloaf Drive between Livorna Road and the entrance driveway to the cluster development shall be designated for no parking, and the first fifty feet on the east side of Sugarloaf Drive. t? Utilities[Undercroupdi 39. All utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Soundwall/Acoustic analysis 40. Any noise studies that may be required shall be based on ultimate road widening and ultimate traffic under the general plan. The applicant shall install any soundwalls that may be required, outside of the public road right of way. Drainage Improvements Collect and Convey 41. 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 that conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. 42. 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 Department. 43. Property owner shall dedicate a public drainage easement over any man- made drainage system, which conveys stone water runoff from public streets. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements 44. Storm drainage oriainati.ng on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s). 45. Private on-site storm drain easements shall have a minimum width of 3 meters (10 feet ±), excepting therefrom those areas where the proposed buildings encroach. 46. Storm drains shall not be installed beneath buildings. 47. To reduce the impact of additional storm water run-off from this development on San Ramon Creek, 0.75 cubic.meters (one cubic yard±j of channel excavation material will be removed from the inadequate 13 portion of the.creek for each 4.6 square meters (50 square feet±) of new impervious surface area created by the development. The applicant, at his cost, shall dispose all excavated material of off-site. 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 $1.08 per square meter ($0.10 per square foot ±) of new impervious surface area created by the development. The added 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. Scenic Easements/Creek Structure Setbacks 48. Any encroachment into the "Scenic Easement" created under Subdivision 6468 is subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth in the Grant Deed of Development Rights granted to Contra Costa County per said subdivision. 49. Any structures or walls to be constructed within the creek structure setback area as defined under Section 914-14.012 of the County Ordinance Code, will be required to submit detailed pier/foundation analysis based on a soils and geotechnical report. Said report shall address potential soils and bank instability resulting from potential erosive creek flows, potential creek bank erosion .and instability, and shall be submitted to the Building Inspection Department for review. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Requirements 50. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal construction and industrial activities promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay— Region II) Compliance shall include developing long.-term best management practices (BMPs) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate, wherever feasible, the following long term BNIPs in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage: 51. Provide educational materials to new homebuyers. 14 52. Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins. 53. Provide options for grass pavers or other semi-pervious paving systems . for walks, drives and patios. 54. Slope driveways and weakened plane joints to sheet flow onto planted surfaces where feasible. 55. Prohibit or discourage direct connection of roof and area drains to storm drain systems or through-curb drains. 56. Filtering inlets. 57. Trash bins shall be covered to prevent leakage or located within a covered enclosure. 58. Other alternatives, equivalent to the above, as approved by the Public Works Department. ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. The applicant/ovmer should be aware of the expiration dates and renewing requirements prior to recording the Final Map. B. Comply with the requirements of the Sanitary District (see attached). C. Comply with the requirements of the Fire Protection District (see attached). D. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division. E. Comply `v�'ith the req uuemei,t$ of the Building i,i°ipec uvli Depart,iient. Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures. F. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Gare. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any 15 proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code. G. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of'Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. H. The developer shall comply with all requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, including the provision of hydrants, East Bay type, every 300 feet, hydrant location(s) will be determined by the Fire District upon submittal of three copies of a tentative map or site plan. I. The following information does not constitute conditions of approval. It is provided to alert the applicant to legal requirements of the county and other public agencies to which this project may be subject: J. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California Slate Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay-Region II). K. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed. construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code. L. 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. M. Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the Tri- Valley, Alamo, and SCC Areas of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permits. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project 16 approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approvedpermit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. 12/4/01 S:\Curr-Ping\Staff Reports\DP983025 alamo gardens coa3 . NpTlF�CA�,�N List 187 150 022 187 171 027 187 171 028 Walnut Creek City Of David Wei Chen&Anne Yang Emmanuel &Teresa Roman 1445 Civic Dr 81 Sugarloaf Ln 60 Sugarloaf Ln Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 187 171 029 187 171 030 1 til 171 031 Roger&Pamela Loar lrai &Elizabeth Behscreslit David &Rita Little 1360 Sugarloaf Dr 1350 Sugarloaf Dr 1340 Sugarloaf Dr Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo_ CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 187 171 032 187 171 033 Michael &Diana Makieve Joseph &Nicki Hobby 1330 Sugarloaf Dr 1320 Sugarloaf D..r- Alamo_ CA 94507 ' Alamo_ CA 94507 187 171 036 187 1.7 I. 037 187 17 I l)38 Michael &Esther Chon Anthom & Kelli DUI-ante Williarrn Karol Bush 29 Sugarloaf Ter35 SugarloafTer 41 Suarlo;rfTa Alamo. CA 94507 Almno. CA 94507 Al;mio. CA 945()7 187 171 039 187 171 040 Iti7 171 (r41 Robert &Rosemary Zeman Jack- & \Vrerr Taylor 65 Sugarloaf Ln 72 Sugarloal'Ln 7( Su ;ii lo;rl'Ln Alamo_ CA 94507 Alamo. CA 14507 Al;mw. UA 94307 1S7 171 042 Iti7 171 ()44 . . Richard &Sherri'Dorfman Circpr\ & Belle Vervais 80 Sugarloaf Ln 34 Su—urlo;)I Tcr Alamo. CA 94507 Al;mio. CA 1)4;117 IS7 171 045 1:;7 171 l)46 . 1N7 171 ()47 Mansour& Simin Zabetian L;rrn Bari & Elcua Estracla : iLm & Aim \\.,'u Kimia Zabetian 22 Su-arloal-Ter 1'0 Box 3�r 28 Sugarloaf Ter J, Alamo. CA 94507 \\;rinul C rcch. CA 94595 Alamo. CA 94507 V` 187 171 048 �D Peter Ostrosky&OSTROSKY ENTER 17 Sugarloaf Ter Alamo. CA 94507 d 187 171 051 I3O ()(ir,. Carl Stephen&Karen Johnson Theodore .Arlene Upland 111 V:Aerie.1,11mn 61 Sugarloaf Ln 41 Sm,arin;tl'Ln 12(,23 C•h:rncllcr Bl\cl Alamo. CA 94507 Aimno..CA 94507 i t\7 ;.30 01 7 I ti ."'m 111 Ronald Peterson Rodclio d C.urolina Padiernos 1.340 Sugarloaf Dr 41; Rockford Dr Alamo. CA 94507 Antioch. CA 94509 r 187 330 020 187 330 027 187 3311 025 Clement&Anna Choy Miles Sandstrom &Lillian Nemc(-r. Thomas& Man,Lammers 1345 Sugarloaf Dr PO Box 528. 1309 Lavcrock Lit Alamo, CA 94507 Alaimo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94.507 192 240 007 192 240 009 192 2411 1114 RLf& Candi Gester James&Pamela Cooper Kiximilian & Doina Vlasaclle 1251 Laverock Ln 1280 Laverock Ln 12911 LaN crock Ln Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507. Aianio. CA 94507 192 240 015 192 2410 (11 7 192 2i(1 Illy John&Joan RLlssillo Jason cl Gina Reimer L H;in T clrarucr Itl 1260 Laverock Ln 12(d 1_j\dock.Lri 1_m,.rock Lu Alamo. CA 94507 Al:euro. CA 945107 Akww_ CA 945117 '�• C�„�-� S I `ll-2�' 46D Eric Hasseltine Alamo Parks&Recreation Committee 3182 Old Tunnel Rd#E P.O.Box 1062 Lafayette,CA 94549 Alamo,CA 94507-9995 n Alamo Improvement:Association Isakson&Associates,Inc. P.O.Box 271 Civil Engineering Alamo,CA 94507 2255 Ygnacio Valley Rd.,Ste C Walnut Creek,CA 94598 City of Walnut Creek 1666 North Main Street Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Y ♦ ttpp to . CL x ;i f - :CEJ :f , �j'•�' i CC vot Zt��/✓ �� / ' � i ' rY t_3On) 111__+_�JJJ� l�r f \ .\\ ,\•� � ! ' �`--- T!3 `� � �� yr ?' I '�. —�1� � •.r n . 1. N O 'zy' LU �s2 Ois' / �' as ' •� 11 ' TZFt' `t1 �� Q ''� tri Ln O. ..G•. .� � � � ` � �C - 1 F Q CD Q� w 6A Lu 0 m u f� t �' 1 � 'I� U/r' � 7 '• �S 1.—„_ / J y " �:a ti4 �� F� bfe7 a 56 Z ? JKf;<rG. •..� / pp�•ip� :..! P?4i••: ti t•---�`-� `>n � `�`n' /ll�l�''F* .�•`�'�� II ,�, �`�y'b t��i� \ tit q m C� " 00 a ` cc 1 q( Q h _I 1I U j �P tt'cc t Q al n i Z Z �1 ti b ( M•Ba.Tcr89M (� M O . I .. a � Q fi.,tv'-}� _, � - !!j �• `�-�p- rs•� t4 1O N n• 4 t 2 � � ��W 1.c C O ryy'° S co LC) I cli ez t m / n n n .3cr.rAn^' � F flncG7 of J 6+f ops'✓` 4j�J � a _ t., � Cf � � Ver r"orz .� _• ,C... � �n 1 4 �.,yv �� .+r.91.?j.rp.✓ � � p — .P a,q �r�i �M.co.car 6pN crGo2 '''- a yb h� NGJth f! r N b N i 3r vii i I to rJ 3 t�.• Me g •,. ��'�a'\tip r ti < .X w it 1 \o \ e bb Z 1 Ir Tt'A'! __ L7'AZL•M Gr.J.FW' � J_Gi,/fr6°N ' o EL EL pp ap aQa 4 Zoe g Q- (D••=rc E�a�96� 8E? •oaa3:: ! 9 4 49' - g' ZyLU °� Q OD CV=mm j E_i 11,11 :1c r� Qm 1 E5 Oz Z¢ys E lH�ek6 �'S e�� CO - '.� f 1'1800 ap' r� ` pp gg ° E c - 4F <� Wad �O o'mz ! 96 � €kt has 1° x zap` W u ■ ,Q, Abe N. .;'., 1,.� _c3 p 'mss `.I`-�_..cc R CO6p _. C6 Q �m ro CPNVA CL 1:'•'.*..,. �' I ¢ 2 Q WPLNn t il•:•� 1 tl� ...............:::::.. .................. . _ I _. €......0_ '•.."':�2.".:�ii;a --_s�lC�= - �if � �yii:i;: c'' 2..-_+.r._?a:��-_-______ �,�.: J. 1:- Vail-\ _ _ _ � :ili'_i:� �) ✓: N ..........- IN JI 4 41 TI - - - p r •eY _ ...._..:xo. p . . . 11!! 6 •_ y I ;.: �,/ �' '• 9 : _ bi 'l �o , x � 4 ''s E 2 2 � E i :.I': '1 1 ,'I l� W x W Z S 2 —ago 'fiLir\ I W, k0v . I y � spy �� -�-J __ — y� Filc c\l s g ' II I,.III ; \\\ �• �r I�T_I I r: Ti17, Ji xi fffll � LL Lu Lu 'Flit _ Li LLJ —�- �1=�I1;.71 LIJI LL - ,, - �Ir:-T IE31 ;.., f..!FLD:l., ��_�� — _ IIIA `�I 1 �Y .. � '� F'• '� I -1 II rl � .I,'1V, � •I. I jl ri i 21 �il � Ih a I g yi� N (02 CC E cn r ,�. y�{��.? Ir!� c4°- Irks o.5, `i� k 5 � �.:i.l. �,�{''',�•�;',. \ 4�. � �. / r7 .+i:y � r 1„'13' � ? � I•. � Y �_ s> . . �. C, 13 171 �g / U` a C/] a 'LP pt tet: �Ig w< a C Ci¢ r_, ,W-`GW® &RO N,rINC. Illingworth&Rodkin,Inc. Phone (707)766-7700 Aff Acoustics • Air Quality ELF[(fl 505 Petaluma Blvd.South Fax (707)766-7790 Petaluma,CA 94952 e-mail -illro@illingworthrodhin.com November 12,2001 Steve Harriman Stephen E.Harriman&Associates 47 Quail Court,Suite 309 Walnut Creek,California 94596 Fax 925-934-8132 Subject: Revised Alamo Gardens Project—Noise Evaluation(Reivised on 11/12/01 to Correct Atinimum Height) Dear Steve: On April 5, 1999, we provided an acoustical analysis of the Alamo Gardens project. We have recently received the revised plans for the project and at your request have updated our analysis. In summary, the revised plans do not change the overall acoustical environment associated with the project, since the buildings would be connected by solid fence/gates and would be high enough to interrupt the line of sight from a backyard receiver to the I-680 traffic. The current design would be considered Arormally Acceptable under the County's noise and land use compatibility guidelines. To meet requirements of State law, features to reduce interior noise levels must be included in the final design of the project. Previous Analysis Our previous analysis was based on architectural plans dated 8/09/98, Which included five two-unit buildings oriented in a circular manner that had a inner courtyard and residential outdoor patios on the inside. The buildings, which would be connected by a fence or acoustical gate, would shield tratnc noise at the outdoor patios and courtyard. The previous analysis is attached to this letter. Noise measurements were conducted in March of 1997. Results of the measurements indicated that the overall noise level ranged from 71 dBA Ldn near the western edge to 68 dBA Ldn at the eastern edge. Hourly noise levels ranged from about 60 dBA during quieter periods(nighttime)up to 68 dBA during the loudest periods. Traffic noise modeling was conducted to predict the future noise environment with the project. The I T_'__ Model 1 d—inistraatlon as used conduct l rdff1C Noise l�Otlel (TiVi`1) developed by u'ne Federal Isigr��vay A..•... to this modeling. The combined buildings and fences were considered.to form a continuous 18-foot high noise barrier with an opening oriented to the north-northeast. The model was checked against the measured data. • Page 2 November 12,2001 With the project in place,future noise levels were predicted to be in.the range of 58 to 61 dBA Ldn at the outdoor residential patio areas (inside the circular building design). Noise levels at the exterior facades of buildings facing I-680 would be 71 to 72 dBA Ldn. Final design of the project would need to include features to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn or less. Such features may include sound rated windows and special building construction techniques. At a minimum, forced-air mechanical ventilation would be necessary. Current Project Design The latest plans we received were dated March 15, 2001. These plans indicate four two-unit buildings,joined by an "Acoustic Gateway" that is 17-feet high. The overall height of the buildings and gateways a}ong with the current orientation of the buildings is adequate to maintain shielding of I- 680 traffic noise. As a result, under the revised project plan noise levels would be similar to the previous project plan. These noise levels would be considered Normally Acceptable under the county's noise and land use compatibility guidelines. It is imporlont that the buildings and acoustic gate/entry maintain a minimum of 17 feet to interrupt the noise path between traffic on I-680 or Livorna Road and a receiver located in the outdoor patios of the v3ner circle. A design that creates a continuous barrier is essential to reducing noise at these outdoor us:areas. Adverse Noise Impacts Adverse noise impacts associated with ties project are not anticipated. The.issue of possible noise reflections from this project has been brought to our attention. There appears to be concern that the planned structures would reflect traffic noise towards existing residences causing`heir noise levels to increase. We cannot identify any possible reflective path that would increase noise levels at any of the existing residences. Even-.xith a reflective path, any acoustical energy reflected off the buildings toward the neighbors would be small compared to the direct energy currently coining from the freeway. This concludes our analysis of the revised project plan. Please feel free to contact us with any questions at(707)766-7700. Sincerely, James A.Reyff Project Scientist Illingworth d Rodkin,Inc Attachment: April 1999 Letter Report—Alamo Gardens Noise Analysis ;a;Pcra lurti;Blvd.South Pc:alu=na,CA 949-- ,707.)7b6-7700 FAX(-ci)766-7740 .vivnv.illin,wortnrodhiuncorr c-na=ii - iliraLjilfirnzu ;E.lr:::7cie:.-.cr.: atriaa Curtin-Alamo Ga;di>ris Page 2 ".Bob,Rosemary Zeman" <RAZeman999 cD 4OL.Com>, BILL SINDAL<BILLBINDAL@JUNO.COM>, Anna &Gement Choy -cakchoy@hotma11.com>, Bill& Karol Bush <Karolbush@earthlink.net>, Chan Mike&Esther <master4mam@ao 1.com>, d?sty@bos.co.c:ontra-costa.ca_us. dist4 @bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us, dist2@bos.co.contra-costa-ca.us. distl @bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us Subject Alamo Gardens Nov. 15,2001 Supervisor Gerber_ By now you have been informed of our continued opposition to the Alamo Gardens project through letters, phone calls to your office and letters to the newspapers by our neighbors and other Alamo residents. They have expressed their profound disappointment and a feeling of betrayal regarding your support of Alamo Gardens. What a shock to have our own supervisor turn the table on us! We don't understand why you would ignore all the prior rulings and the opposition of over one hundred households. It appears to us that you had made up your,mind prior to the hearing. Would it have been too much for you to discuss your views with us ahead of time? I hope there are steps that you can take between now and the.next meeting on December 11 th to rectify this. At the conclusion of the hearing we were told to write a letter to you and enumerate Me issues that we want to be included in the development plan. I have reluctantly coordinated my neighbors' input,which is reflected in the attachments,although we don't have any faith in the process any longer. The submission of this list should not be considered our acquiescence to the project nor relinquishing any remedies available to us in law. We have in good faith worked this issue over the last 4 years through the County process. Unfortunately, it appears that we may be pushed into the legal arena. The list is rather comprehensive. This is attributed to the County approving piecemeal development(faditating a strategy used by the developers to go under the radar screen and avoid scrutiny)which has resulted in a confusing and legally Qiics%iondbi8 iriv�ivcrrEei�t of 5 to 5 entities with a total of about thirty homes sharing a private street! Most of these items were brought to your attention in our meeting of June 18 (and again on Nov. 1 st with your staff member- Sarah Hawkins). We are available to explain/work the list at your earliest convenience_ arF Curtin-Alamo Gardens Page 3 We understand the need for infill and controlling urban sprawl while creating additional housing as required by law. Our view is that a viable concept is being erroneously applied to this site and is causing undo harm to this community. I have seen this concept, combined with worknive, successfully implemented in Los Angeles and Denver with the support of the community. A greater density was achieved by combining residential and commercial development which reduced commute traffic as well. Closer to home,a modified version is the Bishop Ranch-Market Place business-residential combo. The arguments to support Alamo Gardens based on noise and senior housing are not valid. The design will not resolve the noise issue and the notion that seniors want this type of housing does not ring true to this senior nor to other seniors as indicated in the attavhed article.The effect of what happens here is profound for our neighborhood and Alamo. We need to be mindful of what we do and how it impacts the quality of life now and in the future. Although you are the lead Supervisor, since the action taken involves the entire Board, I have copied the other Supervisors and the County.Planner. We are once again appealing to you and the Board to truly represent:the interests of your community and uphold the findings of the SRVRPC Sincerely, Jack Behseresht 1350 Sugarloaf Dr. Alamo, CA 94507 925-256-9455 Attachments:Alamo Gardens!!Rap, Key to map notations,CC Times article(See . attached file: Alamo Gardens Map.jpg)(See attached file:Alamo Gardens Key.doc)(See attached tile: Rigger is better for older buyers_htm)' Patricia Curtin-Alarm Gardens K.ey.doc Page 1 Alamo Gardens Key 1) Single Family Homes to be built first(or concurrently). All construction to be completed within 18 months from the approval of the project. If no construction has started within six months of approval the zoning will revert back to single family residences. Z) Berm,short wall,landscaping 3) Evergreens bordering project 4) Sidewalk along Sugarloaf Drive onto Livorna up to onramp. 5) No parking zone d) Pillars to mark entry to Sugarloaf neighborhood 7) Stop sign 8) No trash cans on Sugarloaf Drive(there would be 24!). . If centralized mail box required,locate on Alamo Garden Lane,not on Sugarloaf Drive_ Also,at developers expense: - Legally include all Single Family Homes with access off Sugarloaf in one HDA. Revise and record new CC&Rs as required. 1 - Establish Road Maintenance and Architectural Review Committees through elections by ail home owners. Seed HOA with$50,000. All single family homes proposed by developer must be approved by Sugarloaf HOA - prior fo submission to the County. Sugarloaf Drive,Terrace,Lane Developer to correct drainage problems,repair and re-seal entire road. Governing Issues: -Alamo Gardens to have own CC&Rs to manage condos; but be a sub-partner to Sugarloaf HOA- I - Alamo Gardens CC&Rs: - 55+only - owner occupied - Financially responsible for 4 shares(1 for each building)of Sugarloaf road maintenance -Will have 4 votes in parent Sugarloaf HOA -The 3 Single Family Homes in the PDA to be part of Sugarloaf HOA. PS: This document to be used in conjunction with the"Alamo Gardens Map"and the cover letter from Jack Behseresht to Supervisor Gerber dated 1 I-15-01 I I i n�ww' erre rsn ��w ®,taxa^¢-raa.�. atqaa Curtin-Alamoa�dins��laP.lpg age i � i 4 s CAR d � A 1 d � B � r � CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH & MAY PROFESSIONAL CORFORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW • 1999 HARRISON STREET OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 (5 10) 7 63-2 000 FAX(510) 273-6832 CENTURY CITY LOS ANGELES SAN FRANCISCO SONOMA (310) 734.5200 (213) 696-8000 (415)543-8700 (707) 996-177S Patricia E. Curtin Dial: (510) 763-2000 E-mail Address: pcurtin@chrm.com December 3, 2001 Supervisor Donna Gerber Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 309 Diablo Road Danville,,CA 94526 Re: Hearing on December 11 2001 at 11 :00 a.m. Continued from October 9, 2001 Revised Project Plans for Alamo Gardens File No. 26359.00010 Dear Supervisor Gerber: As you know this office represents Peter Ostrosky, the applicant and appellant on the Alamo Gardens Project ("Project"). The purpose of this letter is to identify. the changes made in the Project in response to your direction provided at the Board of Supervisor's hearing on October 9, 2001 . Additional changes were also made to address some of the comments raised by the Sugarloaf neighbors and Alamo Improvement Association ("AIA"). This letter also responds to additional comments raised by the neighbors and AIA. I. CHANGES TO THE PROJECT A. Changes Made in Response to Board Motion At the October 9 hearing, the Board adopted. a motion of intent to approve a modified Project that would eliminate the single unit located at the northeastern portion of the Project (originally Lot 1 ) and convert the single unit at the opposite end of the curve (originally.Lot 8) into a "duet" unit. As such, the modified Project would have four buildings, each with 9566965.1 CROSBY, HEAFEY, RoAcH & MAY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Donna Gerber ` December 3, 2001 Page 2 two units, for a total of eight units. You did not want this modification to jeopardize the scenic easement area being.offered as part of the Project. It was your hope that this modification would allow additional guest parking and increase the landscape area between Sugarloaf Drive and the new access road. In addition, you also stated that you did not want to have any oak trees removed to accommodate the Project and wanted assurances that the architecture of the units would be of high quality and consistent with the existing homes in the Sugarloaf area. In response to this direction, the Project has been modified as follows: 1 . One Single Unit Eliminated; other Single Unit Converted into Two Units. The single unit on original Lot 1 was eliminated and the other single unit on original Lot 8 was converted into two attached units. The total number of units remain at 8 but the number of buildings has been reduced from 5 to 4. The configuration of the courtyard was modified and tightened slightly to accommodate the modification. This allowed the buildings and access road to be shifted to the northwest. The entry courtyard space (side yard setback area) between the buildings increased slightly. In addition, the floor plan for each unit was widened slightly in order that the acoustic entry gateway would not become overly wide and awkward. The area of the storage loft was decreased so the overall habitable space of the unit remained as originally submitted to the Board. 2. Scenic Area. The modifications do not change the scenic easement area. The new scenic easement area remains at approximately 1 acre. There is an existing scenic easement of .5 acres on the property. 3. Increased Landscape Area. The landscape area between Sugarloaf Drive and the new access road (Section B-B on the Civil Plan) increased from 6 feet to 15 feet. 4. Additional Guest Parking. The parallel type guest parking stalls were increased from 5 to 8 spaces. Overall, there are 5 9568965.1 CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH & MAY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Donna Gerber December 3, 2001 Page 3 parking spaces for each unit. The number of parking spaces exceeds the County requirements. 5. No Oak Trees Will be Removed. No oak trees will be removed to accommodate the Project. Rather, extensive landscaping will be provided. 6. Architectural Design. In an effort to provide assurance that the Project will consist of a high quality design consistent with the existing Sugarloaf area we have done the following. First, we have prepared all drawings that would be required for design review consideration. The floor plans and elevations were redrawn to a '/4 inch scale to show full detail and information regarding the design of the Project. A color board was also developed. Colored elevations were also developed to better demonstrate the appearance of the final product. All these documents are contained in the Board packet and we suggest that these drawings be adopted as part of the Project approval. Second, we are committing to the following design features in an effort to ensure a high quality design: a. Cultured stone wainscot and cap trip wrap around all sides of the building, not just the front elevation as is typical of single family homes. b. Exterior siding will be either cedar or hardi- plank (a very high grade cement board which is non-combustible and very stable), not masonite and other recycled wood products which are common but prone to warping and swelling with moisture. B. Changes Responding to Comments by Neighbors and AIA 1 . Increased Amount of Landscaping. A more detailed landscape plan (dated 11 /20/01 ) has been prepared which includes more intensified landscaping. Specifically, more landscaping has been identified between Livorna and the new access road, and Sugarloaf Drive and the new access road. In addition, we are hereby making a commitment to 9568965.1 CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH & MAY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Donna Gerber ` December 3, 2001 Page 4 place 10% of the total new trees with 24 inch box trees and a commitment to plant 50% of all new trees as evergreens. 2. Reduced Height of Retaining 'VValls Between Sugarloaf and Access Road. Pad elevations for several of -the units were raised slightly which allowed the height of the retaining walls between Sugarloaf Drive and the access road to be reduced from 13, feet to 7 feet in height. There are two retaining walls in this area. The retaining wall closest to Sugarloaf Drive was reduced in height from 7 feet to 3 feet (at the highest point) and the retaining wall closest to the new access road was reduced in height from 6 feet to 4 feet (at the highest point). 3. Eliminated Retainingall. The retaining wall that was originally proposed between Livorna and the new access road at about Lots 3 and 4 (Section A-A on the Civil Plan) was eliminated. 4. Entry Features. The landscaping plan also includes new entry features. a. A decorative stone wall is proposed along the curved portions of Lots 2, 3 and 4 (between Livorna and the new access road and Sugarloaf Drive.and the new access road). A sign identifying the project as "Sugarloaf" will be part of the decorative wall. If possible, berming will also be used in conjunction with thE! decorative wall. The decorative wall will also be erected along the eastern corner of Livorna and Sugarloaf Drive. b. Textured paving will bE: placed at the entrance to Sugarloaf Drive. 5. No Parking Zone. No parking will be permitted along the western portion of Sugarloaf Drive and along a portion of the frontage of Lot 11 on the eastern portion of Sugarloaf Drive. 6. Stop Sign. A stop sign is presently located on Sugarloaf Drive. This sign will be replaced with a new stop sign. 7. Trash Cans. Trash cans will be placed along the new access road and not on Sugarloaf Drive. 95ec9o5.1 CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH & MAY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Donna Gerber December 3, 2001 Page 5 8. Mailboxes. It is our intention to have mailboxes located on each individual lot. However, if the post office requires a centralized mailbox, it will not be located on Sugarloaf Drive, but rather on the new access road. IL ADDITIONAL ISSUES A. Consistency with General Plan As explained in the various staff reports and at the Board hearing, this Project is consistent with the General Plan. The density is consistent with the General Plan designation of Single Family - Low (1 - 2.9 units/acre). The "bowl area" wherein the 8 units are located is 2.82 acres. This allows up to 8 units under the General Plan designation.. The Project was configured to meet the noise requirements in the General Plan. Significant noise is generated• from vehicle traffic along Livorna and 1-680. As explained in the noise studies, special acoustical treatments need to be provided to allow for outdoor living areas to be at 60 dBA and interior areas to be at 45 dBA, within the General Plan requirements. Two or three single-family attached homes with spacing similar to those that exist in the area could not be built without intrusive and unacceptable acoustical treatments (i.e., a continuous high sound wall all around each unit). Policy 3-142 states that when rezoning in Alamo, an appropriate zoning will be P-1 , in addition to other rezoning categories. The Project includes a rezoning request to P-1 . This policy further states that "Alamo and Diablo have special characteristics which preclude clustering in established areas." The fact that this Project includes attached units, which some may argue constitutes "clustering", does not make the Project inconsistent with the General Plan as a whole. Moreover, the portion of the Project area that includes the attached units does not necessarily qualify as an area with "special characteristics" as referred to in the Policy. This area is unlike other areas in Alamo and Diablo because it is located immediately adjacent to Livorna Road and 1-680, two heavily traveled roadways. As such this area must be treated differently (especially with 9568965.1 CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH 2� MAY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Donna Gerber December 3, 2001 Page 6 respect to the noise requirements) so that it can comply with the other polices in the.General Plan. As explained in the General Plan at page 1 -8, consistency cannot be achieved by comparing an action with a single policy. Rather all polices of the General Plan must be viewed together to determine consistency. The fact that some may argue that this Project may be inconsistent with a portion of Policy 3-142 does not make it inconsistent with the entire General Plan. The Project is consistent with the overall polices and spirit of the General Plan. B. Not Precedent Setting The Project site is a very unique piece of property unlike any other property in the.Alamo area. The majority of the site is located on approximately 3 acres. This 3-acre portion is located in a "bowl" area (below natural grade) adjacent to Livorna Road, the on-ramp to 1-680 and 1- 680. This site is the subject of extensive noise generated from Livorna Road and 1-680 which are heavily traveled. The attached duet style was developed and in fact is necessary so that the Project can conform to the noise requirements in the General Plan. The unique site constraints that preclude large detached single family homes do riot exist on other properties in the Alamo and Diablo areas. C. Road Maintenance The Project applicant has committed to require the 8 new homeowners to contribute their fair share toward maintenance of all the roads in the Sugarloaf area (the new access road, Sugarloaf Drive, Sugarloaf Terrace). Currently, 27 lots are required (by way of a Road Maintenance Agreement) to maintain the roads. The other 3 single family lots that are also part of this approval are already subject to the Road Maintenance Agreement. There are 6 lots that front alonca the eastern side of Suaarloaf Drive that are not subject to the Road Maintenance Agreement. These 6 lots were not part of the original subdivision that was required to have the Road Maintenance Agreement. While it is only fair that those 6 lots also share in the road maintenance, we cannot require those homeowners as part of this s5ssas5;.1 CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH & MAY • PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION + Donna Gerber December 3, 2001 Page 7 Project to do so. We can however, require that the 8 new homeowners pay their fair share of the maintenance. As such we will require that those homeowners pay 8/35ths of the maintenance for all the roads in the Sugarloaf area. If the 6 homeowners agree to contribute to road maintenance, then the overall responsibility of the other homeowners would be reduced accordingly. We hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please call. . Very truly yours, Patricia E. Curtin PEC:tIg cc: Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor Federal Glover Supervisor John Gioia Clerk of the Board Sarah Hawkins, Assistant to Supervisor Donna Gerber Michael Laughlin, Planner Peter Ostrosky, Applicant 9568965.1 OCT 09 2001 8 :23 AM FR C H R & M 5102738838 TO 7227#999#263590 P .01 CROSBY, HF-AFF-Y, ROACH MAY FROFC36i4NAL GORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1999 IiAFRMSON STREET OAK UM12, C01MOMCA 9-001 Z-=7C is 10?78a-2000 F"Ml01 97.%G"2 t MA UNG ACORES$: POW 06710K Sm OAKLAND,CAUFWlt1A 94CO--Z 84 CETIT W 41sT LOG ANOEIES +-TAM FRANCISCO —'KMMA VMESTLAKE VILLME (3101 7349200 lZ IM 44 7-80W r4 r 51 54+"700 07071 094 l 7T4 (a(81 735-8685 FAx TRAmwnwiom THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY ALSO CONTAIN PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT INFORMATION OR WORK PRODUCT. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED-ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT 15 AWM55EG. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT.OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE WtMCO RECIPIENT', YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRmur10N OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUMCATIONI IS STRICTLY PROMSMED. IF YOU HAVE RWRIVED THE FACSIMILE IN ERROR,PLEASE IMMMATELY NOTIFY U5 6Y TELEPHONE.AND REMRN TME ORIGINAL h4EaBAOL'rO U8 AT Yhff AO0ftL-88 ABOVC VIA TrfC U.S.POOTAL BCKVTCC. TKANK YOU. DATE: October 9, 2001 To: RECIPIENT FAX PIiQNE N Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, (925) 335-1913 (925) 335-1900 Contra Costa County FROM: Patricia E. Curtin DIRECT DIAL. (51 O) 466-6819 FAX INFORMAYION: No. of PAGES ATTY No.: No ORIGINAL To FOLLOW (INCLUDING COVER): 5 OUR FILE NO.: 26359.00010 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES,PLEASE CALL US AT 510 466-6908 MESSAGE: Please see attached letter. Cemmw Cffy • Lo5 ANGELES • OAKLAND SAN FRANGISC.O • SoNomA • WESTLAKE VILLAGE 9486568.1 OCT 09 2001 8: 23 AM FR C H R & M 5 1 0273B83B TO 7227x#999#126359*0 P.02 CROSBY, HEAFEY, ROACH & MAY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Z&isi6 � :.� Y 1 _LJJ' ArroRNEYS Ar LAW 1999 HARRISON STREET OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94018 (SIQ) 763-aCIQ0 FAX(S 10) 273.6838 CENTURY CITY LOS ANGELES SAN FRANCISCO SONOMA (310) 734-5200 (213) 896.8000 1419)543-9700 (7071096-1775 Pneicit7 F.• cwto) Direct Dial:1510)466-8879 E-mail Address=pCul'1in@chrm.com October 8, 2001 VIA FACSIMILE (925) 335-1076 - - - - - Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 G� C, f � � Re: Board of Supervisor Meetinc, Item No. D.4 County File #DP983026, Ri; (Peter Ostrosky, Owner) File No. 26358.00010 Dear Chair Uilkema and All Other Supe I Please be advised that we represent Pete request for approval of eight home sites ! Sugarloaf Drive, in the Alamo area (the --- project is a clustered development of six attached "duet" units and two detached units. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider the project at its meeting on October 9, 2001 . For consideration at that hearing, we are enclosing a copy of a letter to Mr. Ostrosky from Susanna M. Schlendorf, Real Estate Broker with Fine Homes & Estates dated October 8, 2001 . In her letter, IVIS. Schlendorf confirms that the Alamo Gardens project will not adversely impact home values in the area, including the homes in the Sugarloaf area. Some of the Sugarloaf neighbors believe that the Alamo Gardens pro�ect D ftC,�K7 7 OCT 09 2001 B:23 AM FR C H R & M 5102738838 TO 7227#999#26359*0 P .03 CRosBY, HEAFEY, ROACH 5 MAY aaoF�as+oN. coanoaAT,oN Supervisor, Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair Board of Supervisors October S, 2001 Page 2 will have a negative fiscal impact on their homes. In support of her opinion, Ms. Schlendorf identifies areas in Alamo, Danville, and Blackhawk that include a mix of attached and detached homes. The value of detached homes in these areas were not negatively impacted by the placement of attached or patio homes in the same area. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to telephone me. truly yours, Patricia E. in PEC:tlg cc: Supervisor Donna Gerber (Via Facsimile) Supervisor John M. Gioia (Via Facsimile) Supervisor Mark DeSsuliner (Via Facsimile) Supervisor Federal Glover (Via Facsimile) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County (Via Facsimile) Jack Behseresht, .Sugarloaf Neighbor (Via E-Mail) Peter Ostrosky (Via Facsimile) � ... , v.� Uvv a .� • r_v ,•„ , , .: 1, ,♦ � i, .� a ur_ , UuuUu 1 v 1 [LGL 1 HJJJNGOUJJTY,1 r YJG CROSBY, HEAuFEY, ROACH & MAY PROFSIONAL CORPORATIONCpSIDE® MJ L � ArroFtNCrs Ar LAW 1999 HARRISON STREET OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94618 c5101 7d&$-a.000 FAX(910) 27$.683A CENTURY CITY LOS ANG"96 SAN FRANCISCO SONOMA (310)7345200 (213) 696.8000 1415)543-9700 (7071 998-1773 Petrlda E.Curtin Direct Diah r6 i'ot 46s-sa1 s Email Addrees:pourtin0chrm.com October S, 2001 VIA FACSIMILE (925) 335-1076 Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: Board of Supervisor Meeting on October 9, 2001 item No. D.4 County File #DP983026, RZ983069, SD988263 (Peter Ostrosky, Owner) File No. 26359.00010 Dear Chair Ullkeme and All Other Supervisors: Please be advised that we represent Peter Ostrosky with respect to his request for approval of eight home sites at the corner of Uvorna Road and Sugarloaf Drive, in the Alamo area (the "Alamo Gardens" project). The project is a clustered development of six attached "duet" units and two detached units. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider the project at its meeting on October 9, 2001. For consideration at that hearing, we are enclosing a copy of a letter to Mr. Ostrosky from Susanne M. Schlendorf, Real Estate Broker with Fine Homes & Estates dated October 8, 2001 . In her letter, Ms. Schlendorf confirms that the Alamo Gardens project will not adversely impact home values in the area, including the homes in the Sugarloaf area. Some of the Sugarloaf neighbors believe that the Alamo Gardens pro'ect D fti.Ri.9 7 V CJJ (_ Jrj 1 0 .G13 P1l'1 !'M V n l� - I'I J 1 CIG f 1300130 1 V !GC UO l • • CROSBY, HCAFCY, ROACH & MAY PROFG"ONAL CORPORATION Supervisor, Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair Board of Supervisors October 8, 2001 Page 2 will have a negative fiscal impact on their homes. In support of her opinion, Ms. Schlendorf identifies areas in Alamo, Danville, and Blackhawk that include a mix of attached and detached homes. The value of detached homes in these areas were not negatively impacted by the placement of attached or patio homes in the same area. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to telephone me. truly yours, r Patricia E. n PEC:tlg CC". Supervisor Donna Gerber (Via Facsimile) Supervisor John M. Gioia (Via Facsimile) Supervisor Mark DeSsuliner (Via Facsimile) Supervisor Federal Glover (Via Facsimile) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County (Via Facsimile) Jack Behseresht, Sugarloaf Neighbor (Via E-Mail) Peter Ostrosky (Via Facsimile) 1 VJ LUU 1 U•LY x911 1It 4.. f'1 1% - 11 J 1 Li C- f 13 C3 OJ fJ 1 V f GG f YJY FINE HOMES & ESTATES _ HERITAGE REAL ESTATE October S.2001 Pctex Osttosky ostrosky Sturprises 17 Sugwl"fTerracc: Alamo,California 94507' Hear Ivir.0?s rosly, At yottr request 1 have evaluated ft isstpttct of art 8 unit senior housing project on the:. existing Sugarloafnoighborbucld. I tun a form=Mayor,Councilzr mbcr and Planning CommL"Wner with Hurry years as a Real Estate JIM=acdvoly working in the San Rama Valley. 1 understand the concern that arises when aay new development is propos d in an cxinios residential neighborhood. The Alamo Gasdens development will occupy the now vatm aft&adjacent to Sugarloaf Drive.Livorno Road and lattersmwe 680.Thr homes will be approximate:iy 1840 xquam feet with two bodtboms,amd a dent plus a 300 square foot loft area I belicvc this project will,be beWfieW to the existing neichboAxwd and to the- community.The"Wo eaV senior neighborhood will provide a buffet betwwn the sistgle Lamily homes and the fftway and Livoraa Road.Tic honrs are cons invent with the eXWbtg single fatstily h0vaes in teems of price per square foot,architectuta,landscaping and orber anienitim Exzc for wain(ermnoe will be done praknionaW through a homeowners association, There are several exceelleat locsal examples otuAgghborhoods with more than om bausi g We. In DMVH1G.the 5yrasnore-neighborhood is an award wimtutg development with both sin&fz=*ty and atttacixd homes.Diablo west bas both single tkmily homes and attached patio bomcs tbsst are located in the center afthe neighbodwod.Valucs of centpsrable single family pnoptaks arc The same where they are adjacent to attach homes as.mparcd to those that etre snore distant.In,Blackhawic,the Country(,`tub neighborhood has a wide range of housi4 types.Clusters of at=locd homers ate iocawd throughout the Causmy Club,with expevnivc single family homes adjacent to them. The [ttyaa Term=neipbothood at tete end of state Vaxcy Road is an C=Ucnt cxarnple of the appeal of homes with txmll square 0:otagc assd pmperty is Alamo.Many ofihc owners sathis neigbbaftm4 us long isvm sraid=vts of Alamo who want to suy bac as CM)314•1W• FAX tRsy394-1510 crJrJ a o .C- rni i rrt k, n r[ a II �1 'UC r 00000 I V r CC r H��1iGb�7��mYJ r VJ� Page 2 their housing needs&wage,In all of these areas,the mix of housing types has been an asset and property values have not been adversely affected. Rccogn¢ing that the B twits arc proposed for an axes that originally was approved for single family bonom I want m address the bcadits of this proja in rdmion to the original approval. Single Smily bowies would be highly visible from r. vorr a Road and Inxersude 58U_The backyards world have tntk privacy and as such would lively nor be at focus of amentias attd interest by the ho=owttcrs IZw value ofr=idcntW propardies is impacted by noise.lack of privacy,and vi'val iWWacts.T h=c homes would be substantially itss desirable than the riming Suwloafhoam aW their value would reftel this prabknt By ooluzatt.tin proposed dt%ftlopromot$IIows for 0,design*batt orients the units away from the busy roads.a wsw—ey"diet could not be achieved with single fastrily lraates_ L would be pleased to respond to any quesxiaos about my analysis. Si�ercky, � ilvlscG�' ✓rl��i� Sua&ww M.Schk-ndorf RaA Esx&w Broker *sK TOTAL PAGE .05 ** J 1.. 1 PROOF OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF (2015.5 C.C.P.) A PUBLIC H TMENG BEFORCONTRA COSTA STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY BOARD OF PERON County of Contra Costa PLANNINGSMARTTERS I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the ALAMO AREA County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and NOTICE is hereby elven not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. thot on Tuesday October 9,'2001 at 11.36 a.m. In the County Administrabon I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times, a Building, 651 Pine Street, newspaper of general circulation, printed and published at (comer of Pine and Esco- bar Streets),Martinez,Call- ' 2640 Shadelands Drive in the City of Walnut Creek, County fomia, the Contra Costa of Contra Costa, 94598. County, Board of Supervl- sors will hold a public hear- ing to consider the follow- And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of ing planning matter: general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Ap peal by Peter Ostrosky Contra Costa, State of California, under the date of October (Owner) from the decision 22, 1934.Case Number 19764. by the San Ramon valley Regional Plannin Com- mission denying t9e tent.- The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in tive subdivision map, re- t e not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each zoning request and final YPP development plan to re- regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any subdivide the existing 5.31 Supp;eina nt thereof on tic foYowing daieS,to-wit: acre site into three single =yfamily rnsidentlal home- an eighi unit clus- September21 ter do55 reloperentfor with senioars ix tached "duet" units and all in the year of 2001 two detached hedden its Protect I certifyor declare under penalty of perjury that the (County File #8263). 25, ( ) P Y P 1 rY RZ983069,SD988263). foregoing is true and correct. location of the subject property Is within the unin- corporated territory of the Exec ted at Walnut C k,Califor ' County of Contra Costa On� da f e to ler, 20 County,.State.of California, Y enerally Identified below pa more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Sig ature Community Development, County Administration Co tra Costa Times Building, Martinez, Califor- P O Box 4147 nia): Walnut Creek,CA 94596 The location of the subject (925)935-2525 site is Llvorna Road,Inter- state 680 and Sugarloaf Drive in the Alamo area. Proof of Publication of: If you challenge this matter (attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that published) in Court,you may be limit- ed to raising only those is- sues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described at the public hearing described In this notice, or in written corre- spondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing,Com- munity Development De- partment staff will be avall- able on Tuesday, October 9 at 11:00 p.m.,In Room 1()B, Administraon Build- Ing,651 Pine Street,Marti- nez,to meet with any Inter- ested parties In order to(1) answer questions; (2) re- view the hearing proce- dures used by the Board; (3).clarify the issues bel considered b the Board; and(4)provide opportunity to identifyresolve,or nar- row any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please Call Mi- chael Laughlin,Community Development Department at(925)335-1204 by 3:00 p m. on Monday, October F3, 2001, to confirm your participation. Date:September 21,2001 John Sweeten,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Danielle Kelly, Depu�.y Clerk Legal LCT 3044 Publish September A 2001 1i LEGAL PUBLICATION REQUISITION =ti4 Contra Costa County ns� GQ' T� COW— From: Clerk of the Board To: Contra Costa Times 651 Pine St., Room 106 PO Box 5124 Martinez, CA 94553 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Requested by: Danielle Kelly . Date: Sept 17, 2001 Phone No: 335-1902 Reference No: 579 Org: 1100 Sub Object: 2190 Task: SAS Activity: Publication.Date (s): Sept 21, 2001 No. of Pages: 2 LEGAL PUBLICATION- Publication of Appeal by Peter Ostrosky, County File #SD988263, RZ983069, DP983025, in the AIamo area. ""Immediately upon expiration of publication,"" send in one affidavit for each publication in order that the auditor may be authorized to pay your bill. Authorized Signature: Please confirm date of publication & receipt of this fax. I\ NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS ALAMO AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday, October 9. 2001 at 11:30 ajn., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Appeal by Peter Ostrosky (Owner) from the decision by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission denying the tentative subdivision map, rezoning request and final development plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into three single family residential homesites and an eight unit cluster development for seniors 55 or older with six attached "duet" units and two detached units for the Alamo Garden Project (County File #DP983025, RZ983069, SD088263). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The location of the subject site is Livoma Road, Interstate 680 and Sugarloaf Drive in the Alamo area. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, October 9, 2001, at 11:00 a.m. in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and (4)provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call Michael Laughlin, Community Development Department, at (925) 335-1204 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, October 8, 2001, to confirm your participation. Date: September 17, 2001 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk I\ NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS ALAMO AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday. October 9, 2001 at 11:30 a.m. in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Appeal by Peter Ostrosky(Owner) from the decision by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission denying the tentative subdivision map, rezoning request and final development plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into three single family residential homesites and an eight unit cluster development for seniors 55 or older with six attached "duet" units and two detached units for the Alamo Garden Project (County File #DP983025, RZ983069, SD988263). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The location of the subject site is Livoma Road, Interstate 680 and Sugarloaf Drive in the Alamo area. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, October 9, 2001, at 11:00 a.m. in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and (4) provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. if you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call Michael Laughlin, Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1204 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, October 8, 2001, to confirm your participation. Date: September 17, 2001 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By NtACL Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk 0 w �0 +a' N �O t a0 Ol 10 9 irk N � G� ✓ tip O O t y ; vQ G pl v �4 1 S � f" NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS \ ALAMO AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday, October 9, 2001 at 11:30 a.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Appeal by Peter Ostrosky(Owner) from the decision by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission denying the tentative subdivision map, rezoning request and final development plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into three single family residential ;ght unit cluster development for seniors 55 or.older with six attached "duet" units and two detached units for the Alamo Garden Project (County File #DP983025, RZ983069, SD988263). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The location of the-subject site is I.ivorna Road, Interstate 680 and Sugarloaf Drive in the Alai-no area. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hcaring described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, October 9, 2001, at 11:00 a.m. in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and (4) provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call Michael Laughlin, Community Development Department, at (925) 335-1204 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, October 8, 2001, to confirm your participation. Date: September 17, 2001 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk C'1 �O 4 N 4 � F° ,>40 •41p�� N G log r� O X. 71 V 9O N' 1 ;� ,t• �/� t .,`\ `. �� `� .�\ \\ \� .:��::. »,;,..�. }�� .. r, �;. �.., ��. ..,� ,,,J � � .r i .r^ � l r* � � �` �+'� y�ri r� �\ �r"' .. \.. _ �• t ., 1/ r .o-y .rJ r! \ �' \.,+� � � :,�,, �� \ • � r { NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS ALAMO AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday, October.9, 2001 at 11:30 a.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Appeal by Peter Ostrosky(Owner) from the decision by the San Ramon Valley Regional , Planning Commission denying the tentative subdivision map, rezoning request and final development plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into three single family residential homesites and an eight unit cluster development for seniors 55 or older with six attached "duet" units and two detached units for the Alamo Garden Project (County File#DP983025, RZ983069, SD988263). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The location of the subject site is Livoma Road, Interstate 680 and Sugarloaf Drive in the Alamo area. I If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on . Tuesday, October 9, 2001, at 11:00 a.m. in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and (4) provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call Michael Laughlin, Community Development Department, at (925) 335-1204 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, October 8, 2001, to confirm your participation. Date: September 17, 2001 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By V +CO Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk � r Nao awn 0-4 ca i j Zj 40I ownti c� t Fn Ocoo r!;. rn 5J o o� o o " > t c]0r, t 1 _ I I �. / ., � ,��' ,� � t �' ,� . ,' .. i` ._` � ,� t _.. l � �� '� .�.: f .�. \, NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS ALAMO AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday, October 9. 2001 at 11:30 a.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Appeal by Peter Ostrosky(Owner) from the decision by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission denying the tentative subdivision map, rezoning request and final development plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into three single family residential homesites and an eight unit cluster development for seniors 55 or older with six attached "duet" units and two detached units for the Alamo Garden Project(County File #DP983025, RZ983069, SD988263). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California,generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The location of the subject site is Livoma Road, Interstate 680 and Sugarloaf Drive in the Alamo area. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development ..,_,-- —flable on Tuesday, October 9, 2001, at 11:00 a.m. in Rod ltreet, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties it le hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clay and (4) provide an opportunity to identify, resolvi dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting w iunity Development Department, at(925) 335-1201ORIGINAL o confirm your participation. Date: September 17, 2001 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING Appeal by Peter Ostrosky ) County Files SD988263, ) RZ983069, DP983025 ) Livoma Road, Interstate 680 ) and Sugarloaf Drive, Alamo ) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited by the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice in the above matter to the following: SEE ATTACHED LIST I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, executed at 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California. Dated: t e ' Danielle Kelly, Deputy Cler. 187 150 022 187 171 027 117 171 Ugh Walnut Creek City Of David Wei Clien & Anne Yang Emmanuel &Teresa Roman 1445 Civic Dr S 1 Sugarloaf Ln 60 Sugarloaf Lit Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Alauto. CA 94507 Ahmo. CA 94507 187 1.71029 187 171 030 1 til 171 11.;1 Roger&Pamela Loa Ira' &Elizabeth Behscresh( Dai id & Rita Little 1360 Sugarloaf Dr 1350 Sugarloaf Dr 1340 Sugarloaf Dr Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo_ CA 94507 Alamo. CA .94507 187 171 032 187 171 033 Michael&Diana Makieve Joseph& Nicki Hobby " 1330 Sugarloaf Dr 1320 Sugarloaf Dr Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 187 171036 187 171 ()37 1ti7 171 ().;S Michael&Esther Clion Anthom & Kelli DUratttC \Villimii &—I:;uol Bush 29 Sugarloaf Ter35 Sugarloal`Ter 4 Iu Alamo. CA 94507 Ahmo. CA 94507 Ahmio. (';1 9.1507 187 171 039 117 171 O4U,' Iti.- 1 'l 1 ( 4 1 Robot-& Roseman Zeman .lack & \\'rut Tailor vhik .lmwig;, 68 Sugarloaf Lu 72 Su-arloaf Ln -t �u arin:il L.n Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 ,\1;11110. ('-\ 94507 157 171 042 Iti- 171 ()A4 Richard& Shcrn' Dorfman CiIC;,On cC 13ctic Vcr�ais S0 Suearloaf Lit fu' Alamo. CA 94507 -\I:imo ( A 9407 117 171 045 117 171 ()46 1:-�7 171 MMISOm'& Slmin Zabetian Lm I. Bani & Elena Eslr;ula :ani.\ \\'u Kintia Zabctian Suwarloaf"fcr PO I log 28 Sugarloaf Ter �� AI;mto. CA 94507 \V;ihmt ( reek. CA 94598 Alamo, CA 94507 187 171 048 Peter Ostrosky&OSTROSKY ENTER 17 Sugarloaf Ter Alamo. CA 94507 y 187 171 051 117 171 Carl Stephen & Karen Johnson Theodore& Arlene Upland III V: it: J;(h;in 61 Subarloaf Ln 41 Swmilwl"Ln 12o", Uhajuller Bled Alauto. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 14507 N Ilolktkood. ('A 91007 r ' 1173330009 Iti? "(I (1111 l�7 >;(1111I Neil AI'lllUr& Karla Smith Romlld & Kalhlcen Peterson C.ieur e& Rosa DcIIII a 1335 Sugarloaf Dr L 35 Su arloal'Di r 974 L'ii.ghloll Dr Alauto. CA 94507 \tanto. CA 943(17 DIIbIiII. ( A 941(;1 Alamo Parks&Recreation Committee Eric Hasseltine P.O. Box 1062 3182 Old Tunnel Rd#E Alamo,CA 94507-9998 Lafayette,CA 94549 n Isakson&Associates, Inc. Alamo Improvement Association P.O.Box 271 Civil Engineering Alamo,CA 94507 2255 Ygnacio Valley Rd.,Ste C Walnut Creek,CA 94598 City of Walnut Creek 1666 North Main Street Walnut Creel:.,CA 94596 h 187 iM 17 Rornald Peterson Rodclnr A:. (';iiolin;i Padicrnos 1340 Sugarloaf Dr 41 ; Ruckfoid Di Akinlo. CA 94507 Antioch. CA 91509 r 187 330 020 187 330 027 1\7 .i.i0 028 Clement&Anna Choy Miles Sandstrom & Lillian Nen►etz Thomas & Many Lammers 1345 Sugarloaf Dr PO Boz 528. I')W) La\crock- Ln Alamo. CA 94507 Ala►no. CA 94507 ALimo. CA 94507 192 240 007 192 240009 192 ''4u a 14 RIC& Candi Gester James& Pamela Cooper NI;ixinuli;u! (N-, Doi►;:► Vlasache 1251 Laverock Ln 1280 Laverock Ln 1290 Lai crock Ln Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo. CA 945117 192 2.40 015 192 240 017 I �� x;11 Oleg John&Joan Russ1110 J;rson Gina Rcnnci L,r I I;u! 'I scl►arnei III 1260 Laverock Ln 12(d LJ\ciuck Di I' ! I L;n.rtick Lr► Alamo. CA 04507 Almiio. CA 915(.)7 AL11110. ( \ 94507 AiOtLAko , c�4- q 45D- CONTRA.COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Project: Brief Description: HEARING ON THE APPEAL BY PETER OSTROSKY(OWNER)OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, REZONING REQUEST AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO RESUBDIVIDE THE EXISTING 5.31 ACRE SITE INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMESITES AND AN 8 UNIT CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIORS 55 OR OLDER WITH 6 ATTACHED "DUET" UNITS AND TWO DETACHED UNITS. PROPOSED REZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS FROM R-20 TO P-1 TO CREATE A CLUSTER TYPE DEVELOPMENT WITH OPEN SPACE RATHER THAN CONVENTIONAL R-20 LOTS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT LIVORNA ROAD, INTERSTATE 680 AND SUGAR LOAF DRIVE IN THE ALAMO AREA, AND IS REFERED TO AS ALAMO GARDENS. Owner: Peter Ostrosky Appellant: Peter Ostrosky . County File #'s SD988263, RZ983069, DP983025 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: October 9, 2001 @ 11:30 A.M. Briefing Meeting Date: October 9, 2001 Briefing Meeting Time: 11:00 A.M. Briefing Meeting Location: Room 108 cc: Dennis M. Barry. Director Catherine Kutsuris,Deputy Director Heather Ballenger,Engineering Services Project Planner: Michael Laughlin,5-1204 Secretary: Karen Piona 5-1211 Karen Piona,CP Application Tracking S:currentplanftardWamo Gardens prehearing Peter Ostrosky 17 Sugarloaf Terrace Alamo,CA 94507 June 21,2001 Application and Permit Center Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, Second Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: DP983025, RZ983069, SD988263 Ladies and Gentlemen: I wish to appeal the decision and the findings made by the San Ranson Valley Area Planning Commission on June 20,2001 relative to the referenced applications. Specifically, I am appealing the denial of SD 988263. l understand that the rezoning and the associated development plan items will go to the Board of Supervisors automatically. If that is not the case, then I wish to appeal the action on those itentis as well. Enclosed is a check for $125. and a set of stamped envelopes for all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project. Yours truly, A Peter Ostrosky RESOLUTION NO. 18-2001 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMNIISSION, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF DENIAL FOR THE ALAMO GARDENS PROJECT (RZ983069 and DP983035) AND TENTATIVE MAP TRACT 8263 (SD 988363). WHEREAS, the owner, Peter Ostrosky, proposes to construct the Alamo Gardens Project, which consists of a plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acres into 3 single family residential homesites and an 8 unit cluster development (for seniors aged 55 or older) with 6 attached units and two detached units; and WHEREAS, notice of the hearing having been lawfully given, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held public hearings on the applicant's ,- requests on December 13, 2000 and May 16, 2001, and during the hearings considered comments from the Contra Costa County staff, the project applicant, the project technical consultants, and all interested members of the public who wished to speak; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated all the testimony, evidence and comments submitted in this matter; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, at.their \ meeting of June 20, 2001 recommends to deny the project based on the findings attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Planning Commission shall respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this Resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors all in accordance with the planning laws of the State of California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on Wednesday June 20, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Gibson, McPherson, Mulvihill, Matsunaga NOES: Commissioners - Neely ABSENT: Commissioners - Jeha, Couture ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None Page 2 WHEREAS,in a letter received June 27,2001,following the decision on this application by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission,the property owner appealed the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of File#'s DP983025, RZ983069 and SD988263 (Alamo Gardens Subdivision) to.the Board of Supervisors. Nancy J. Mulvihill Chair of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California EXHIBIT A Alamo Gardens Findings Adopted by the San Ramon Regional Planning Commission On June 20, 2001 Rezoning County File #RZ983069 Preliminary and Final Development Plan File #DP983025 Tentative Map File #SD988263 Alamo Area ERIC HASSELTINE (Applicant) PETER OSTROSKY (Owner) A • Project Findings File#'s RZ983069,DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area I. General Considerations A. Reliance on Record. Each and all of the findings and determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project and constitute the independent findings and determinations of tills Commission. B. Nature of Findings. This Commission intends that these findings be considered as an integrated whole, whether or not any part of these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings. If any required finding is contained in any portion of this findings document, it shall be deemed to have not been satisfied. II. General. Plan and Existing Zoning The property is designated Single Family Residential-Low Density (SL). The density allowed in this category is 1.0 to 2.9 dwelling units/net acre. The proposed density is close to the maximum of 2.9 dwelling units/net acre, based on the entire area of the rezoning, (5.31 acres) excluding actual road improvements. Where improvements have not been proposed, the County General Plan assumes a 251/; right-of-way dedication. In this case, the road improvements are less than 25170 of the total site area (18.5°I). The areas to the south, north and east of the project site are also designated Single Family Residential-Low Density (SL). The subject parcel is currently zoned Single Family Residential, R-20 (minimum 20,000 square foot gross parcel size required). A rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (P-1) is requested by the applicant, which requires a minimum of 5 acres to establish. The area to the south, north and cast of the project site is also zoned Single Family Residential, R-20 (minimum 20,000 square foot gross parcel size required). Interstate 680 is directly west of the project site. II. Project. Description The applicant is proposing to create 8 new residential parcels with one common area parcel for a senior housing development (area is currently two lots). Each person would own the property on which the unit, driveway, and outdoor living area sit. Each of the units share half of the entry courtyard that is shared with an adjoining owner-. Each owner would have partial ownership of the common area. The remaining 3 lots for single family development were previously divided 2 Project Findings File#'s RZ983069,DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area under subdivision 6468 and would not be part of the new homeowner's association since none of these lots have any common areas (the CC&R's that currently apply to those properties would remain in effect). The boundary of the Planned Unit Development proposal was drawn to meet the 5-acre minimum area required by the County for a P-1 rezoning. The three single family residential sites have graded pads and utility hookups and are ready for development. The remaining area can best be described as a bowl, with the main area of development below Livorna Road, Sugarloaf Terrace and Interstate 680. An access roadway and retaining walls are proposed to provide access to the units. A segment of a drainage course extends along the northern side of the property, and will be retained in its present location. Drainage for the project will be directed to the existing culvert which extends under Interstate 680. Existing trees occur in this same riparian area. A steep hillside area occurs to the northwest, between the back of 2 existing residences and the freeway. Due to access, slope, noise and proximity to the freeway, development of this area is not feasible.. This area and the drainage course area will be part of a common area lot maintained by the homeowners association. The scenic easement (which now only covers the drainage areas and trees) would be expanded to include all of this hillside area. III. Ordinance Code Requirements and Project Findings Pursuant to Section 26-2.2022 of the Ordinance Code.. it is the Project Applicant's burden to produce evidence to convince the County Planning Agency that all standards are met and the intent and purpose of the applicable regulations and goals and objectives of the General Plan will be satisfied. Failure to satisfy this burden shall result in a denial. The applicant submitted evidence supporting the project and compliance with General Plan policies, and the Commission disagreed with the interpretation presented. Based on evidence and testimony submitted to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, the Commission determines that the Project Applicant has not met the burden of proof to convince the Commission that the Project will satisfy the following findings that are required by County Code: A. Findings Pertaining to Approval of a Rezoning Application (Section 26-2.1806 of the County Code) 1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan. The Planning Commission considered the following General Plan policies: 3 Project Findings File#'s RZ983069, DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area Land Use Element Policy 3-8 Infilling already developed areas shall be encouraged. Policy 3-18 Flexibility in the design of projects shall be encouraged in order to enhance scenic qualities and provide for a varied development pattern. Policy 3-27 Existing residential neighborhoods shall be protected from incompatible land uses and traffic levels exceeding adopted service standards. Policy 3-28 New residential development shall be accommodated only lIl areas where it will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment and upon the existing community. Finding: This Commission finds that the project site can be categorized as an infill site, and that some flexibility in design may be appropriate due to site constraints. The proposed cluster portion of the development is not compatible with the existing residential neighborhood and neighborhood development pattern which consists of single family homes on lots averaging one half acre. The development is too dense given the visibility of the site and the site constraints. The type and mass of structures proposed does not match the neighborhood development pattern. Concern was expressed about the impact of the project on existing property values. Evidence: Testimony before the Con-imisslon, County General Plan, observation of Commissioners. Policies for the Alamo-Diablo-Blackhawk Area Policy 3-135 Promote the individuality and unique character of each community based on existing community images. Policy 3-136 The character of the area as one of predominantly single-family residences shall be developed, and multiple family residential units shall be provided in suitable densities and locations. A range of densities shall be offered in order to provide for a 4 Project Findings File#'s RZ983069, DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area variety of family sizes, income levels, and age groups. Policy 3-142 When rezoning in Alamo, the appropriate single family residential zoning will include R-20, R-40, R-65 and R-100 and P-l. Both Alamo and Diablo have special characteristics which preclude clustering in established areas. Finding: The Commission finds that the predominant character of the Alamo area is detached, single family residential development on larger lots. This project would introduce a type of housing currently not found in the immediate area. The site was not found to be suitable based on the density and location. A more appropriate location was identified along Danville Boulevard and other areas west of Interstate 680. The location is considered an established area, and clustering is not appropriate. The Commission also finds that the proposed density of the project, at approximately 2.5 dwelling units/net acre, is inconsistent with the intent of General Plan policy 3-142 (above) that the maximum net density in the residentially- designated, Alamo-Diablo-Blackhawk areas of the General Plan be 1.9 DU/net acre, rather than 2.9 DU/net acre elsewhere, as evidenced by the exclusion in.Policy 3-142 of R- 15 as an appropriate single family zoning designation in these areas. Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General Plan, observation of Commissioners. Transportation and Circulation Element Policy 5-34 Scenic corridors shall be maintained with the intent of protecting attractive natural qualities adjacent to various roads throughout the county. Policy 5-36 Scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced, and protected -to the extent possible. Policy 5-37 The existing system of scenic routes shall be enhanced to increase the enjoyment and opportunities for scenic pleasure driving to major 5 Project Findings File#'s RZ983069,DP983025,SD988263 Alamo Area recreational and cultural centers throughout this and adjacent counties. Policy 5-41 For lands designated for urban use along scenic routes, planned unit developments shall be encouraged in covenant with land development projects. Finding: The Commission finds that Interstate 680 is a designated scenic corridor. Livorna Road is a gateway into the community. The project is not an appropriate gateway element, since it does not reflect the predominant development pattern found on the east side of Interstate 680. Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General Plan, observation of Commissioners. Housing Element Goal 4, Special Housing Needs Program 4.2 Design flexibility for elderly projects. The objective is to encourage the development and expansion of housing opportunities for the elderly. Finding: The Commission finds that this site is not appropriate for senior housing. The site is isolated and limits walking opportunities for residents. The site is isolated and is not in close proximity to shopping or other amenities for seniors. Noise and pollution exposure are high, and would require that windows remain closed and mechanical ventilation he used (requiring more for energy use and requiring higher spending). Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General Plan, observation of Commissioners. Noise Element Policy 11-1 New projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards as established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines contained in Figure 11-6. Thesc guidelines, along with the future noise level shown in the future noise contours. 6 Project Findings File#'s RZ983069, DP983025, SD988263 Alamo Area Policy 11-2 The standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a DNL of 60 dB. However, a DNL of 60 DB or less may not be achievable in all residential areas due to economic or aesthetic constraints One example is small balconies associated with multi- family housing. In this case, second and third story balconies may be difficult to control to the goal. A common outdoor use area that meets the goal can be provided as an alternative. Policy 11-4 Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulations requires that new multiple family housing projects, hotels and motels exposed to a DNL of 60 dB or greater have a detailed acoustical analysis describing how the project will provide an interior DNL or 45 dB or less. The also shall require new single-family housing projects to provide for an interior DNL of 45 dB or less. Finding: The Commission finds that this site is exposed to high noise levels. Even though noise can be mitigated by the project design, aspects of the project are less than ideal for residents and especially seniors. Bedroom orientation toward the freeway does not permit opening of windows during the night, and there is high reliance on mechanical ventilation. Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General Plan, observation of Commissioners. 2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in. adjacent districts. Finding: The Commission finds that the use proposed in the R- 20 district (the cluster development portion with attached units) is not compatible to uses within the district and uses authorized in adjacent districts. Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General Plan, observation of Commissioners. 3. Required Finding: Community need has been denionst rated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstrationof'fitture financial success. 7 Project Findings File#'s RZ983069,DP983025,SD988263 Alamo Area Findinji: The Commission finds that community need has been demonstrated for the use based on the County need for senior housing. However, the site is not a desirable location for senior housing. The site is isolated and limits walking opportunities for residents. The site is isolated and is not in close proximity to shopping or other amenities for seniors. Noise and pollution exposure are high, and would require that windows remain closed and mechanical ventilation be used (requiring more for energy use and requiring higher spending). Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General Plan, observation of Commissioners. B. Findings Pertaining to Approval of a Planned Unit District Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Development Plans (Section 84-66.1804 of the County Code) 1. Required Flndin : The Proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County General Plan. Finding: For the reasons set forth in Part III A, above, the Commission does not find the proposed rezoning and development plan consistent with the General Plan. Evidence: Testimony before the Commission, County General Plan, observation of Commissioners. ?. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential en.vironnlent of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmonv with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and conmlurtity. Finding: The Commission finds that the proposed residential environment does not have sustained desirability and stability. Guest parking is limited, as well as resident amenities. Safe construction of retaining walls and proximity of retaining walls to Sugarloaf Terrace and Livorna Road was identified as a concern. As previously stated, the proposed cluster portion of the development differs from the single family residential nature of the surrounding neighborhood and community. Evidence: Posted tentative map/final development plan and project plans, testimony before the Commission, and observation of Commissioners. 8 Project Findings File#'s RZ983069,DP983025,SD988263 Alamo Area 3. Required Finding: The develop»lent of a harnloniou.s integrated plan justifies exceptions frons the nonnal application of this code. Finding: Since the Commission did not find this project to be a harmonious plan in finding B.2. above, the Commission also finds that the exceptions to the normal application of the code are not justified for this project. Evidence: Posted tentative map/final development plan and project plans, testimony before the Commission, and observation of Commissioners. C. Finding Pertaining to Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map (Section 94-2.806 of the County Code) Required Finding>: The advisor? a;encY shall not approve a tentative neap linle.ss it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the applicable General and Specific plans required by law. Finding: The Commission did not find this project to be consistent with the General Plan in findings under section A, above, and therefore does not find the proposed subdivision consistent with the General Plan. Proposed design and improvements for the cluster development include a circular road utilizing the entire width of the lower site and retaining walls which were close to Livorna Road and Sugarloaf Terrace that could be reduced in height if the road were reconfigured and the project density reduced. Evidence: Posted tentative map/final development plan and project plans, General Plan, testimony before the Commission, and observation of Commissioners. 9 NOTICE OF A PUB IC EARING You are hereby notified that on WEDNESDAY MAY 16 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the San Ramon School District Board Room, 699 Old Orchard Drive, Danville, California, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission will consider a REZONING WITH RELATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SUBDIVISION application as described as follows: ERIC HASSELTINE (Applicant) and PETER OSTROSKY (Owner), County Files #SD988263, #RZ983069, #DP983025: A. File #SD988263: The applicant requests approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acres into 3 single family residential homesites and an 8 unit cluster development with 6 attached units and two detached units. The proposal includes an adjustment and expansion of the existing scenic easement. B. File #RZ983069: The applicant requests approval to rezone the property from R-20 to P-1 to create a cluster type development with open space rather than conventional R-20 lots to allow for cluster development. C. File #DP983025: The applicant requests approval of a Final Development Plan for 3 single family homesites and construction of an 8 unit clustered housing development for seniors 55 years and older in three "duets" and.two detached units. The subject site is located at Livorna Road, Interstate 680 and Sugarloaf Drive, in the Alamo Area. (R-20) (ZA: Q-15) (CT: 3461.01) (Parcel #'s 187-171-048, 049, 050, 053) 054). For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), A Mitigated Negative Declaration (no Environmental Impact Report required) has been prepared for this project. If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. For further details, contact the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, or Michael Laughlin at 925-335-1204. Dennis M. Bary, AICP f�Ay Community Development Director NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS ALAMO AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on ,December 11, 2001 at 11:00 a.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Continued hearing on the appeal by Peter Ostrosky(owner) of the San Ramon'Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of the tentative subdivision map and development plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into 3 single family residential homesites and a cluster development for seniors 55 or older with 8 attached"Duet" units. Proposed rezoning of the property is from R-20 to P-1 to create a cluster type development with open space rather than conventional R-20 lots. (SD988263, RZ983069, DP983025). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site is located at Livoma Road, Interstate 680 and Sugarloaf Drive in the Alamo area. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues being considered by the .Board; and (4) provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call Michael Laughlin, Community Development Department, at (925) 335-1204 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, December 10,.2001, to confirm your participation. Date: November 20, 2001 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS ALAMO AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on ,December 11, 2001 at 11:00 a.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter:. Continued hearing on the appeal by Peter Ostrosky(owner) of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of the tentative subdivision map and development plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into 3 single family residential homesites and a cluster development for seniors 55 or older with 8 attached "Duet" units. Proposed rezoning of the property is from R-20 to P-1 to create a cluster type development with open space rather than conventional R-20 lots. (SD988263, RZ983069, DP983025). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site is located at Livorna Road, Interstate 680 and Sugarloaf Drive in the Alamo area. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and (4) provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call Michael Laughlin, Community Development Department, at (925) 335-1204 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, December 10, 2001, to confirm your participation. Date: November 20, 2001 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By I �t, �� N�, Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS ALAMO AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on ,December 11, 2001 at 11:00 a.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Continued hearing on the appeal by Peter Ostrosky(owner) of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of the tentative subdivision map and development plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into 3 single family residential homesites and a cluster development for seniors 55 or older with 8 attached "Duet" units. Proposed rezoning of the property is from R-20 to P-1 to create a cluster type development with open space rather than conventional R-20 lots. (SD988263, RZ983069, DP983025). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site is located at Livonia Road, Interstate 680 and Sugarloaf Drive in the Alamo area. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and (4) provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which retrain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call Michael Laughlin, Community Development Department, at (925) 335-1204 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, December 10, 2001, to confirm your participation. Date: November 20, 2001 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS ALAMO AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on ,December 11, 2001 at 11:00 a.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: Continued hearing on the appeal by Peter Ostrosky(owner) of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of the tentative subdivision map and development plan to resubdivide the existing 5.31 acre site into 3 single family residential homesites and a cluster development for seniors 55 or older with 8 attached"Duet" units. Proposed rezoning of the property is from R-20 to P-1 to create a cluster type development with open space rather than conventional R-20 lots. (SD988263, RZ983069, DP983025). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site is located at Livoma Road, Interstate 680 and Sugarloaf Drive in the Alamo area. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, December 11, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and (4) provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call Michael Laughlin, Community Development Department, at (925) 335-1204 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, December 10, 2001, to confirm your participation. Date: November 20, 2001 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By I 1� Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk