HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10232001 - D.3 "b3
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORS �`� County
�r
`ti.�•�T coi Nt�
DATE: October 23, 2001
.SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR A REZONING FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(R-10)TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (P-1)WITH A VARIANCE TO MINIMUM PARCEL
SIZE, TO BE LESS THAN 5 ACRES AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF 10 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES ON A 1.14 ACRE PARCEL
LOCATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF WALNUT CREEK. FILE # RZ00-
3097/DP00-3056, FOCUS REALTY SERVICES. (APPLICANT) STOW PARTNERS
(OWNER)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ADOPT the recommendation of the County Planning Commission, as contained in their
Resolution No. 23-2001, to approve the rezoning of the 1.14 acre property from Single-
family Residential District (R-10) to Planned Unit District (P-1), and to approve the Final
Development Plan.
2. ADOPT the findings contained in the County Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-
2001 as the basis for the Board's action.
3. FIND the Negative Declaration prepared for this project to be adequate for the purposes
of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and adopt the same.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE FWrfl-,
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOAR? C MMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
0
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON October 23, 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER
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: Telma Moreira(925)335-1217 ATTESTED October 23, 2001
cc: �
J.ohn- -Sweeten_ _ CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
-
Public Works SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Applicant -
Building Inspection
BY � V� I�'V , DEPUTY
October 23, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#RZ00-3097
Page 2
4. INTRODUCE the ordinance giving effect to the aforesaid rezoning, waive
reading and set date for adoption of same.
5. DIRECT the Community Development Department to post the Notice of
Determination with the County Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant is responsible for cost of processing the
application.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION/REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant is requesting the rezoning of a 1.14 acre site from Single-family Residential
(R-10) to Planned Unit District (P-1) with a variance to allow a residential planned unit
development on a lot less than 5 acres. The applicant is proposing to establish ten (10)
two-story single-family dwellings with a two-car garage in each dwelling. Additionally, the
applicant is requesting a tree permit to allow removal of 26 trees and alteration of five other
trees. Originally, the applicant requested a tree permit to allow removal of 28 trees. A
revised tentative map submitted on August 10, 2001, indicates that 2 additional trees will
be saved and the total of trees to be removed is now 26.
The applicant's request was heard by the County Planning Commission on July 24, 2001
and continued to August 28, 2001. The reason for the continuance of this item was to allow
the applicant to meet with neighbors and discuss issues and concerns regarding the
proposed project. Staff has included responses to the issues raised at the July 24, 2001
Planning Commission meeting and included clarifications and modifications to the
recommended conditions of approval. At the August 28, 2001, County Planning
Commission meeting, the Commission added the following condition:
1. Before the granting of a building permit, the applicant shall provide
evidence to the satisfaction and approval of the Zoning Administrator,
that all the windows on the west side of the house located on Lot No. 6,
shall be transom (high) windows.
The County Planning Commission, after evaluating the proposal and evidence submitted,
voted to approve the .Subdivision and recommended approval of the proposed Rezoning
and Final Development Plan to the Board of Supervisors. The Community Development
Department did not receive any appeal of the subdivision. The subdivision will not become
effective until approval of the rezoning.
The surrounding zoning is M-29 (Multi-family Residential district) to the north, N-B
(Neighborhood Business) to the east, P-1 (Planned Unit Development) to the southeast;
and Single-family Residential District (R-10) to the south and west. The proposal is
consistent with the P-1 district and with the designated General Plan Multi-family Medium
Density (MM). Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the Rezoning and
Final development Plan with the attached conditions.
l ,
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.3
October 23, 2001
On this date,the Board of Supervisors considered the hearing of the application for rezoning from a
single-family residential district(R-10) to planned unit district(P-1)with a variance to minimum parcel
size, to be less than 5 acres and final development plan for the construction of 10 single-family residences
on a 1.14 acre parcel located in the unincorporated area of Walnut Creek.
Dennis Barry,Director, and Telma Moreira from the Community Development Department presented the
staff report and recommendations. Mr. Barry advised the board that there were some revisions to the
conditions of approval that were not included in the staff report:
Condition 23 should be revised to reflect the August 7, 2001 submittal date.
Condition 25 is correct as written.
Condition 27 should be modified to require a 21-foot right of way with an additional 5-foot wide
(minimum)public utility easement contiguous to both sides of the private road right of way.
Condition 28 is correct as written.
The Board discussed the recommendations of staff. The Chair opened the public hearing and Catherine
Pinkas presented testimony.Ms. Pinkas requested if staff would change one of the conditions of approval
for the structures to be under 27 feet. Mr. Barry agreed to add to condition of approval#4 that the
building height shall be limited to 27 feet.
The public hearing was closed and Supervisor Uilkema moved to approve the staff's recommendation as
modified. Supervisor Glover seconded the motion.
The Board unanimously voted to approve the following:
1. Adopt the recommendation of the County Planning Commission as contained in their Resolution
No. 23-2001, to approve the rezoning of the 1.14 acre property from Single-family Residential
District(R-10)to planned Unit District(P-1), and to approve the Final Developmental Plan with
conditions as modified;
2. Adopt the findings contained in the County Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-2001, as the
basis for the Board's action.
3. Find the Negative Declaration prepared for this project to be adequate for the purposes of
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and adopt the same;
4. Introduce the ordinance giving effect to the aforesaid rezoning, waive reading and set date for
adoption of same;
5. Direct the Community Development Department to post the Notice of Determination with the
County Clerk.
-ry
l
CONSIDER WITH D.3
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE: October 15, 2001
TO: Telma Moreira, Project Planner, Community Development Department
FROM: 1,��wrence Gossett, Consulting Civil Engineer, Engineering Services
SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION SD 00-8500, DP 00-3056 & RZ 00-3097
REVISIONS TO LOT 10
(Focus Realty/Boulevard Way/Saranap Area/AP# 185-360-019 & 020)
FILE: SD 00-8500, DP 00-3056 & RZ 00-3097
This memo is in response to the fax received from Focus Realty on October 10 relative to
inconsistencies between the tentative map and conditions of approval from the Planning
Commission hearing of August 28. It is our understanding they want these.issues addressed
prior to final approval of the rezoning action and final development permit by the Board of
Supervisors. Responses to their concerns are summarized below:
• Condition 23 should be revised to reflect the August 7, 2001 submittal date.
• Condition 25 is correct as written. The 4.5-foot wide sidewalk is consistent with single-
family residential frontages. The 6 —foot width along the adjacent frontage is due to the
multiple family density of that property. The applicant is incorrect relative to the
reference to drawing PA3851-00. The referenced drawing is the revised, but not yet
formally adopted "precise alignment" for Boulevard Way. This is a narrower right of way
than the currently adopted precise alignment dating back to the 1960s indicates.
• Condition 27 should be modified to require a 21-foot right of way with an additional 5-
foot wide (minimum) public utility easement contiguous to both sides of the private road
right of way.
• As noted above, the drawing reference noted in the condition of approval 28 is correct.
LG:lg
G:\GrpData\EngSvcV.arry Gossett\2001\October\SD8500i
cc: H.Ballenger,Engineering Services
M.Morton,Engineering Services
Lenox Homes,3675 Mt.Diablo Blvd,Suite 350,Lafayette,CA 94549
Focus Realty Services
October 10, 2001
Community Development Department
Current Planning
651 Pine St.
2nd Floor-North Wing y
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Att'n.: Telma Moreira
Subject: Conditions of Approval
Subdivision 8500—Tamarind Place
Dear Ms. Moreira:
This letter is to call to your attention and request correction of some inconsistencies in the
subject Conditions of Approval. You will recall that we had met twice with the neighbors
between hearings, and thus had to submit our revised plan quite near your deadline.
Unfortunately, a few detail changes in the approved revised tentative map did not get
reflected in the Conditions. It is understandable that you did not have time to catch them
all. I did not either. Our engineer brought them to my attention this afternoon. They are as
follows:
Condition 23 still refers to the Tentative Map date as February 1, 2001. The revised Map
as approved is dated August 7, 2001.
Condition 25 calls for a 4.5 foot wide (1.4 m) sidewalk, while the Map shows a 6 foot
width (1.83 m) to match the existing sidewalk adjacent on the east. It also has the curb
located 10 feet from the right of way line, while the Map shows 14 feet (4.27 m) from a
right of way line that is 34 feet from the center line of Boulevard Way, as worked out
with the engineers from Public Works. That agreement reflects a change from drawing
PA3851-00 to which the Conditions referred.
Condition 27 refers to the private road having a minimum easement width of 25 feet
(7.62 m), while the approved Map shows a width of 21 feet (6.4 m).
Condition 28 again refers to drawing PA3851-00, which no longer reflects the current
intentions of the Public Works Department.
3675 Mt.Diablo Blvd.,Suite 350,Lafayette,CA 94549—6800
Phone: (925)283—8470 • Fax: (925)283-9671
Focus Realty Services
We would appreciate it if you could please reconcile the Conditions with the Map in time
for the hearing before the Board of Supervisors. Please call me if you have any questions
or need anything further.
Very truly yours,
Walter P. McEnerney
Ce: Rey Costiniano,Aliquot
3675 Mt.Diablo Blvd.,Suite 350,Lafayette,CA 94549—6800
Phone: (925)283—8470 • Fax: (925)283-9671
RESOLUTION NO. 23-2001
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN
ZONING BY FOCUS REALTY SERVICES (APPLICANT) STOW PARTNERS
(OWNER) (RZ00-3097) IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING
TO THE PRECISE ZONING FOR THE WALNUT CREEK AREA OF SAID
COUNTY.
WHEREAS, a request by Focus Realty Services (Applicant) Stow Partners
(Owner) (RZ00-3097), for a rezoning from Single-family Residential District (R-10), to
Planned Unit District (P-1), and Final Development Plan (DP00-3056) for the
construction of ten single-family houses on a 1.14 acre for which an application was
received by the Community Development Department on December 6, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the project was scheduled before the County Planning Commission
on July 24, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission took testimony at the July 24,
2001 meeting and continued this item to August 28, 2001, to allow the applicant to meet
with neighbors and discuss issues and concerns regarding the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a revised
Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for review and comments between
August 3, 2001 and August 23, 2001 and the Planning commission adopted the Negative
Declaration at their meeting on August 28, 2001; and
WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was
scheduled before the County Planning Commission on Tuesday August 28, 2001,
whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, August 28, 2001, the County Planning Commission
having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted
in this matter;
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission:
1. FINDS that the proposed Negative Declaration is adequate for the purposes of
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopts the same;
2. RECOMMENDS to the Board of Supervisors the APPROVAL of the rezoning
request of the site from Single-family Residential District (R-10) to Planned Unit
District (P-1) and Final development Plan subject to the proposed conditions.
• 2
3. APPROVES Subdivision SD00-8500 subject to the Board of Supervisors
approval of Rezoning RZ00-3097;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation are as
follows:
A. Rezoning and Final Development Plan Findings (Per Section 84-66.1406 of the
Count CX ode).
a. The applicant intends to start construction within 2 1/2 years from the
effective date of zoning change and plan approval;
b. The proposed Plan Unit District is consistent with the County General
Plan; (refer to staff report page S-2, III-A);
c. The proposed Planned Unit District constitutes a residential
environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in
harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and
community;
B. Tentative Map Subdivision Findings (Per Section 94.2.806 of the County Code)
The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and
improvement, is consistent with the County General Plan. (refer to staff report
page S-2, III-A).
C. Growth Management Element Performance Standards Findings
1. Traffic: The proposed project as proposed will generate approximately
one peak hour trip per residence. Therefore, the applicant is not required
to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements.
2. Water: East Bay Municipal Utility District has indicated that off site
pipeline improvements, at the applicants expense, may be necessary
depending on local fire requirements set by the local fire agency. The
applicant should contact EBMUD's new business office to request a water
service estimate to determine costs and conditions of providing water
service to the property.
3. Sanitary Sewer: The project is within the boundaries of the Central
Sanitary District area.
l+� 3 lel
4. Fire Protection: The project is located within Contra Costa Consolidated
Fire District service area.
5. Public Protection: Prior to filing the final map, the project proponent will
be required to apply for inclusion within a police service district.
6. Parks and Recreation: A park dedication fee of$2,000.00 will be
collected prior to issuance of building permits on the newly created lots to
mitigate impacts on parks and recreation in the area.
7. Flood Control and Drainage: Compliance with the Public Works
Department drainage requirements is required.
(Ref. The Growth Management Element, Chapter 4, of the General Plan)
D. Planned Unit Development Variance to Minimum Lot Size of five (5) acres
requirement
The County finds that the variance is consistent with the general plan. The
applicant's request for a variance to the minimum parcel size is appropriate for
the development of the lot.
The County makes the following required findings for adoption of a variance to
parcel size as provided by County Code Section (26-2.2006)
• The variance cannot constitute a grant of a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other property in the vicinity and
the respective land use district in which the subject property is located;
The subject property would not have development. potential without
the granting of this variance. The establishment of 10 single-family
houses is a positive transition between multi-family buildings and
single-family houses located along the subject site. The proposed
project would not be possible without the granting of a variance to
allow the P-1 rezoning. The granting of this variance allows the
property owner to enjoy the privilege already enjoyed by other
property owners in the vicinity.
• Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject property
due to its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, this strict
application of the respective zoning regulations would deprive the
subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
and within the identical land use district; and
Findings Map
Irv '
aLAv r •� .
P
R- M-2
c
ga R
I
�t y -
5111 C >
i
:J 5
1:4
1�
Rezone From R-10 To P-1 Lafayette/Walnut Cre-dArea
J. Richard Clark Chair of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission,State of California,do hereby certify that this is a true and
correctcopyof nage N-13 of the County's
1978 zoning map.
'indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission
in the matter of Focus Realty Services - RZ003097
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission, State of Calif.
FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR RZ00-3097, DP00-3056
AND SD00- 8500, IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA.
Findings
A. Rezoning and Final Development Plan Findings
1. Required findings to approve a rezoning application, and final development plan,
the County Planning Commission and County Board of Supervisors, shall be
satisfied that (Reference Section 84-66.1406 of the County Code)
a. The applicant is intending to start construction within 2 '/z years from effective
date of zoning change and plan approval;
b. The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the county general
plan;
c. The proposed planned unit development will constitute a residential
environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony
with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community;
B. "Tentative Map Subdivision Findings
1. Required findings to approve a Tentative Map (Reference Section 94.2.806 of the
County Code)
The Advisory Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that
the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions forits design and
improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required
by law.
C. Growth Management Element Performance Standards Findings
1. Traffic: The proposed project as proposed will generate approximately one peak
hour trip per residence, totaling 10 peak hour trips per day. Therefore, the
applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure
C requirements.
2. Water: East Bay Municipal Utility District has indicated that the applicant
should contact their EBMUD office to request a water service estimate to
determine the cost and conditions for providing additional water service to the
proposed development.
3. Sanitary Sewer: The project is within the boundaries of the Central Sanitary
District area.
4. Fire Protection: The project is located within Contra Costa Consolidated Fire
District service area.
5. Public Protection: Prior to filing the final map, the project proponent will be
required to apply for inclusion within a police service district.
6. Parks and Recreation: A park dedication fee of$2,000.00 will be collected prior
to issuance of building permits on the newly created lots to mitigate impacts on
parks and recreation in the area.
7. Flood Control and Drainage: Compliance with the Public Works Department
drainage requirements is required.
D. Planned Unit Development Variance to Minimum Lot Size of five (5) acres requirement
1. Granting (a) Procedure
The County Planning Commission shall find that the applicant's request for a
Variance to Minimum Lot Size may be granted in accordance to Chapter 26.2 and
82.6.
The following required findings for adoption of a variance to parcel size as provided by
County Code Section (26-2.2006) have been satisfied:
® The variance cannot constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other property in the vicinity and the respective land use
district in which the subject property is located:
The variance does not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land
use district in which the subject property is located since the property would
not have development potential without the granting of this variance. The
subject property adjoins single-family residential units on its northwest, west,
and southwest side. The granting of this variance allows the property owner
to enjoy the privilege already enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity.
® Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject property due to
its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, this strict application of
the respective zoning regulations would deprive the subject property of rights
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use
distract.
2
The property is triangularly shaped and the wider portion of the property is
abutting Boulevard Way, a major road.
• Any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the
respective land use district in which the subject property is located. (Contra
Costa Code, Section 26-2.2006)
The variance authorized substantially meets the intent and purpose of
the P-1 district.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Administrative
1. This approval is based upon the following documents received by the
Community Development Department:
A. Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Jensen-Van Lienden
Associates, Inc. received on December 6, 2000.
B. Archaeological Report prepared by Basin Research Associates,
received On December 6, 2001.
G. Elevations and Neer-Plan prepared bN' William A. KeFndfiek, r-eeeived
en December-i2, `000
C. Revised elevations prepared by William A. Kemdrick, received on
August 14, 2001.
D. Certified Arborist Report prepared by Hortscience, received on
December 22, 2000.
E. Vesting Tentative Map, and Final-Development Plan, prepared by
Aliquot, llr{iZr-1 vlid en , 2001
E. Revised Vesting Tentative Map, and Final Development Plan,
prepared by Aliquot, received on August 10, 2001.
F. Street Elevations and Landscaping Plans received on July 11, 2001.
2. The approval is for a three (3) year period which may be extended for an
additional three (3) years. An extension request must be submitted prior to
expiration of the initial approval and must be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee. An extension request is subject to review and
approval of the County Planning Commission.
3. A. All the uses allowed in this P-1 District shall be the same as those
which are allowed in the R-6 District.
3
B. Accessory structures shall be consistent with the R-6 requirements
or as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
4. The proposed buildings shall be similar to that shown on submitted plans.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, elevations and architectural
design of the buildings and building roofing material shall be submitted
for the final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator.
The roofs and exterior walls of the buildings shall be free of such objects
as air conditioning or utility equipment, television aerials, etc., or screened
from view.
Rezoning Required
5. _ _ The subdivision approval is contingent upon approval of the rezoning
from R-10 to P-1 by the Board of Supervisors. If the site is not rezoned
this approval shall be null and void.
Variance
6. Approval is granted to allow for variance to allow P-1 zoning to be
applied on a parcel smaller than five acres.
5 acres minimum required
1.14 acre approved
Archeology
7. Should archeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other
onsite excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be
stopped until a professional archeologist who is certified by the Society of
Professional Archeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the
significance of the find and suggests appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed
necessary.
Construction Conditions
8. Comply with the following construction. Noise, dust and litter control
requirements:
4
A. All construction activities, include such things as power generators, shall be
limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall
' ,; prohibited on State and Federal holidays.
B. The project sponsor shall require their contractor and subcontracts to fit all
internal combustion engines with muffles which are in good condition and shall
locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and
concrete pumpers as far away from existing residents as possible.
C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the
site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of
the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall
include a list of contact persons with name, Title, phone number and 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 individual responsible for noise and litter control
shall be expressly identified in the notice.
A copy of the notice shall be currently transmitted to the Community
Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names
and addresses of the property owners notified. and a map identifying the area
noticed.
D. The dust and litter control program shall be submited for the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or
applicable ordinances shall require an immediate %vork stoppage. Construction
work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate
construction bond had been posted.
E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing
neighboring traffic flows. This shall include provision for an on-site area in
which to park earth moving equipment.
F. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to week days
between the hours of 9:OOA.M. and 4:00 P.M. and shall be prohibited on
weekends and holidays.
G. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of
construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed froin the site.
H. The project shall comply with the dust control requirements of the Grading
Ordinance including provisions pertaining to water conservation.
5
Indemnification
9. 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 employed to attack, set
aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision
map application, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in Section 66499.37. The county will promptly notify the subdivider
of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the
defense.
Geology
10. Improvements, grading, and building plans shall carry out the
recommendations of the approved report by Jensen-Van Lienden
Asscociates, Inc. (pages 6 through 12). The preferred foundation system
for the project is pier-and-grade beams supported by drilled, cast-in-place
piers. Should the developer be committed to slabs, the submitted
geotechincial report indicates a preference for conventional slab on select
fill; post-tensioned slabs is also cited as a feasible alternative.
Reccomendaions for the site preparation and grading, street construction
and site drainage is also provided in the geotechnical report. No
recommendations are included for the retaining wall.
Tree Conditions—General
11. The tree removal is approved based on the survey map and certified
arborist report prepared by HortScience, submitted on December 22, 2000.
Development shall be in accord with the recommendations of the arborist.
Additional trees (tree#7622 and#642) will be saved along the north side
of the property as shown on the revised tentative map plan submitted on
August 10, 2001.
Required Restitution for Approved Tree Removal
12. The following measures are intended to provide restitution for the trees
that have been approved for removal.
A. Tree Restitution Plantingfirriaation Plan- Prior to issuance of a
6
building permit for the ten single family dwellings, the applicant
shall submit a tree planting and irrigation plan prepared by a
licensed arborist, landscape architect or licensed landscape
contractor(similar to the submitted landscaping plan submitted on
July 11, 200 1) for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. Landscaping shall conform to the County Water
Conservation Landscape Ordinance 82-26 and shall be installed
prior to approval of final building permit. The plan shall be
accompanied by an estimate prepared by a licensed landscape
contractor of the materials and labor costs to complete the
improvements on the plan.
B. Completion of New Tree Planting Prior to Final Inspection of The
Two Ten Single Family Dwellings- Prior to requesting a final
inspection of building permit for the ten single family dwellings,
the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator
that the approved tree planting plan has been fully implemented.
Contingency Restitution Should Altered Trees Be Damaged
13. Trees to be Preserved but Altered—
The five trees approved for alteration, but to be saved are trees No. 7608
(17" diameter Valley oak); No.7617 (26" diameter Coast redwood); No.
7619 (total 16" diameter Valley oak): No. 7620 (13" diameter Coast live
oak); and 7621 (15" diameter Valley oak). Additional trees to be saved are
tree No. 642 (multi-stemmed Valley Oak) and tree No. 7622 (16" diameter
double-stemmed Valley Oak) located along the north side of the property.
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection
and Preservation Ordinance, to address the possibility that construction
activity (or any other activity) nevertheless damages these trees, the
applicant shall provide the County with a security (e.g., bond, cash
deposit) to allow for replacement of trees intended to be preserved that are
significantly damaged by the activity. The security shall be based on:
A. Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements - The planting of up to 44 22 trees,
minimum 15-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees, or equivalent
planting contribution, subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator;
B. Determination of Security Amount - The security shall provide for all of the
following costs:
• a labor and materials estimate for planting the potential number of trees and
related irrigation improvements that may be required prepared by a licensed
landscape contractor; and
an additional 20% of the total of the above amounts to address inflation costs.
C. Acceptance of a Security - The security shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator.
D. Initial Deposit for Processing of Security-The County ordinance requires that the
applicant cover all time and material costs of staff for processing a tree protection
security (Code S-060B). The Applicant shall pay an initial fee deposit of$100 at
time of submittal of a security.
The security shall be retained by the County up to 24 months following the
completion of the tree alteration improvements. In the event that the Zoning
Administrator determines that trees intended to be protected have been damaged
by development activity, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the
applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable restitution of the damaged
trees, then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of the security be
used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees.
Construction Period Restrictions
14. Site Preparation - Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching,
grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on site with
trees to be preserved, the applicant shall install fencing at or beyond the
dripline of all areas adjacent to or in the area to be altered and remain in
place for the duration of construction activity in the vicinity of the trees.
Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected
and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff.
Construction plans shall stipulate on their face where temporary fencing
intended to trees to be protected is to be placed, and that the required
fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of any construction
activity.
15. _ Construction Period Restrictions - No grading, compaction, stockpiling,
trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within
the dripline of the five trees to be saved unless necessary. The applicant
shall follow as much as possible the recommendations of the arborist as
mentioned on tree report page No.6. "Evaluation of Impact and
Recommendations for Preservation". The arborist shall have the authority
to require protective measures to protect the roots. Upon the completion
8
of grading and construction, an involved arborist shall prepare a report
outlining further methods required for tree protection if any are required.
All arborist expense shall be bwilkl by ',h,; dcveloper and applicant unless
otherwise provided by the development conditions of approval.
16. Prohibition of Parking - No parking or storing vehicles, equipment,
machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping
of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the drip line of any tree to be
saved.
17. Construction Tree Damage - The development property owner or
developer shall notify the Community Development Department of any
damage that occurs to any tree during the construction process. The
owner or developer shall repair any damage as determined by an arborist
designated by the Director of Community Development.
Any tree not approved for destruction or removal that dies or is
significantly damaged as a result of construction or grading shall be
replaced with a tree or trees of equivalent size and of a species as
approved by the Director of Community Development to be reasonably
appropriate for the particular situation.
Arborist Expense
18. Arborist Expense - The expenses associated with all required arborist
services shall be borne by the developer and/or property owner.
Fencing
19. No fence shall exceed six feet in height.
Police Protection/Crime Prevention
20. b t for the pFepose
Zoning A d tfthat the (' ifn n D tion tib
"[pl []Tilt-L77t. - Ciaa aav ...,a.. TIT�iTGTi
Environmental Design (dated September- i
> a
9
Election to Establish a Police Service District
20. At least 30 days prior to obtaining a building permit for the proposed
project the applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator that the proposed development has reasonably
complied with the Crime and Prevention Through Environmental Design
(dated March 13, 2001) requirements.
21. The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to
maintain and augment police services by voting to approve a special tax
for the parcels created by this subdivision approval. The tax shall be the
per parcel annual amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) then
established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election
to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to the filing of the Final
Map. The property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of
holding the election, payable at the time that election is requested by the
owner.
Payment of Any Required Supplemental Fees
22. Both the applicant and the property owner are fully responsible for
County staff costs. Invoice(s) for 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 cost on this application from the project planner.
COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO
RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP
General Requirements:
23. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this
subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision
Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed
in this conditional approval statement. The drainage, road and utility
improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the
Public Works Department and are based on the revised Tentative Map
dated February 1, 2001.
10
� s
24. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Di✓ision, along with review and inspcz"c^ f2cs, 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.
Roadway Improvements:
25. Applicant shall construct curb, a 1.4-meter(4.5-feet±) sidewalk (width
measure from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage,
street lighting, and pavement widening and transitions along the frontage
of Boulevard Way. The face of curb shall be located 3 meters (10 feet ±)
from the ultimate right of way of Boulevard Way per drawing PA3851-00
on file at the Public Works Department.
26. Applicant shall install safety related improvements on all streets
(including traffic signs and striping) as approved by Public Works.
Specific On-Site Road Improvements:
27. The private road shall be constructed in accordance with County private
road standards. Minimum easement width shall be 7.62 meters (25 feet)
per County Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Traffic shall be restricted
to one-way only and revised to a counter-clockwise direction.
Load Dedications:
28. Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the night of
way,necessary for the planned roadway improvements along Boulevard
Way in accordance with drawing PA3851-00 on file at the Public Works
Department.
Access to Adjoining Property:
Proof of Access
29. Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works of the acquisition of all
necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the
construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road
and drainage improvements.
it
Encroachment Permit
30. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and
Permit Center, if necessary, for construction of driveways or other
improvements within the right of way of Boulevard Way.
Parking:
31. "No Parking" signs shall be installed along the private road subject to the
review and approval of Public Works. Parking shall be prohibited on both
sides of the private road where pavement width is less than 8.5 meters (28
feet). Parking will be prohibited on one side of the private road where the
width is greater or equal to 8.5 meters (28 feet).
Sight Distance:
32. Provide sight distance along Boulevard Way for a through traffic design
speed of 65 km/hr(40 mph ±).
Utilities/Undergrounding:
33. All new and existing utility distribution facilities shall be installed
underground.
Maintenance of Facilities:
34. 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 roadwa}.
Street Lights:
35. Property owner shall apply for annexation to County Service Area L-100
Lighting District by submitting: a letter of request; a metes and bounds
description; and, pay the current LAFCO fees. Annexation shall occur
prior to filing of the Final Map. The applicant shall be aware that this
annexation process must comply with State Proposition 218 requirements
which state that the property owner must hold a special election to approve
the annexation. This process may take approximately 4-6 months to
complete.
12
Pedestrian Facilities:
36. 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.
Soundwall/Acoustic analysis:
37. Any noise studies that may be required shall be based on ultimate road
widening and ultimate traffic under the general plan. Any soundwalls that
may be required as the result of the noise study shall be installed outside
of the public road right of way.
Drainage Improvements:
Collect and Convey
38. 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.
39. 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.
Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements:
40. Storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated
manner shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk(s) and drive-
way(s).
41. The applicant shall dedicate a public drainage easement over the
drainage system that conveys storm Nyater run-off from public streets.
42. In the absence of public drainage easements, the applicant shall create
private drainage easements over portions of the drainage system that
convey storm water run-off from more than a single lot or parcel.
13
43. Private on-site storm drain easements shall have a minimum width of 3
meters(10 feet±).
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Requirements:
44. 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)
45. 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:
• Provide educational materials to new homebuyers.
• Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins.
• Provide options for grass pavers or other semi-pervious
paving systems for walks. drives and patios.
• Slope driveways and weakened plane joints to sheet flow
onto planted surfaces where feasible.
• Prohibit or discourage direct connection of roof and area
drains to storm drain systems or through-curb drains.
• Other alternatives, equivalent to the above, as approved by
the Public Works Department.
ADVISORY NOTES
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL
REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS
PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT.
A. NOTIFY OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS,
RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE
APPROVAL, OF THIS PERMIT.
14
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 ex.,L'iu,l6 tuyu►red as part of this project approval. The cFYc ,:::ty 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 imposition
of any dedication,reservation, or other exaction required by the 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 the 90 days of the approval date of this permit.
B. Comply with the requirements of the County Building Inspection Department.
C. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental.
Health Division.
D. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Central Sanitary District.
E. Vesting Tentative Map Rights -The approval of this vesting tentative map confers a
vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with ordinances,
policies, and standards in effect as of March 1, 2000, the date the vesting tentative
map application was accepted as complete by the Community Development
Department. The vested rights also applies to development fees which the County
has adopted by ordinance. These fees are in addition to any other development fees
which may be specified in the conditions of approval.
The fees include but are not limited to the following:
Park Dedication $2000.00 per residence.
(If appropriate - Child Care) $ 400.00 per residence.
F. Expiration of Vested Rights: Pursuant to Section 66452.6(2) of the Subdivision
Map Act, the rights conferred by the vesting tentative map as provided by Chapter 4.5 of the
Subdivision Map Act shall last for an initial period of two (2) years following the recording
date of the final/parcel map. These rights pertain to development fees and regulations.
Where several final maps are recorded on various phases of a project covered by a single
vesting tentative map, the initial time period shall begin for each phase when the final map
for that phase is recorded.
At any time prior to the expiration of the initial time prior, the.subdivider may apply for a on-
year extension. The application shall be accompanied by the applicable filing fee. If the
15
extension is denied by an advisory agency, the subdividor may appeal that denial to the
Board of Supervisors by filing a letter of appeal with the appropriate filing with the Clerk of
the Board within 15 calendar days.
The initial time period may also be subject to automatic extension pursuant to other
provisions of Section 66452.6(g) of the Government Code relating to processing of related
development applications by the County.
G. 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).
H. 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.
I. 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.
J. Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the South Walnut
Creek Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to
issuance of building permits.
K. Comply with the Drainage Fee Ordinance for Drainage Area 101A prior to filing the final
map.
16
300' PUDIUS • • 3 OCCUPANTS 200021.
184-010-046 185-360-016
SUFISM REORIENTED INC. PIKE SANDRA LEONG TRE
1300 BOULEVARD WAY 40 IRIS LN.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-120 WALNUT CREEK,CA 94595-1221
184-010-069 185-360-017
FRANKLIN & TERESA RILEY JR. STEVEN&ELIZABETH SHAW
110 ISLAND CT. 30 IRIS LN.
WALNUT CREEK,CA 94595-126 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-1221
184-450-007 185-360-018
CATHRYN RICKARD BENJAMrN KRONICK
1354 BOULEVARD WAY 24 IRIS LN.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 93495-120 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94.595-1221
184-450-024 185-360-019
LE BOULEVARD MANAGEMENT STOW PARTNERS
1336 BOULEVARD WAY 1355 BOULEVARD N�.AY
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-126 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94 595-1207
184-450-028
SUFISM REORIENTED INC. 155-360-020
?428 WARREN RD. 1343 BOULEVARD «'.�1�
WALNUT CREEK. CA 94595 N�' �LNLiT CREEK. CA 9-,505-1207
184-450-029 185-360-043
SUFISM REORIENTED INC. GEORGE & RUBY TELLSWORTH
2428 WARREN RD. 20 IRIS LN.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK, CA 04595-1211
184-450-030 IS 5-460-017
SUFISM REORIENTED INC. DEVOON OF CALIFORNIA INC.
1354 BOULEVARD WAY 1305 BOULEVARD WAY
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK; Ca 9'.595-1250
184-010-062
KARIN LEE BODMAN
80 ISLAND CT.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-121
184-010-063 2,p
KIv1ASAHARU& JUNE MATAYOS
90 ISLAND CT.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-121
ADMIN O `SERVER' (LT)/2000/2100021/300'R4DrL
1,4.
300' RA.DIUS • • OCCUPANTS 200021.0 2
184-450-005
REORIENTED SUFISM
1360 BOULEVARD WAY
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-124
184-450-006
SCOTT BOHANNAN & DIANNE
BORA
1366 BOULEVARD WAY
WALNUT CREEK, CA, 94595-120
184-450-011
STEVEN L.EWENZ
2470 WARREN RD.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-124
184-450-012
LANCE NLARCHETTI
1364 BOULEVARD WAY
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-120
184-450-025
LINH HUYNH&HUYEN-THANE
THI
1326 BOULEVARD WAY
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-1208.
184-480-001
KENNETH&YOLANDA HASTI
1310 BOULEVARD WAY 4-A
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
184-480-002
RANDALL& DIANE HAiyIMON
1310 BOULEVARD WAY-T'-'B
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
184-480-003
PAMELA BOBBS
1308 BOULEVARD WAY mA
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-120
184-480-004
GERALD SALAZAR
1308-BOULEVARD WAY"B
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-120
ADMIN ON `SERVER' (U)/2000/200021/300'RADIUS/184(B
300' RADIUS • T`. • OCCUPANTS 200021.0 3
184-480-005
CHARLES & RANDA LIEDSTRA
1312 BOULEVARD WAY 13
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125.
184-480-006
LORRIANE J. GANIT
1312-BOULEVARD WAY�A
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
184-480-007
SARA ROSNOW
1314 BOULEVARD WAY�,!B
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
184-480-008
MARGARET MAYER
1314 BOULEVARD WAY rA
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
184-480-009 .
REORIENTED SUFISM
1316 BOULEVARD WAY nB
WALNUT CREEK,.CA 94595-125
184-480-010
REORIENTED SUFISM OVAL
1316 BOULEVARD WAY A
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
184-480-011
SHARON PARKER
1318 BOULEVARD WAY�B
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
184-480-012
TERRY H-ASSEN HOGAN&
HILARY
1316 BOULEVARD WAY-B
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-1258
184-480-013
WILLIAM & ANNA COOK
1310 BOULEVARD WAY rC
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
ADMIN ON `SERVER' (T.J)/2000/200021/300'R_4DIUS/184(E
300' R4DIUS ?.f.= • OCCUPANTS 200021.0 d
184-480-014
PETER& JULIA SKIFF
1310 BOULEVARD WAY 4D
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
184-480-015
JOSEPH & RACHEL DACUS
1308 BOULEVARD WAY 9 C
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-120
184-480-016
GAIL ANDREWS
1308 BOULEVARD WAY#D
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-120
184-480-017
RICHARD & MARGARET WATS
1312 BOULEVARD WAY 4D
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
184-480-018
DAVID& CYNTHIA PASTOR
1312 BOULEV ARD WAY -4C
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
184-480-019
BENJAMIN & KAREN WELLS
1314 BOULEVARD WAY ,�D
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
184-480-020
KATE GRAYSON BOISVERT
1314 BOULEVARD WAY rtC
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
184-480-021
MICHAEL& ELLEN EVANS
1316 BOULEVARD WAY 'D
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
184-480-022
FRED& KATHERTN BRUNS`VI
1316-BOULEVARD WAY 4C
WALNUTCREEK, CA 94595-125
ADIMIN ON `SERVER' (U)/2000/200021/300'RADIUS/184(I
300' RADIUS �DJ :�' •' OCCUPANTS 200021.0 j
184-480-023
IRA &RONNIE DETRICK
1318 BOULEVARD WAY-4D
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
184-480-024
DUCAN & CHARMIAN KNOW
1318 BOULEVARD WAY-4C
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
184-480-025
COMMON AREA TRACT 5532
NO STREET NAME OR NUMBER
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
185-360-006
PAUL& KIM PLASCJAK
40 GARDEN CT.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-360-007
RUTH EIDBO
30 GARDEN CT.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-360-008
ROGER& MONIKA SIEGEL
20 GARDEN CT.
WALNUT CREEK. CA 94595-122
185-360-009
BETTY" CARPENTER
10 GARDEN CT.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-360-010
MERRICK BROWNE JR.
RACHEL BAILEY-BRO`Ti'NE
1373 BOULEVARD WAY" -4 13 75
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-124
185-360-011
CHARLES & MARIE PHILLIPS
CHARLES & M PHILLIPS
1376 BOULEVARD WAY
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-124
ADIMIN ON `SERVER' (U)/2000/200021/300'RADIUS/184(E
300' RADIUS • ADJACENT • OCCUPANTS 200021.0 6
185-360-012
GRAIG & ANNETTE FISHERKEL
31 IF LN.
WALNUT CREEK,CA 94595-122
185-360-013
GRETCHEN TAYLOR
41 IRIS LN.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122 _.
185-360-014
JANIS ADAIR
51 IRIS LN.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-360-015
RANDY & TERESA HARTSHOR
50 IRIS LN.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-360-016
SANDRA LEONG PIKE
40 IRIS LN.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-360-017
STEVEN & ELIZABETH SHAW
30 IRIS LN.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-360-018
BENJAMIN KRONICK
24 IRIS LN.
WAL'.KUT CREEK,CA 94595-122
185-360-019
STOW PARTNERS
1355 BOULEVARD WAY
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-120
185-360-020
STOW PARTNERS
1343 BOULEVARD WAY
WALNUT CREEK , CA 94595-120
ADi`•II\ON`SERVER' (U)/2000/200021/300'R-4DIUS/184(1:
300' RADIUS • ADJACENT • OCCUPANTS 200021.0 7
185-360-032
LORI CONVERSE
1230 KENDALL CT.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-111
185-360-033
CLARICE MACKENZIE
1220 KENDALL CT.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-111
185-360-034
CARL OSTERHOLM
1210 KENDALL CT.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-111
185-360-035
JOHN& KAREN KERSEY
1200 KENDALL CT.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-111
185-360-043
GEORGE & RUBY TELLSWORT
20 IRIS LN.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-360-044
DAVID & SHEILA MCNA LAR
21 IRIS LN.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-360-045
STUBBS FAMILY PARTNERS L
1183 SARANAP AVE.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-116
185-360-047
MARCHALL MEYER&
MARSHALL
1195 SARANAP AVE.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-11162
185-360-049
ALMA & BRETT MONTEITH
ALMA MONTEITH
2545 LUCY LN.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-111
ADMIN ON `SERVER' (LD/2000/200021/300'R4DIUS/184(B
300' RADIUS • ADJACENT • OCCUPANTS 200021.0 9
185-360-057
MARY SHEPARD & ROBERT
HOLCO
1278 LAUREL OAK LN.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-117
185-360-058
RICHARD & GENA CHRISTIAN
1274 LAUREL OAK LN.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-117 _
185-360-059
PHILLIP & LAURA GAFFNEY
1270 LAUREL OAK LN.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-117
185-360-060
ROBERT DESINO
1273 LAUREL OAK LN.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-117
185-450-001
MICHAEL HANDLERY
950 RAINTREE PL.
LAFAYETTE, CA 94549-4816
185-450-002
GEOFFREY& WENDY BEATY
942 RAINTREE PL.
LAFAYETTE, CA 94549-4816
185-450-003
LORIN BLUM
934 RAINTREE PL.
LAFAYETTE, CA 94549-4816
185-450-004
CHARLES CLEMONS & MONICA
Mo.
926 RAINTREE PL.
LAFAYETTE, CA 94549-4816
185-450-005
GLENMOORE CONSTRUCTION
918 RAINTREE PL.
LAFAYETTE, CA 94549-4816
ADMIN ON `SERVER' (U)/2000/200021/300'IL4LDIUS/184(I
300' RlD1L'S ADJACENT • OCCUP.kNTS 200021.0 9
185-450-006
DFAVID & KATHLEEN BARLEE
910 RAINTREE PL.
LAFAYETTE, CA 94549-4816
185-450-007
GLEN'_v10RRE CONSTRUCTION
900 RAINTREE PL.
LAFAYETTE, CA 94549-4816
185-450-008
PRASAD & RAINI LAKIREDDY
909 RAINTREE PL.
LAFAYETTE, CA 94549-4815
185-450-009
JOHN & CHRISTINA GODDARD
941 RAINTREE PL.
LAFAYETTE, CA 94549-481
185-450-011
BARRY & ELAINE TAYLOR
940 RELIEZ STATION LN.
LAFAYETTE, CA 94549
185-450-012
HARRY LOCKLIN
956 RELIEZ STATION LIQ'.
LAFAYETTE, CA 94549
185-450-014
GENE & PAMELA SCHMIDT
940 RELIEZ STATION LN.
LAFAYETTE, CA 94549-4840
185-450-014
GENE R PAMELA SCHMIDT
940 RELIEZ STATION LN.
LAFAYETTE,CA 94549-4840
185-460-001
JAMES BOSTAD
1305 BOULEVARD WAY �101
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
ADMIN ON `SERVER' M/2000/200021/300'RADIUS/184(E
300' K.01US • ADJACENT • OCCUPANTS 200021.0 10
185-460-002
MILDRED URBIZTONDO
1305 BOULEVARD WAY t=102
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-460-003
DOUGLAS ADAMS
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 4103
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-460 004
JACOB WAXMAN
1305 BOULEVARD WAY '104
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-460-005
ELIZABETH CLARK&JOHN MAX
1305 BOULEVARD WAY-r"105
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-460-006
NIELSEN BRIGITTE SAVISKAS
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 4106
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-126
185-460-007
GR.AIG & CHERIE PLUMLEE
1305 BOULEVARD WAY r]07
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-126
185-460-008
JEAN ALLISON & MARINA
DUFFY
1305 BOULEVARD WAY X108
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-126
185-460-009
JACQUELINE BURNS &NORMAN
1305 BOULEVARD WAY x112
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-126
185-460-010
JACK W'HITEHOUSE
1305 BOULEVARD WAY rl 10
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-126
ADMIN ON 'SERVER' (U)/2000/200021/300'R-ADIUS/184(]
300' RADIUS ADJACENT • OCCUPANTS 200021.0 ll
185-460-011
BARBARA SNOW
1305 BOULEVARD WAY fl 14
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-126
185-460-012
FRED LAKOSIL
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 1112
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-126
185-460-013
LEATRICE GOEPPERT &
GREGORY
1305 BOULEVARD WAY=t'l 13
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-1227
185-460-014
REORIENTED SUFISM
1305 BOULEVARD WAY-x114
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-460-015
NADYA PHILLIPS & FAMILY
1.305 BOULEVARD WAY X115
WALNUT CREEK, CA94595-122
185-460-016
DAVID BUTTS
1305 BOULEVARD WAY x116
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-460-017
DEVOON OF CALIFORNIA INC.
1305 BOULEVARD WAY
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-125
185-460-018
JUDITH PHILLIPS
1305 BOULEVARD WAY -=201
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-460-018
JUDITH PHILLIPS
1305 BOULEVARD WAY-201
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
ADMIN ON`SERVER' (U)/2000/200021/300'R4DIUS/184(B
300' RADIUS • ADJACENT • OCCUPANTS 200021.0 12
185-460-019
PETER BROOKS
1305 BOULEVARD WAY x202
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-460-020
MARY MCWHIRTER
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 9203
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-460-021
JOAN BARBARA BRANN
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 9204
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-120
185-460-022
JACOB WAXNIAN
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 9205
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-120
185-460-023
FLORA CANEJA
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 9'206
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-120
185-460-024
JERROLD &CATHERINE ULME
1305 BOULEVARD WAY .2207
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-120
185-460-025
PATTIO COCHRAN
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 9 208
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-120
185-460-026
F. RONALD LEI&IS
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 9209
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-120
185-460-027
MARY PARTICIA MACK
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 9210
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
ADINIIN ON`SERVER' (U)/2000/200021/300'RADIUS/184(B
300' RADIUS • ADJACENT • OCCUPANTS 200021.0 13
185-460-028
JACOB WAXMAN
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 4211
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-460-029
CAROL CONRAD
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 9212
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-460-030
JACOB WAXMAN
1305 BOULEVARD WAY n213
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-460-031
DORTHY & OWEN COOPER
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 42
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
155-460-032
DOUGLAS PEDLEY
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 9215
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-126
185-460-033
WILLIAM HERZA
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 9216
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-126
185-460-034
NORMA HAJOVSKY & RONAKD
BAL
1305 BOULEVARD N"AY+21?
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-1264
185-460-035
PAUL& AMY Z. ICKER
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 4301
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-126
185-460-036
IRA DEITRICK
1305 BOULEVARD WAY€302
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-126
ADMIN ON `SERVER' M/2000/200021/300'R-ADIUS/1.54(F
300' RADIUS ADJACENT •. OCCUPANTS 200021.0 14
185-460-037
ARLEEN HAYS
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 4303
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-1264
185-460-038
JUDITH SUTTER PIFER&
THERRESA
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 4304
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-1264 -
185-460-039
WILLIAM EINSTOSS
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 4305
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-460-040
DOLORESJEGEN
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 4306
WALNUT CREEK,CA 94595-122
185-460-04I
.ALEX & FLELICITAS TELLER
1305 BOULEVARD WAY x307
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-460-042
HENG-RONG SHIAH CHOW
1305 BOULEVARD WAY-4308
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-460-043
ELLIS & CONNIE VARELLAS
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 4309
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-460-044
NLARIE ROEBLING
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 4310
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185-460-045
TRICIA TRINA TEMENOS
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 4311
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
ADMEN ON `SERVER' (L7/2000/200021/300'R.ADIUS/184(1
300' RADIUS ADJACENT • OCCUPANTS 200021.0 1S
185-460-046
DAVID STARR
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 4312
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-122
185460-047
SEE-POK& LAI HONG WONG
1305 BOULEVAR WAY#313
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-121
185-460-048
CLARA &ARLENE UNAIMUN
CLARA UNAMUN
1305 BOULEVARD WAY#314
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-121
185-460-049
LINDA WONG
1305 BOULEVARD WAY n315
WALNUT CREEK. CA 94595-121
185-460-050
CATHERINE PINCkS
1305 BOULEVARD WAY 4316
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-121
185-460-051
JACOB WAXMAN 1305
BOULEVARD WAY-rur317
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595-121
ADIMLN ON`SERVER' (C1)/2000/200021/300'R.ADIUS/184(B.
OCCUPANTS 200021-0 3
Oast Bay Municipal Utility District-
EB MUD EBMUD
BUILDING INSPECTION Senior ing Civil Engineer,Water Service
Plann
375 - 11th Street MS701
Oakland, CA 94607-4240
EN-VIRONMENTAL HEALTH Acalanes High School District
1212 Pleasant Hill Rd.
Lafayette,CA 94549
Sheriffs Office-Administration&
Public Works/Flood Control Community Services
1980 Muir Rd.
Martinez,CA
Saranap Homeowner's Association
125 Kendall Rd
PW-ENGINEERING SERVICES Walnut Creek, CA 94595
City of Lafayette
3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 21
PW-TRAFFIC Lafayette, CA 94549
WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT
960 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD
Public Works/Special Districts WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
Historical Resources Information
System Bldg 33
Sonoma State University
1801 E. Cotati Avenue
R.ohnert Park, CA 94928
CCC FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT
2010 GEARY ROAD
-PLEASANT HILL; CA 94523
Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 9455')
CITY OF WALNUT CREEK
1666 NORTH MAIN STREET
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
ADMIN ON `SERVER' (U)/2000/20002 1/300'P--kD1TJS/j84(r
V-
Agenda Item #
Community Development Department Contra Costa County
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNII`TG COMMISSSION
TUESDAY, August 28, 2001 —7:00 P.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
FOCUS REALTY SERVICES (Applicant) STOW PARTNERS (Owner), County
File#'s RZ00-3097; DP00-3056; SD00-8500:
A. County File#RZ00-3097: The applicant requests approval to rezone 1.14
acre parcel from Single-family Residential District (R-10) to Planned Unit
Development (P-1). A variance is requested to allow P-1 zoning on a
parcel smaller than five acres.
B. County File#DP00-3056: The applicant requests approval of a final
development plan to establish ten (10) detached two-story single-family
houses with an attached two-car garage in each house. The applicant is
also requesting a tree permit to allow removal of 28 trees and alteration of
five other trees.
C. County File#SD00-8500: The applicant requests approval of a vesting
tentative map to subdivide a 1.14 acre parcel into 10 lots.
Subject property consists of two lots totaling +49,65S square feet located at
#1343 Boulevard Way in the Walnut Creek area. (R-10) (ZA:N13) (CT:3410)
(Parcel #185-360-019/020).
II. BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the County Planning Commission
meeting on July 24, 2001 and continued to August 2S. 2001. The reason of the
continuance of this item was to allow the applicant to meet with neighbors and
discuss issues and concerns regarding the proposed project. There were several
issues raised at the July 24, 2001 meeting and the Commission requested that staff
address those issues for the August 28, 2001 meeting. The applicant met with the
Atrium of Walnut Creek Homeowner Association twice on the week of August 6,
2001. Below is the response to issues raised at the July 24, 2001 public meeting
and response to the August 8, 2001 letter from Mr. David J. Larsen, the Atrium of
Walnut Creek Homeowner Association's attorney:
Tt
• • S-2
A. Staff Response to Issues Raised at the July 24, 2001 Public Meeting.
1) Environmental Impact Report: On June 19, 2001, a Notice of Public
Review and Intent to u ri-uposed Negative Declaration was posted.
It was determined that the proposed development/subdivision and
rezoning would not have a significant impact in the environment. The
public comment period ended at 5:00 P.M. on July 24, 2001. Staff met
with Ms. Catherine Pinkas (the president of the 1305 Boulevard Way
Homeowner Association) and with Mr. David Larsen (the attorney
representing the Association) on the week of July 30`h. Ms. Pinkas
requested that staff provide the list of neighbors who were notified of the
July 24, 2001 County Planning Commission meeting and the list of
neighbors notified about the notice of intent to adopt the negative
declaration on this project. Even though staff was able to prove that all
neighbors were notified of the July 24, 2001 public hearing, it was not
clear from the list provided by the applicant, that all adjacent property
owners and occupants were included in the June 19, 2001, public
notification. In order to remedy the"uncertainty" that the adjacent
property owners and occupants were or not notified and after checking the
list for completeness, staff posted a new letter on August 3, 2001 to ensure
that adjacent property owners and occupants had a chance to provide
comments on the proposed negative declaration of this project. The public
comment period extends to August 23, 2001. The Community
Development Department has not received any written public comments
regarding the adequacy of the proposed negative declaration to date. Any
submitted public comments will be available at the August 28, 2001 public
hearing.
2) All structures Should be Lowered to One-story: Before the applicant
submitted a proposal to the Community Development Department, a Pre-
application meeting took place on August 3. 2000. The Pre-application
meeting included representatives from the District 2 Supervisor's Office
and the Saranap Homeowner Association. The proposal was for 11 town
homes with zero lot alignment. The Saranap Association expressed
concerns regarding this proposal and the applicant agreed to modify the
development to 10 detached two-story single-family residences with six-
foot separation between houses. The Contra Costa County Zoning Code
allows a single-family residence to have a maximum of 35-foot height.
The height of the structures, as previously proposed, was almost 28-foot.
As part of the negotiation that took place between the applicant and the
Atrium of Walnut Creek Homeowner Association, the applicant has
agreed to lower the roofline to approximately 1 foot, resulting in a less
than 27-foot high structure.
• S-3
3) Traffic Study: A memo (attached) prepared by the Public Works
Department, prepared after the July 24, 2001, County Planning
Commission, directly addresses the traffic issue. On that memo Public
Works states that traffic studies are usually required if the project
generatcb 16C)-peak nour trip (as required by Measure C) or if there is a
known or potential problem in the vicinity that requires particular
attention. The proposed project was submitted to Public Works
Department, Traffic Engineering Division and it was determined that a
traffic study was not necessary. On the other hand, the Department has
required conditions of approval that address improvements to local traffic.
See conditions of approval on pages 11, 12, and page 32.
4) Drainage Issues: On that same memo, Public Works states that the
applicant will be required to construct on and off-site drainage facilities to
convey all storm waters entering and originating on the site to an adequate
drainage system. The applicant will not be allowed to block any drainage
that may flow to the site from adjacent parcels and that drainage of
adjacent parcels will benefit from the proposed development. Public
Works Department, along with Engineering and Flood control Division,
have a list of conditions regarding drainage improvement on the proposed
site. See conditions starting on page#1.0.
5) 40-foot Greenbelt Along the North Site of the Subject Site: The existing
General Plan designation of the subject site is INIM, Multi-family
Residential Medium Density. The density range for this designation is
from 12 to 20.9 units per net acre. The subject site has a gross acreage of
1.14 and a net acreage of 0.85. After multiplying the net acreage by the
lowest density range allowed in the General Plan, the proposed
development needs to accommodate a minimum of 10 units. The provision
of a 40-foot green belt is not feasible due to the fact that it would make the
subject site with less developable area and therefore, any proposal that
would yield less than 10 units would be inconsistent with the General
Plan. Nevertheless, the applicant has agreed to increase the rear yard of
all the houses along the north side of the property from 15-foot to 25-foot.
The increase of the rear yard would set the following changes in the site
plan: 1) closer proximity of the private road to Boulevard Way
2) narrower width of the private road from 28-foot to 20-foot and
3) relocation of the proposed parking spaces along the private road.
B. August 8, 2001 letter from David J. Larsen.
On his letter. Mr. Larsen states that the Board of Atrium of Walnut Creek
Homeowner Association is willing to remove its opposition to the
proposed project if the Board has a better undertaking of 1) where the
County is addressing drainage issues that the proposed development be
contributing 2) what the County is wiling and able to do to address traffic
• S-4
issues, especially speeding, along Boulevard Way 3) whether a stop sign
or traffic lights should be recommended with approval of this project
4) the Board makes County staff aware that because members were not
of this project earlier, the 40-foot green belt is no longer feasible
and 5) County staff agrees to recommend the 25-foot backyard and lower
roof line by another 15-inch and additional trees to be saved.
Staff Response: Mr. Larsen has stated that he would take care of item#4;
however, staff has provided some comments to item#4 as well.
1) Drainage Issues: Staff has concluded that drainage issues have
been already discussed with the answer staff provided under
"Issues raised on the July 24, 2001, public hearing".
2) and 3)Traffic Issues:This is a response to item#2 and item #3
regarding traffic issues (speeding, stop signs or street lights
along Boulevard Way). In order to further illustrate the above
mentioned discussion on traffic concern raised at the July 24,
2001, public meeting, staff is refemng to the conditions of
approval submitted by Public Works Department regarding
traffic issues. See conditions of approval #24 and#25 on Page
No. 10. Conditions of approval # 26, #27, and#28 on Page 11
and finally, Condition of Approval # 32 on Page No. 12.
4) Because the Homeowner Association Was Not Informed of This
Proiect Earlier, a 40-foot Greenbelt is No Longer Feasible.
A notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was posted
on June 19, 2001. The first public hearing on this project was
held on July 24, 2001. The notice of the July 24, 2001 meeting
was noticed as 1344 Boulevard Wav instead of 1343 Boulevard
Way. Even though it was not necessary to renotice the 300-foot
neighbors regarding the County Planning Commission's
decision to continue this item (due to the fact that the parcel
numbers were addressed correctly) the Community
Development Department opted to renotice the 300-foot
neighbors of the continuance of this item to the August 28, 2001
public hearing. Additionally, staff worked diligently to ensure
that all adjacent property owners and occupants were "properly" .
notified of the proposed intent to adopt a negative declaration on
this project, so they would have a chance to provide their
comments. Staff posted a new notice of intent on August 3,
2001. Staff has determined that the Community Development
Department has complied with all of the required notification
procedures by making the above mentioned corrections and
renotices.
• S s-s
5) County Staff Agrees to Recommend Proposed Changes:
While discussing the proposed changes with the applicant and
with Mr. Larsen, staff provided both parties with a positive
response. Staff agrees that the proposed 25-foot rear yard,
lowering the roofline by annroximately one foot, and saving
additional trees along the north side of the property are good
alternatives. Staff is recommending that County Planning
Commission adopt the proposed changes.
III. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO RZ00-3097/SD00-8500/DP00-3056
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
See attached modifications to the proposed Conditions of Approval.
VI. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the attached Negative Declaration.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt the
proposed rezoning from Single-family Residential District (R-10) to
Planned Unit Development (P-1) with a variance to allow P-1 zoning on a
parcel smaller than five acres.
3. Recommend approval of the Final Development Plan for ten (10) detached
two-story single-family house units with 2 two-car garages on a 1.14 acre
property subject to the findings and revised conditions of approval.
4. Approve the Vesting Tentative Map to establish ten (10) single-family,
two-story house units with 2 two-car garages on a 1.14 acre property
subject to the findings and revised conditions of approval.
•
Tenox Homes
August 14, 2001 Y
Telma Moreira
Contra Costa County Development Dept.
651 Pine Street
North Wing-Second Floor
Martinez CA, 94550
Re: Tamarind Place
R2003097, DP003056, & SDO08500
Dear Ms. Moreira
On July 24, 2001, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission
regarding the proposed 10 single-family home subdivision on Boulevard way in Walnut
Creek. The project had the support of the Saranap Homeowner Association, but concerns
were raised by the residents of the adjacent condominium project the "Villas of Walnut
Creek".
The Planning Commission continued the hearing to August 28`h to allow for a
renotification by planning staff and to provide an opportunity for the developer to meet
with the adjacent condominium owners. Two meetings were held with the owners to
discuss their concerns and to review possible modifications to the proposed site and
building plans.
The following modifications were proposed and accepted by the developer and
condominium owners:
1. The rear back yard setback for lots 1 to 6 was increased from 15ft. to 25ft.
2. The internal street along lots 1 to 6 was reduced from 28ft. wide to 20ft. wide.
I The four parallel parking spaces on the internal street were replaced with three
parking spaces consisting of two perpendicular spaces and one parallel space
along the internal street.
4. The house floor plan on lot 10 was reversed with the driveway moved toward
the project entrance.
5. Two additional oak trees on the north side of the property(No.7622 and
No.642) adjacent to the condominium project will now be saved.
6. The roof pitch on.the proposed houses will be changed from 6 in 12 to 5 in 12,
reducing the roof ridge height by about one foot.
3675 Mt.Diablo Blvd., Suite 350,Lafayette,CA 94549—6800
Phone: (925)283—8470 • Fax: (925)283 -9671
•
?enox I3®fines
We are pleased with the results of our mutual effort to modify the site and
building plans to accommodate the adjacent owners.
We look �r•:�;:3;o the Planning Commission approval of the Tamarind Place
project.
Sincerely
&'�U&V'J�kWJ
Curt Blomstrand
590-LH-CCC
3675 Mt.Diablo Blvd., Suite 350, Lafayette,CA 94549—6800
Phone: (925)293—8470 • Fax: (925)28;-9671
ERR W [ I [ < P
A 'r l' C7 It N L Y S A 'IL A %Y
' .:ww.L•cr.linq•F:ril..'im
DAVID J.LARSEN
dlarse iRbuding-wcil.cnm
RrrLY TO
ALAMO OFMCR
August b, 2001
VIA FACSIMILE TO 925/283-9671 U.S. MAIL
Mr. Curt Blomstrand
Pocus Realty Services
3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 350
Lafayette, CA 94549-6800
Re: The Atrium of Walnut Creek Homeowners Association
Dear Mr. Blom5-trand:
'This letter is sent to inform you how the Board of the Atrium Homeowners Association
concluded their further discussions last night.
The Board is willing to remove its opposition to the project once the following things occur:
1. The Board has a getter understanding of where the county is with respect to
addressing down street drainage issues that this development may be contributing to;
2- The Board has a better understanding of what the county is willing and able to do to
address traffic issues, particularly speeding, along Boulevard Way;
3. The Board has a better understanding of whether a stop sign or traffic light.should be
recommended in conjunction with the approval of this project;
4. "I-he Board makes county staff aware that because its members were not notified of
this project earlier, the ideal solution involving a 40 foot greenbelt, is no longer feasible; and
5. County staff agrees to recommend the new plan, expressly including the 25'
hackyards. the lower roof lines (15" less than previously discussed) and the additional trees to be
saved.
14(1 QCBi y Succi 233'1 L;ul.l NIC:dOW Way
3140 Sion..Vallcy ku:nl We>1 Nmit,Fk-r Suac '_20
Ahonr, ('A 'N501.1 '5K San I'ruI)CI.NCV.CA `14 IIIK--5630 "L 1;0110m—('A 166711-1.-1
Tr.lgfli-%c:'i25,R11.�(1')p Itlehhunr: 41 i.7K2 2611(0 1•clihhonc"11b.A51.1U 111
I':1i.'d'_5_K'2ll Sj`)? fax:41 7K2 'h7A F:ix:916J01 191'1
Mr. Curt 131omstrand
August 8, 2001
Page 2
I have a call into TeIrna to determine the best way to obtain answers to the questions posed
by the first three items. Your thoughts would also he appreciated. I will take care of the fourth item,
and assume you will confine your willingness to handle the f 11h item at your earliest convenience.
You can reach me fit 925/838-2090. 1; look forward to hearing from you i s soon as possible.
Very truly yours,
HER G IL, LLP
David I Larsen
DJLAll
cc: Telma Moreira
n;kW130csw002ka7V-ti,rERVK12BR579.WPO
HPOING (YWEII <<F
.i r o r, n Ii Y ,, A r i A 1%
WWWA,ciding-WeiI.tum
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE: August 6, 2001
TO: Telma Moreira, Project Planner, Community Development Department
1��LaIA7rence
FROM: Gossett, Consulting �Civil En ' eer, Engineering
ineerin Services
r
SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION SD 00-85pp,��-"-A O-3056 & RZ 00-3097
REVISIONS TO LOT 10�`
(Focus Realty/Boulevard Way/Saranap Area/AP# 185-360-019 & 020)
FILE: SD 00-8500, DP 00-3056 & RZ 00-3097
It is our understanding that as a result of issues raised at the recent Planning Commission
hearing, the applicant will be increasing the depth of the lots along the north property line. One
of the results of this change wiII be the necessity to reverse the footprint of the proposed
residence on Lot 10. This modification would place the driveway for this lot further east, closer
to the intersection of Tamarind Place with Boulevard Way.
While it would be preferable to locate this driveway as far away from the intersection as
possible, it would not be any closer to the intersection than those on Lots 1 and 2. We do not
anticipate any problems resulting from this modification.
LG:Ie
G\G:pAzm\CneSvc\I.at y Gussct1\20011Auhu:(\SD3500E
cc: H.Bailengcr,Engineering Senices
M Morton,Engineering Services
Unox Homes,3G75 Mt.Diablo Blvd.Suite 350,Lafayette,CA 94549
r:
1\---1 I JLI♦ 1VL --- --- --- -
Focus fealty Services
3/2,2001
Catherine Pinkas
1305 Boulevard Way, A316
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
Re: Tamarind Place
1343!1355 Boulevard Way
Dear Ms. Pinkas:
This letter is to confirm that we are available to attend your homeowner's meeting on
'Tuesday. August 7, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.. ;Tease confirm the 'location of the meeting` with
iry office.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the proposed development plans for Tamarind
Place that have been submitted to the Planning CommissiorL ;t i.s my understanding that
some of the condominium homeowners at Villas of Nk alnLr Creek have concerns about
the plan. We are interested in hearing their concerns and obtaining input which would
improve the plan within the acceptable paraineters of the governmental agencies, the
Saranape T.-lorneow•ner s Association aridthe economics of the project.
We had recommended a meeting with your Board of Directors, but you stated your
preference is a meeting with all the interested homeowners of the Villas. Hopefully this
size meeting will not be cumbersome in our discussions.
Our representatives will be Walter McEnerney, Ross Blackburn and myself. You are the
President of the homeowner association and will preside over; the meeting. Attending the
muting will be your Board of Directors and homeowners.
We look, forward to our meeting and to a productive discussion about our project.
S�:2ccrcly'
� ' � '• ' lel ``
Curt Blomstrand
CB:mr
cc: Telma.Moreira
390-FRS-Pinkas
3675 Nit.Diablo Blvd-, Suite 150,Lafayette,CA 94549—6300
Phore: (925)283—8470 Fax: (925)283-9671
vVi VVi V1 111 L• VV VU 1:L'1 .lLV V1V 1.VVV VVV 1 LUL1... ,.Vluv - - ..�.u.r..- � ""... L .,-
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE:
TO: Telma Moreira, Project Planner, Community Development Department
FROM: Lawrence Gossett, Consulting Civil Engineer, Engineering Services
SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION SD 00-8500, DP 00-3056 & RZ 00-3097
RESPONSES TO PLANNING COMMISSION ISSUES
(Focus Realty/Boulevard Way/Saranap Area/AP# 185-360-019 & 020)
FILE: SD 00-8500, DP 00-3056 & RZ 00-3097
The purpose of this memo is to address Public Works related issues raised at the Planning
Commission hearing of July 24.
Some of the neighbors thought a traffic study should have been required for the proposed project.
Traffic studies are usually only required if the project meets criteria set forth under Measure C
(100 peak hour trips) or if there is a known or potential problem in the vicinity that requires
particular attention. In this case, the ten proposed lots would only generate approximately ten
peak hour trips. Our traffic engineer reviewed the proposed project and his comments were
incorporated into the conditions of approval as proposed. No additional study appears warranted.
The other issue raised concerned localized drainage problems. As a condition of development,
the applicant will be required to construct on and off-site drainage facilities to convey all storm
waters entering or originating on the site to an adequate storm drain system. They -grill not be
allowed to block any drainage that may flow to the site from adjacent parcels. By accepting any
runoff from adjacent parcels that may flow in the direction of the subject property and providing
positive drainage to dispose of said runoff, the localized drainage on adjacent parcels will, if
anything,benefit from the proposed project.
l,c:IE
GAG,pData\EmgSvc\L-%M,Gosssn\200l%July1SD9500e
cc: H.Ballenper,C•ngineerLrg Services
M.Morton,Es.giuecring Services
Lenox Homes,361S Mt_Diablo Blvd,Suire 350,Lafaycae,CA 945d9
Aa1 � a�K;gm�es^omgQ� In .�
nRR
Zrt1 n
n O brG
7'To
'IMM.[1.
> �Yl
-'ir y�i ruxuc = 1--
> =s-
� n Fro
AE
a� - eci
1 12
N _ •\ :. 2a ic�� = 5 `Aga
� 1�In it 7 L i f i \ .\V }J�•J J
oevo = L
m
52 g
i
°"• I CONTRA COSTA. COUNTY CALIFORN;: —
CA
0
>
fT, �
IF
O
\ ,C
�•\ �jy'/ :LCL•] 9'ICC•_
- 25
aa
` \ \L•� NR.� /.� \'..;� \`-��� � Ian � w7S' ! N'� __
~- 2
rn
r _ m
Al
_ r
- ---.o����d�$$PPa
`k C•- `
.........
.i�`.... : .6.%�:Ce
...�.^....,?..., ....
............ ............ • `Q �, \,
��ifl8� Gfii°k4n k Y.o kk�� 6 g8v@�£ `�•
.. .a:°an�na a�n�n Dann o
3 3 3 3 3:•''3'3 3 3 3 3 3 3.3 3 3 3 3'3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ° u
YYYYY���}YgY�Y8YYYY�YYPYY�YYYYYYY �o
0000 o°°Q �o Q000 00 00� 00 c
i i i 2 i
'-2 3=_ 2 i z a i 3.=
3333 3 3 3!3333.3'3 3'33 3'3 ••
3
_ G
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CAIIFORNIa
i
-------------- - ---- --- - - -- ---------N
r
Z i❑
n 1❑
nnn❑ '
M.",71 .
WE
-_� j--. DL'�I❑ j'il 11:11,: i;i I
I ,
0 \
� n - � I ' �'��= Z .IIIi:.:.�Iilli,jlj•�."�'�', II
Z ,�,
I
7�-z___._._._._._._._—.____ __ _.__.___.__._._._._._._.__._. __-----------------_.___--
1 0
. -
1 I m. O Ij1IlII1I II II II I I
L �.
j z 11I11 1 1:
1-
jIv,
i
� r _
\ m
m
14
O
DE
-----------------
rn
I
' I '
I
s
i FM
00
Iml,
_�1;m ®r' '
'iji!I II �i�l i!i tai 111iWj i•I ij Ilji I'jiij�
L -�
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ...... _4-1
i rlil�
_ o DID D D
DDDR
_i ! D'DID D R ff i
f;
F
\` 3
I
I i i
I
1WI ED :
)00
Ji
i -
t"i Y C f C I:I:i 1.�:•.�.
N �} C3�
LJo ll`I> D ❑
�j
p � oloo° i � �I I
rm
r - i;!1IGI
IIIIII!WM 'Hilllil'IIII
-J _ -_ f- �,Ij�.I� IIII IIIIII!III!417 illlII ' I �I
.�-r � __�► = __' --III ���� ®® ! �li ;! f
03
I I .-J - I' II IIII` i'iliil it v
i I O I � q Y 'riI!illlllilj i': IiIiII I .il l��:
1
_ 1
'IIE0
I'I,jp. I I I m I- 1 Itl i iI .li �
CD
jyo 1 I Ilii ili
l
1
Illf I
11111
l j G
l
\I
_-___ ®�
9 >
17
v Ilr
_- G ii'I ilii !ii;ll 11 D I I.II� ®®
a � !411I
I
U1 ED
I , -�; I -:--� `�ic���I�� llll 11 lil!li'i�����►1 °� ``I(►���
I!� 710-3�JI.�I hl�' ![��i!'I,�.�I •❑�i! II ! I Ill�l�l
{ QQQo!
....... ... - - - r
_
I
I F
F -
C
e -
f
I !
I--�
d I�� �—
li -- ,
ij
jiii
II ,•,, _ I
il '"IIO J/
�l
rm
i jai�•!� (
I
;
I
- I
>o z
_ C 4
L'. p
. n =
m -
D —
o �
• Agenda Item#
Community Development Contra Costa County
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, July 24,2001 - 7:00 P.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
FOCUS REALTY SERVICES (Applicant) STOW PARTNERS ( Owner), County
File#'s RZ00-3097; DP00-3056; SD00-8500:
A. County File#RZ00-3097: The applicant requests approval to rezone a 1.14 acre
parcel from single-family Residential District (R-10) to Planned Unit
Development (P-1). A variance is requested to allow P-1 zoning on a parcel
smaller than five acres.
B. County File#DP00-3056: The applicant requests approval of a final development
plan to establish ten (10) detached two-story single-family houses with an
attached two-car garage in each house. The applicant is also requesting a tree
permit to allow removal of 28 trees and alteration of five other trees.
C. County File#SD00-8500: The applicant requests approval of a vesting tentative
map to subdivide a 1.14 acre parcel into 10 lots.
Subject property consists of two lots totaling ± 49,658 square feet at #1344 Boulevard
Way in the Walnut Creek area. (R-10) (ZA: N-13) (CT: 3410) (Parcel #185-360-
019/020).
II. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the attached Negative Declaration.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed
rezoning from Single-family Residential District (R-10) to Planned Unit
Development (P-1) with a variance to allow P-1 zoning on a parcel smaller than
five acres.
3. Recommend approval of the Final Development Plan for ten (10) detached two-
story single-family house units with 2 two-car garages on a 1.14 acre property
subject to the findings and conditions of approval.
• S=2 •
4. Approve the Vesting Tentative Map to establish ten (10) single-family, two-story
house units with 2 two-car garages on a 1.14 acre property subject to the findings
and conditions of approval.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan: The General Plan designation is Multiple-Family Residential-
Medium Density (MM).
This designation allows between 12.0 and 20.9 multiple family units per net acre.
With an average of 2.5 persons per unit, population densities would normally
range between about 30 to about 52.3 persons per acre.
The applicant's proposal for 10 units on a 1.14 acre property is consistent with the
density range allowed in this designation.
B. Zonin : The subject site is currently located in the Single-family Residential
District (R-10). The applicant has requested a rezoning to Planned Unit District
(P-1) and the proposal is consistent with the P-1 zoning district.
C. CE A: A Negative Declaration was posted on June 19, 2001. No written
comments regarding the adequacy of the posted negative declaration were
received by the Community Development Department.
D. Previous Applications:
PR00-0013: A Pre-application meeting took place on August 3, 2000.
The pre-application meeting included representatives from the
District 2 Supervisor's office and the Saranap Homeowner
Association.
E. Regulatory Programs:
1. Active Fault Zone: The subject site is not within an active fault zone.
2. Flood Hazard Area: The subject site is within flood zone C, Panel 290 of
minimal flooding.
3. 60 dBA Noise Control: The subject site is not within a 60 dBA Noise
Control Zone
S-3 •
IV. AGENCY COMMENTS
1. Building Inspection Department, Grading Division: January 3, 2001 states that a soil
preliminary report and grading permit required. Grading Division addressed some
concerns about the drainage of the site; however, the applicant will have to meet the
requirements of the collect and convey on the property.
2. East Bay Municipal Utility District: Memorandum dated December 21, 2000, states
that off site pipeline improvements, at the applicants expense, may be necessary
depending on local fire requirements set by the local fire agency. The applicant
should contact EBMUD's New Business Office to request a water service estimate to
determine costs and conditions of providing additional water service to the property.
3. Office of the Sheriff: Memorandum dated March 13, 2001 includes a series of
conditions (see attached letter) and staff has discussed those conditions with the
applicant.
4. Citv of Walnut Creek: Staff has contacted City of Walnut Creek, Melissa Ayers, on
July 10, 2001 and was informed that the proposed Planned Unit Development is
consistent with other existing residential development within the City of Walnut
Creek. On July 12, 2001 Ms. Melissa Ayers left a message with staff stating that the
City of Walnut City General Plan is also Multi-family which allows 14 to 22 units per
acre; therefore, the City of Walnut Creek would not encourage developments that
don't meet the General Plan density range.
5. Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Department: Memorandum dated December
27, 2000, states a series of conditions (see attached letter). Staff has discussed those
conditions with the applicant and the applicant has submitted a letter stating that he
agrees with all of the Fire Department conditions.
6. California Resources Information System: Memorandum dated January 2, 2001
stated that the site has the possibility of containing archeological sites. An
archaeological Report dated January 2, 2001 indicates that the general area appears
to have moderate archaeological sensitivity for prehistoric resources due to the
proximity of Las Trampas Creek. However, no prehistoric, Hispanic or American
Period archaeological resources have been recorded, reported or observed within or
adjacent to the project.
7. Public Works Department, Flood Control Division: Memorandum dated January 4,
2001 states that before accepting the application as complete, the applicant should
submit a drainage study showing how they will be able to satisfy collect and convey
requirements. A drainage study was submitted to Public Works Department and it
was determined that the study was acceptable and that no further mitigations would
be necessary.
-• S-4 •
No response was received from the following agencies:
Central Sanitary District
Health Ser-v,-.z--z Qzpar ngnt, Env;roni—n,lltat Division
Acalanes School District
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Saranap Home Owners Association:
Memorandum dated July 5, 2001, states that issues regarding the subject project were
discussed and resolved at several past meetings. The Association is favoring the project
and believes that the proposed project is an appropriate transition between the three story
apartments and the single family houses which adjoins the subject site.
Mrs. Pike's Letter:
A letter dated May 4, 2001 was received from Sandra L. Pike, of 40 Iris Lane. In her
letter, Mrs. Pike addressed the following concerns: 1) importance of monitoring the
proposed project to ensure the drainage problems along Iris lane are not aggravated by
the proposed project 2) loosing the existing sunlight on the property and loosing view of
Mount Diablo (staff is assuming that Mrs. Pike was referring to Mount Diablo when she
mentioned Mount Tamalpais), and that it would have an adverse affect on the value of
her property 3) loosing the privacy of her property because proposed development would
have only a 10-foot setback instead of 15-foot setback 4) construction nuisance such as
noise, dust, and rodent problems that could affect her home 5) removing her property
existing fencing and replacing it with a commercial fencing.
Staff Response:
Drainage of the property: Staff has been communicating with Mrs. Pike, and has
submitted a copy of Public Works Conditions of Approval and a copy of the Initial Study
of the proposed project. A copy of the drainage calculation of the proposed project was
submitted to Public Works, Flood Control Division, and it was determined that the
submitted drainage calculation to be adequate in addressing the drainage concerns of the
property.
Loosing sunlight and view of Mount_Diablo: The applicant has submitted pictures from
Mrs. Pike's backyard porch, which show the existing trees and a solid wood fencing on
her property (see attached photos). The County has no view protection Ordinance.
Loosing privacy because 10-Foot rear yard setback: The proposed rear yard setback for
this development is 15-foot and not 10-foot. Additionally, the applicant has lowered the
final pad of the Lot No. 6 to five feet lower than Mrs. Pike's property.
• S-5
Dust, noise, and rodents caused by construction activities: The noise, and dust related to
the construction of the proposed development will be temporarily in nature and a
condition regarding constructions litter, dust, and hours of operations is placed on the
project (see Conditions of Approval No. 7 on Page No.4 and 5).
Removal of existingfencing:encing: The applicant has informed staff that he has discussed the
fencing issue with Mrs. Pike. Mrs. Pike indicated to the aplciant that she wants to retain
the existing fence and the applicant will build an additional fencing adjacent to Mrs.
Pike's fence.
VI. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION:
The subject site is a 1.14 acre L 49,658 sq. ft) property addressed 1343 Boulevard Way
in the Walnut Creek area. The property is developed and comprised of two lots. There
are two residences and several County protected trees (mainly Valley Oak and Monterey
Pine, ranging from 6-inch diameter to 26-inch diameter). Boulevard Way is shown as a
general thoroughfare on the County Major Roads Plan. The surrounding zoning is M-29
(Multi-family Residential) to the north, N-B (Neighborhood Business) to the east, P-1
(Planned Unit Development) to the southeast; and Single-family Residential District R-
10) to the south and west.
VII. PROPOSED PROJECT
The applicant is requesting a subdivision to divide approximately 1.14 acre of land into
ten lots. A variance is also requested to allow P-1 zoning on a parcel smaller than five
acres. The proposed project consists of 10 two story house units, with an attached two-
car garage each unit. The main floor consists of a living-room, family-room, dining-
room, kitchen and a two-car garage. The second floor consists of a master
bedroom/bath, three other bedrooms, and a laundry room. The total height of each unit
will not exceed 28 feet.
Six houses will be located towards the north side of the property and four houses on the
south-central portion of the property. One gateway is proposed for each side of the
private road entrance. The height of the gateway varies from 3 to 4 '/z feet. A six-foot
wood fence is proposed along the easterly corner of Lot No. 9, which will continue
easterly to Lot No. 10. along Boulevard Way. An existing 2 to 4 feet retaining wall is
located on the north side of the property. The applicant is proposing to keep that
retaining wall and build another retaining wall of similar height along the west side of the
property.
The revised final development plan indicates that each lot will offer a minimum of 3-foot
side yard (6-foot separation between houses); most lots will have a 15-foot rear yard; 15-
foot front setback from the edge of the garage and 18-foot from the edge of the house.
The net square footage of the lots varies from 2942 sq. ft. to 6456 sq. ft.
S-6
Access
A private one-way road (Tamarind Place) will provide access to the proposed
development. The width of the road on its west side is 20-foot and 28-foot on the north
and east side. Four parking spaces are proposed on the 28-foot wide portion of the
private road. Public Works is requiring that "No Parking" signs be installed along the
private road subject to their review and approval. Parking be prohibited on both sides of
the private road where pavement width is less than 8.5 meters (28 feet) and parking be
prohibited on one side of the private road where the width is greater or equal to 8.5
meters (28 feet).
Landscaping
The applicant has submitted a landscape design for the proposed site. Five existing trees
will be part of the final landscape, and additional trees will be planted along the frontage
of Boulevard Way and along the frontage of the houses. Trees will be a minimum of 15
gallon-size, and shrubs will vary between I to 5 gallons. The proposed trees are
Hawthorn, Loquat,White Crape Myrtle, Redwood and Coast Live Oak.
VIII. ROAD AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
Traffic/Circulation
The Public Works Department is currently in the process of revising the Precise
Alignment of Boulevard Way to reduce the ultimate width along the subject property to a
34-foot half-width. This is a reduction of 8 feet from the currently adopted plan. We
would require some transition in right of way and improvements near the north end of the
project to conform to the existing improvements in front of the neighboring apartments.
In addition, channelization improvements are proposed at the intersection of Kinney
Drive to the southwest.
From a traffic flow and safety standpoint, it would be preferable to redesign the site such
that there is a single access to Boulevard Way.
We have previously discussed the internal circulation with the applicant and the plan has
been revised to make the internal private road a one-way street. Upon further review with
our traffic engineer, we recommend the direction of flow for Tamarind Place be reversed
to a "counter-clockwise" direction. This would move the left turn movements from
Boulevard Way to the subdivision further away from the curve in Boulevard Way and
Kinney Drive channelization.
With several multi-family apartments and condominiums in the area, on street and guest
parking is marginal. Although on-street parking will be allowed along Boulevard Way in
the interim, it may be prohibited in the future when the ultimate roadway improvements
and channelization for the Kinney Drive intersection is constructed. This should be kept
in mind in evaluating the parking requirements for this project.
S-7 •
Drainage
Storm water runoff from this site flows easterly towards Las Trampas Creek via a
combination of underground facilities and open creeks. Portions of this system in the
vicinity of Blade Court are known to be deficient and have a long history of flooding
problems. The County Subdivision Ordinance will require the applicant construct an
adequate storm drain system to serve this project.
Another developer in the region is improving portions of this downstream drainage
system west of Dewing Lane. The applicant has submitted a drainage study from Dewing
Lane to the confluence with Las Trampas Creek. This study, which has been reviewed by
both Public Works and Flood Control staff, indicates the existing creek is able to contain
the required design storm. Additional off-site mitigation within this reach of the creek
does not appear to be necessary.
IX. STAFF CONSIDERATIONS
A. Rezoning: The rezoning request is to change it from R-10 to P-1. The surrounding
zoning is M-29 (Multi-family Residential) to the north, N-B (Neighborhood Business) to
the east, P-1 (Planned Unit Development) to the southeast; and Single-family Residential
District R-10) to the south and west. The general plan for the property is Multi-family
Residential Medium Density (MM). The proposed rezoning will make the zoning
consistent with the general plan for the property and staff is recommending approval of
the rezoning to P-1.
B. Variance Request: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow P-1 Zoning on a parcel
smaller than five acres. This variance would allow the applicant to construct the proposed
development which would not be possible otherwise. Staff is recommending granting
approval of the variance consistent with the County Code Section 26.2.2006, due to the
location, size, and shape of the property.
C. Subdivision: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the general plan for the area.
The design and layout of the subdivision is compatible with the surrounding single-
family development in the area.
D. Tree Impact: A tree report was prepared by a certified arborist (HortScience, Inc).
Thirty-three trees were evaluated, representing 13 species. The trees were an equal mix
of indigenous species (18 trees, all Valley and coast live oak) and planted exotics such as
Monterey pine (4) and California, black walnut (3). Nine of the species were represented
by a single individual. Most of the trees were small in stature; only 10 were greater than
15" in diameter. Included among the larger trees were 6 valley oaks, 2 Monterey pines
and the Blue Atlas cedar and Coast redwood. The reports additionally states that
approximately most of the trees are in good condition and approximately thirty percent in
poor condition. The applicant is proposing to remove 28 trees. Five trees along the
frontage of the property are proposed to be altered but saved. The report provides
S-8
background of the existing trees and replanting recommendations. Staff supports the
removal of the trees to accommodate the proposed development.
X. CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission adopt a motion to:
A. Adopt the negative declaration as adequate for the purpose of this
project.
B. Recommend the Board of Supervisors approve the requested rezoning from R-10 to P-1
and the Final Development Plan.
C. Approve the Vesting Tentative Map Subdivision (SD008500) subject to conditions
including that the approval is contingent on adoption of the requested rezoning to P-1 by
the Board of Supervisors.
OWN ,/,i
0
•
Lenox Homes
July 11, 2001
Telma Moreira
Contra Costa County Development Department
651 Pine Street
North Wing- 2nd Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Tamarind Place
RZ003097, DP003056 & SDO08500
Dear Ms. Moreira:
The purpose of this letter is to describe the general background that leads to our proposed
10 single family home project called Tamarind Place.
The general plan designation MM (medium density) for this ill property allows from
10 to 24 units for the net area of the site. We prepared several different schematic plans
ranging from an apartment building to a townhouse project and finally to a single family
home development. We met with the Saranap Homeowner Association several times to
discuss the merits and preferences of the various plans.
The Association selected the plan showing single family homes on small lots. This plan
would provide a transition from the existing 3 story apartment complex on the north to
the R-10 single family homes on the West.
After the basic housing type was decided, we worked with the Association in developing
an appropriate site plan that met the requirements of Planning and the public agencies.
A rezoning of the site to planned development (PD)was recommended to allow single
family homes in the MM general plan designation. It also allowed flexibility in siting the
houses and to provide variations in the house plans and preserve several of the existing
trees on the property. Tamarind Place would be similar to a nearby project("Olde Creek
Place") recently built on Old Tunnel Road in Lafayette.
A number of recommendations from the Association were incorporated in the site plan
and house designs. The goals were to reduce the impact of the project on the adjacent
neighbors, incorporate the local architecture vernacular and create an interesting
streetscape that fits with the existing neighborhood.
We are pleased with the results of this joint effort which has resulted in the proposed
project now submitted to the Planning Commission. The project utilizes an infill site
3675 Mt.Diablo Blvd.,Suite 350,Lafayette,CA 94549—6800
Phone: (925)283—8470 • Fax: (925)283-9671
Telma Moreira
July 11, 2001
Page 2
that has a G.P. designation for medium density housing. The project represents the low
end of the density range and provides a reasonable transition from the apartments on the
one side to the single family homes on the other side.
Tamarind Place offers needed housing in an urban area and utilizes the existing
infrastracture for its public services. We look forward to your recommended approval of
the Tamarind Place project.
Sincerel ,
Curt A. Blomstrand
590-LH-CCC
i i ar�u i i -r�+.r i•i I-KI.JI•I I-LA-4--D KLML I 1 JGK V 1 VG JGn
Focus Realty Services
July 11, 2001
Telma Moreira
Planner
Community Development Department
Currcnt.Planning
651 Pine St.
2nd Floor- Forth.Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Subject: Conditions of Approval by Fire Department
Dear Ms. More:ira:
This letter is to confirm that we agreed to the conditions of approval issued by the Contra
Costa County Fire District regarding Tamarind Place, Subdivision 8500.
Sincerely..
•1� � ^ r s•/ ! f
Curt A. .Rlornslrand
CAB:mr
3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 350, t_afaycae_CA 94549—6800
Phone: (.925)283 -- 9470 • rax: (9255)283 -9671
Saranap Homeowners Association
Post Office Box 2506
Walnut Creek, California 94595-2539
(925) 946-9185
Telma Moriera
Community Development
651 Pine Street North Wing
Nartine z , CA 94553-0095
July, 5, 2001
Res 1343 Boulevard Way 10 lot subdivision
County File # RZ 003097/DP 003056/SD8500
Our Association endorses the 1343 Boulevard Way 10 lot
subdivision. This is based on several meetings on-site ,and,
at Community Development which explained and resolved our
earlier issues.
We have discussed this project with two neighbors on Iris
Lane resulting in lowering the corner house five feet
to continue their view of Mt, Diablo . The internal street
was changed to one-way. Landscaping is modified for safer
visibility at the egress points.
This project complies with the General Plan, and also,
is a proper transition between the three story apartments,
and the R-10` s on Iris Lane.
Cordially yours,
Robert W . Stevens
Saranap howners Association
r Kum r ul.uJ KGNL I f JCK v 1 l,C �jLb Zb 5 `J-b/ I �. L
TPP i=0•;7Ij-CDL1 9257-351-222 P.02/0S
May 4, 2001
_3 i is L= Jtl
cin_ '_T'elma ?'Loreira
Contra Costa county Developmpr.t Loot.
current Planning Division
651. Pine Street, North Wing- 2nd Floor
Martinez, Califo::ks.a Y4553
Subdlvlsi0n . D J'J-3501^, DP00-3056, e RZ GU-3097
A2\: 135-366 019 6 020 !Boulevard_ way Between Sar azap 6 Gazdvri
�cut'j
Dem- Its:
As a follow-up to our earlier phone discussion, I art summarizing some of
my concerns which 'elate to the Proposed construction of the subdivision
:ccated at the vacant, lot which backs >o my home at 40 Ir,i n Lane, Walnut
Crook. I know that you art- currently in the review stages of the
tentativp maps fpr Y-h_e project_ and I wgu_.d like to make that the
:ollowing i:;*Ues are addressee.
(1) The-- is currently a .netuzal flow of rain watcf from the uphill
:irie of Iris Lane which drains trru the yards of the notes on my side of
the street.., and which I believe also drain towards the vacant lot or.
Boulevard way where the new subdivision is proposed. I would like to
express the importance o`. monitoring the prosect so that the exist.i.ng
drainage problems along Iris Lenz are not aggravated by the con;tructior.
of the subdivisia s new drainage 3vstem5- I am partizLiarly impa•r.te'd by
tris eroblem. L;i•nce the pn:)pased protect will abut about on of the
backyard of my property:
(2) My site has always rad the benefit of the sunlight onto
the rear yard and a view of Mt Tama-pais from my kitchen window. If thea
nro-j.•c•t were -to by cons,:ruc•red -wi-:G ;.he curren plans. -thcr two &tory
buil-:'rigs will diminish the amount of sunlight com:rig into my prcpIZrty.
Al._-., I, as well as soma of my neighbors, will lose our viewL of Mt.
Tarntipais. This will have an adverse affect ua Lhe value of my property
and ny neishbcrs' orvpert,es.
,3) As I under;tared the pians, construc.::on of the building nearest my
itc w-ii only have a setback of 10 feet -rom Lhe tear lot .line. This
is a variance from the required !S-ft minimum yard setbar.k Lssed on the
C1._rzci-.L zoning in this ares. I want to ensure that the 15- ft rear yard
se'_back requirement is ;:prLFlc. With th,, proposed building.; ,eing ,wo
stories 2,4 and set so %rose to t:1e lo[ line, I will lcsc- X11 DrlvaCy
in my bank yard. This too, will affect negatively on my property value.
-urs ng constructicn there w+11 br periods c` sc vL%re noise, riuF;t
arid: Ic,. $C likely rodent probl..Pms t:`.at affect m•: home. During rri.oz
cor_struction orcjec`Cs such az the one it Laurel Oak Larne and the oze
across Koulevard Way from the entrance to leis Lane, the hordes o:
roder:tS Mice or ra=s) %any cn or .neat! the cons iter: i;n sites wire
upzoi,_e3 and fozced these rodents t: rind new )'1nnss, o—en near or under
exis'_ing romp; in t',P, area, I am very Concerned about that .`,appeninq to
my name because a£ -his project-. all th9se factors wili be )iP_alth
razarC;s_
e� er�e�i u: i err i r KUM r UUUJ Kt--I-1L I Y JtK V 1 LL `.:12b 2b S / � N 3
11FiY-l5-X3131
V-5:42 TPA CO51'L,-CLU 3��SS.S�1??? N_�I s%LAS
(5) Currently there is a wood fence around ray lot, vth,ch I had
installed when '1 First purchased the property about 5 years ago. I paid
fcr the fen<-e without the assistance of any of t1-.P rear neighbors. That
fe-nee provides my home with zacuriCy and privacy, and since it is in
relativ-ly ;food condition., I want to keep the fence the way it is. i Ain
oncerned that it. will be removed during the construction and that a
commercidl Ience will be :ut L'.p in it's place which does not match the
current pence and will not provide the spume level of privacy. For your
informatlor., I am oatraged that the existing condominium project
la d'ace-nt Fo rhe proposed new constrix,;cicn) has recrntly d9moliz,he4 a
portion of my wood fc_.ce and has replaced it wits. a chain link fence
-i.tnct;.t --%Y consent. I -ill be taking that matter yup witn zhiC prcper
authoritle5. Due to their thoughtless and negligent actio.':s, r wart. to
express my concerns up :ront with the planning ✓epazLmtnt, to prevent
other actions, similar to the one 1 have recently encvuntered, from
occurring:
These issues are of serious conCern to me and 1 want to See them
carefully considered since this project, as currently planned, wil.1
undoubtedly have a negative of=ect on ire value of my home. The
drainage issue alone could affect the structu_al inteq,ity of !ay house,
:and the entire project x..:.1.1 adversely affect my privacy, the -:snu_nt of
sunlight which comes into my property, my view of Mt_ Tamalpais. could
create rodent problems, and will cause exce*sive noise, dust, air
pollutants, and other environmental problem-; ciurJ.ng construction.
Ir. closing, I understand "hat you will .i-ifoii me of a-ay public hearing.
related to t'.^.is project_ I would appreciate being called as soon a- A
public hearing date is establisled, as well as being sailed dry
correspondences, which relates to this project so I can be in:ormed at
each stage_ 1 can be reached at 925-938-5526.
Thank you for your assistance:
Regards,
Sandra L: Pike
UWner Of 4V I_is Lane
Walnut Creek, ca. 94595
TOTRL r-U-6
Focus Realty Services
January 23, 2001 011 3 2 PP`1 3: 39
Telma Moreira
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
4t'Floor, No. Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Re: RZ003097/SDO08500/DP003056
"Tamarind Place"
1343 Boulevard Way
Walnut Creek
Dear Telma:
We are responding to your letter of December 28, 2000 regarding additional items to
complete our application for the above referenced project:
1. There are no hazardous materials on the site. The property
has been used solely for residential purposes. A Phase I
Environmental Assessment Report has been prepared and
included for your review.
Our civil engineer is working with the Public Works Dept.
regarding flood plain, drainage and road improvements.
2. Enclosed is a $250 check for the balance of the fees due.
3.A. We have selected the Planned Unit (P-1)District Zoning
to accommodate both the County requirements and the strong
recommendation of the Saranap Homeowner Association.
The General Plan designation for the property is Multiple
Medium(MM) allowing for 12 to 20.9 units per net acre.
The current zoning of R-10 should be rezoned to either
M-9 or P-1 to be consistent with the General Plan.
The P-1 zoning was selected because the Saranap Home-
owner Association would prefer to see the development of
10 single family detached homes instead of a 14 unit attached
townhouse project.
3675 Mt.Diablo Blvd.,Suite 350,Lafayette,CA 94549—6800
Phone: (925)283—8470 - Fax: (925)283-9671
Telma Moreira
January 22, 2001
Page 2
The P-1 zoning allows single family homes on the property by
providing flexibility in set backs, side yards, internal street circulation
and preserving several existing trees. The M-9 zoning would not
allow single family homes on this property.
The proposed project at 10 units is at the lowest density range
for the General Plan designation. The P-1 zoning provides an
appropriate land use between high density multiple and single family
residential. The P-1 zoning accommodates the desire of the neighbor-
hood for single family detached homes and complies with the MM
General Plan designation.
3.B. The project will be serviced by the Contra Costa Central Sanitary
District, Pacific Gas and Electric, EBMUD and AT&T Cable Service.
Our civil engineering is working with the Contra Costa Co. Flood
District regarding storm drainage for the area. A preliminary report
from Aliquot will be sent to you under separate cover.
3.C. The site plan was revised based on input from the Public Works Dept.
The internal street was modified to one way direction, a speed bump
located on the corner and parking spaces to meet the minimum size.
The modifications will be shown on the revised site plan to be sent to
you under separate cover.
3.D. The project shall comply with the NPDES Program The project
will be planned according to Tier 1 -Baseline BMP's for residential
development encompassing less than 1 acre of impervious area. The
project will not have an association, but will have CC&R's providing
guidelines for the use and maintenance of their property. A section
of the CC&R's will have information on good housekeeping of hazard-
ous products,proper use and disposal for hazardous products and
prohibited discharge practices.
The developer will also comply with the Tier 1 guidelines prior and
during the construction period. The project design shall incorporate
landscape and run off controls as required. Storm drain facilities shall
be labeled appropriately.
3.E. The modified Site Plan shall read Final Development Plan.
3.F. In regards to the Park Dedication Ordinance, the applicant elects to
pay a fee in lieu of dedicating land for park and recreation purposes.
Telma Moreira
January 22, 2001
Page 3
3.G. The land between Lots 1, 9, and 10 and Boulevard Way will be public
right of way, but maintained by the owners of Lots#1, 9, and 10. The
landscaping for this area will be installed by the developer.
4.A. The tree numbers on the tree survey map and site plan have been
revised to be consistent on both site plan and tree survey map.
4.13. All trees to be saved, to be removed and to be altered have been
indicated on the revised site plan. A common legend has been
included on both the site plan and tree survey map to identify
the required information.
5.A. The arborist report has been revised to correct the inconsistencies
of Table#1 (page 3) and page 4. See attached revised pages.
5.B. The referenced "Tree Survey Form" is the table (Hortscience Tree
Survey) listing the existing conditions of the 33 trees (pages 1 and 2)
at the end of the report.
5.C. We have included a copy of the "Tree Pruning Guidelines" of the
International Society of Arboriculture. See attachment.
We hope this information and attachments satisfy your request and you can determine our
application to be complete.
If you have any questions,please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Curt A. Blomstrand
CAB:mr
Attachments
590-FRS-CCC Moreira
Contra Costa County `°"" Fire Protection District
°o n.
Fire Chief December 27, 2000
KEITH RICHTER
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Attention: Telma Moreira
Subject: Sub 8500, RZ 00-3097, DP 00-3056
1343, 1355 Boulevard Way
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the development plan application to establish a ten lot residential
subdivision at the subject location. This project is regulated by codes, regulations, and
ordinances administered by this Fire District. If approved by your office, the following
shall be included as conditions of approval:
1. The developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire
protection with a minimum fire flow of 1000 GPM. Required flow
shall be delivered from not more than one hydrant flowing while maintaining
20 pounds residual pressure in the main. (903.2)UFC
2. The developer shall provide one hydrant of the East Bay type.
Hydrant location will be determined by this office upon submittal of
three copies of a tentative map or site plan. (903.2)UFC
3. Provide access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less
than 20 feet unobstructed width, and not less than 13 feet six inches of
vertical clearance, to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of
the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16%
grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 42 feet, and must
be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus i.e., 37 tons
(902.2)UFC
Note: Access roads of 20 feet unobstructed width shall have NO
PARKING signs posted and curbs painted red. Roads 28 feet in
width shall have NO PARKING signs posted, allowing for parking
on one side only, and curb painted red.
4. Access roads and hydrants shall be installed and in service prior to
construction. (8704.1)UFC
F1 2010 GEARY ROAD • PLEASANT HILL, CALIFORNIA 94523-4694 • TELEPHONE (925) 930-5500 • FAX 930-5592
4527 DEERFIELD DRIVE • ANTIOCH, CALIFORNIA 94509 • TELEPHONE (925)757-1303 • FAX 754-8852
WEST COUNTY AREA • TELEPHONE (510) 374-7070
• s
CCC Community Development -2- December 27, 2000
5. Approved premises identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall
contrast with their background and be readily visible from the street.
6. A pro rata fee of$300 per dwelling unit shall be assessed to partially offset
initial expenditures for additional necessary fire service resources.
7. All homes as proposed shall be protected with an approved automatic
fire sprinkler system. Submit two sets of plans to this office for review and
approval prior to installation. (1003.1)UFC CCC General Plan
It is requested that a copy of the conditions of approval for the subject project be
forwarded to this office when compiled by the planning agency.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office.
Sincerely
Richard S. Ryan
Fire Inspector
RSR/cja
File: Project 01513.Itr
c: Stow Partners
16 Park Avenue
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
Aliquot Associates, Inc.
1390 S. Main Street#310
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
L111111111 of &1111ra &1!711,-1
Offtrr of thr �Itrriff
Warren E.Rupf
Sheriff
.r J
March 13, 2001 -
Mr. Dermis M. Barry, Community Development Director N
�o
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
4`h Floor,North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Dear Mr. Barry:
Subject: 1343 Boulevard- y
RE: County File#RZ00 and SDO08500
Assigned Project P1 r: Telma Moreira
Project Description: The application is a request for final development plan approval for ten
detached single-family residences.
Location Description: The development is in an area of Walnut Creek that is both residential
and commercial. The north and east sides of the property back up to a three story apartment
building and single family residences with fences between the two properties. Across the street
are a liquor store and a religious institution. Year to date statistics for the area show incidents of
commercial burglary, auto burglary/theft from vehicles and vandalism.
The current plan, as submitted, does not meet the adequate standards of CPTED (Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design) strategies. We reserve the right to review future
plans including site, floor, elevation, lighting and landscaping. The following recommendations
are offered:
1. Numbering
a. A separate street number shall be displayed in a prominent location on the street side of
the residence in such a position that the dumber is easily visible to approaching
emergency vehicles, preferably backlit.
b. The numerals shall be no less than four inches in height and shall be of a contrasting
color to the background to which they are attached.
1980 Muir Road • Martinez. California 94553-4800
(925) 313-2500
"Community Policing Since 1850...:"
• .
c. It is recommended that street addresses be painted on the front curb of each residence.
2. Doors
a. All exterior wood doors shall be solid core with a minimum thickness of 13/4".
b. All exterior doors shall be secured with a single-cylinder deadbolt lock with a minimum
throw of one inch.
1) The locks shall be so constructed that both deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be
retracted by a single action of the inside doorknob. Strike plates shall be secured to
wooden jambs with at least 2 '/2 -inch wood screws.
c. A viewing device or peephole shall be installed in any exterior residence door and shall
allow for 180-degree vision minimum.
d. Vision panels in exterior doors or within reach of the inside-locking device shall be of
burglary-resistant glazing or equivalent (5/16" security laminate, %4"polycarbonate or
approved security film treatment, minimum.)
3. Lighting
a. Street lighting will be sufficient to illuminate all sidewalks and pedestrian walkways so
that identification of passersby can be made from a minimum of 25 yards. Currently
there are no streetlights on the west side of the site along Boulevard Way.
b. Exterior lighting of the residential area is critical. All walkways to entrances must be
illuminated and free of concealment areas.
c. The front yard areas must be lit and landscaped so that all areas are illuminated and no
hiding places are created for would-be attackers.
4. Windows
a. Windows shall be constructed so that when the window is locked it cannot be lifted from
the frame.
b. The sliding portion of a sliding glass window shall be on the inside track.
c. Window locking devices shall be capable of withstanding a force of 300 lbs. in any
direction.
3. Driveways/Traffic/Parking
a. Shrubbery along driveway(s) should be trimmed back to reveal entrances and should be
well lit to traffic on Boulevard Way.
b. It is recommended that parking be eliminated along Boulevard way due to the high
instances of auto burglaries and thefts from vehicles in the area.
4. Fencing/Landscaping
a. It is recommended along Boulevard Way to separate backyards from the street that an 8'
fence with a pointed top be constructed to discourage unauthorized entry. Climbing vines
or anti-graffiti coating is recommended to discourage vandalism.
b. Large canopy trees should not be placed near doorways to prevent blocking natural
surveillance and providing hiding places for would-be attackers.
c. Canopy trees should not obscure any light source and the canopy of all mature trees shall
be above 7'. The large tree at the entrance to the site should be trimmed to comply with
this recommendation.
d. Shrubs should not exceed a height of 42"to provide maximum natural surveillance.
2
e. A maintenance plan should be in effect to maintain the proper height of plants.
f. Defense plants should be used near any accessible windows or fences to prevent
unauthorized entry. (Defense plants are any plants with thorns or stickers, such as roses
or bougainvillea)
Sincerely,
Ann M. Frisk
Crime Prevention Specialist
Office of the Sheriff Contra Costa County
Administrative & Community Services
Crime Prevention Unit (925) 313-2723
cc: Applicant
Owner
3
( k .
el n
300T'gi
�� !i
Sc 1 `1 200
Gam.
t
0
k
o0
is
Park
o -
• J —
� J
- j
L �
. I J� ` \��� Vii; �.
1
300.. , ` _ ,\\ C!.� �
_ _ l yam• � � � �— �
�
....:: .....
..........:..: .:
. ...... ...
..::... ... .
1
,
•
........:::..
S
� C
6
7/0
540 00 FEET 5� 581 s82
2
G N 1000 0 1000
1 .5
0035' 293 M I LS
: :.10 MILS:
DOTTED ,
0 TED
F,
•a.
° \ d Vl
� � la\�i,` t •3 s'i`r' \.J
ti
\S ilii
�' U 11 i •oY
o
IA
\ o
U
a a Z1N
f�
a n fco } p c>
r C ,.
---fi_ LU CY ue,•,b'f "CAN L
_ u9iMSY zt'ti.si "'��
6° --- -- �T.Nee•4'o•w', is S,,...:./ ..... - s'P•w,/ _>' C13 i.
ossa i;:, Mm.va it+ieaI
o c v X118 xw:s.a y 1 y# Ix}
43( l N A
ro o 1�5'
1,5
01ir>Oaa'am m
,:c.• a 9.9b•e
v3 .r un'ss' .yt Z ye > 9t! ••I ,�'\\
°T1 V _4 N Ha ut.ra I t •+Lu�elA N .IW Luj
11 1
£�' i f m •r 54.ao�'° 1./ VII 4 I - •`+k /
i a/� # fn � :�; b i T 1• i� �•.. - et.ee .r,..a -, e..,'c
SA«9•.�� .,rl "+ �^ .✓frac on•w ( - �C'
A iN O I y al sp•}vfJ }t O.eJ
' i � e W&CN
® yy u:9 /y a �, 6 w �Y10
`�y a I' o v W •ec i �••. i Im v a il
N�,J � wN4 uN �y 40. V � � ? .0 el•90•e - � r+ _ ' �r
eP
O # ;, 1,
ty
ts � W
U
�Sw 4e $ lyr rn (n DNy _
• SDP• Je4.9a'w ��'.•// ^4 t- M. O +4 Cl W W� ��
� a 4L�M ,'V V O N N✓
�: •• •, uN. � rer.r .s f.
t, 4� +V Aim•�,� � F\� _ M / ;M f' _. q rf .ao
� u�+�� •f� a� ws% $ O -Kolb / �+�` 1
r-
01
SI �.}1 •,• ue. sic _ 0 b (��'',,�) W� a u yi'u' -u
I:
�
A yf Y rani I lis - (IP -e
n
v ;C) 7r �7
?-,I n
SN
i'. '° �'� ITI" ses•9o-w ° l .t,;irk, •J+ - a W
.. - � 9'.PT h /:l V !� � v� gyp r:•
Ip di
Wki
yee«`•P,-„...Y �-ham g � _
all
A �
N�} to
0 Lei
0 uv
W 7C 0��! /"100, t r.,.�Ai /•�
LA
YI I t�
®r
� / : sn �
;6C y fV
r
c h b Q
.K:
Pig
x O
4 ``\ �ti\ju \ .�. 1-�✓z •.����-�n.._,..,,.-'�:.a 'C � 1 ati tx�.,r., \,`y �r�
`��.,;, � � �y�`I�t.- �' �9N cJ Z�`u•�' 'jr "t- �-• 3, , sti(x7.,3m) �y'a..
F r,
,��`'�t,/" `��i .x:'.� ). S, t._`�gt�t�\•µ N $�? zyng
�H N �� •\ \ • /'jt /+� ,ll " / ` ��� Ltr„ '4h� m j�' 07
Cz
.�q i 'Ci�?a� 'C>' \ �.�.,,'t,' is.,�•....% ,. ° � s� t �� o+� =1 t K
jq:: y ..�Fc. ,:f, T .s '1 j.4 t -vrt•_cc.
�$2a
V� ��.y-�2 � 'til�R'eaQ A�`y�,y,�a��`�':��.- '� 2• v V 3
;30
vi
t-t—i
-q
QIP
mms DIM
�:r0.'a• Mc.e't o*Rt ncYvcNs
VWA
c
=.Gsun
µ.
i f',' t�\1' ��t;�'l` w �..,��" •aj' '' ��«� .,, � � ~'*^.fro-�\ ��, w'�.'
�
AR
may. %Sr
'•;.*lam+ /,; ..y , �.: ..
£ 'r.\y�, � \•i` ;�r'V ./«' `i/�� �,� ti.> .r ''a1% '4 y�i�cv ` W >`, �'`i� '9t'i'~�,
���• `�;�,., ,,s �. a •r: \5�.. `y ,y� � - rt.
�.�'�k,''� 4 ate.
,
\``iA~; ''::'r.'
�..�\4w:�;�4.� � .. �i• ..�•\\ ':`� rre>" �-.._.- � ` `ter
CA
� ti h� .rte•'..'a„. �'�`;'•a _ � „a �:��' ,L P.
�tt
„OM1
-/W \Fb •;� W) X46�,,M1l�
10)�
M1+
COSSA COUN
a uu� p' CONS
i I I
I
m I
rx
�.\
I
— I �:;�•���i cif;'� j:
z
< p I
yvi
Ilk
CONCEPTUAL TAMARIND PLACE
LANDSCAPE PLAN SUBDIVISON 8500
�i WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA
• • I I I
� Oz
..........................................O I' D I II U M1111111111111
%/� ,`�' ° � Illil'llll llilllllllll
c Q
}. � � 1111111 'IIIIIIIII till
m 5
4 4 vm+
n O
4z
N
m
!1
O
Z
T I
D
WE
o
II� 41,,
WL-2
E �
S
z —i ' ,;; � I i
m
IIII 1111.11TIH 11!1 I I IIIA II IIIIIIII IIIIIIII 'l11
� m I I�II1•, I I � I .: I II II 1 II 11
o° x o � z y r
G• m O n j I IIoi. l;�l I III Illi 111 11 l D 1.1111111 I I I I ! O IIIII IIII ;I I I
LjI1;11, 1 Ili II I I I; II ,IIII
T� � ,: I� :illll�llll�:ll!i"I•III:IIII. IIIIIIII I I , I
V = =� � m„ y � mm2 li,Pili�11I'�ililll III I Ili i II III III
N - = C� z -� mp iilll'I'I'III�IIIIII.IIIIII ',;I ,, � IIIIIIIIII'I I II I
V
�� '� G f r a✓'? t. �� G
10
• • I I I I
T
._.-._._ -._. ................ 2 ill I mil
I
P
f olo!o I Il l :�
o.n oio
- - � �►�!�!� III�� II�'�CPOI
. ar\ •,� I Illi I I. : I�IIIII
I
'` II � V� II��IIIII"'"` f111 .1111'1 II111 '
4 F,'
6
iT
n
O
z -
C I
� I
T1=4
- =t
[D L=_
,-11 O G I
II
I
e I
ti
� � � � �^ I.I:I III I ..� �' 'I IIII I II �' I � IIIIIIIIIIIIIII II I IIIIIIIIII , '1
LWI
00 Z n ill.;;!I IIiIIIIIIIIIIII�IiIIIl11i I��� {{i
z zI I !j ;III II I IIiIJ I p I� I II I II II
I.'
Ii III il�i.l`,il' I�SII��I p I D o II III
o l
I., ; ljl'!II II z0 Il ;lfl I illl'1
rn
�
..
u 1 I Ill III.a Iliil i I Ij' I
k IIS
I'•.._— IIII I 1 III
y D�� 1111 I
s m„ � � �N-� ' II' •11.,1,'.1.11111, 1 I,I I I I
�Z a II
MO - poo❑
-
JIM C-2.91
z
—
:I � � `�.�� _ ; �� w l� ulll;�.-; ,\I► i'I 111111'1 1 I I� I I I ; I
r
❑' o .j I' .I."" illlll Ilillllllllllllll!!III IIIII I®® I z s
III��IIIIIIE� = f II IIIII ! II !
,� I I iill!i111�411111I�
F F , M1F
i�I IlT'Y
� I llllI'lln'�.I
IIIII
Z L� ..
I� I
I
1!,1103:001
:I 1' _ All
� ISI = =
II.I �I�II� == I' ®® gR
� yI'
GII�I11111111111klflllll{1.'!.111 III I � ill I I
IIII,;111.,•.11111, ..,
I r
La
-m
Z J �" II •.••1 I';' '� ` •Illlll�llll�ill'nl'II�I I�i�ii 111111
m `� 2 III IIIA i I!' I m IIIIIIIIII I '1 II II il�
OO O n m ill.-l'lif 1 1 1 ill Jill
fl I•�' D E l 111 II I!
o � _ Z Iilll 'l ILMI II f II I
Zm ❑I�, 111111 ,Ilj' i I ! II II
D ,11;,;�IiI! -IIIIII l �I,I
IIII !Illllllilll 11�1 � ,� II
U ?
F 4D i
_ • • I I I
T' IT r
......................................... ... \ I ,
I .III
I � anal❑ 11
D a a
aaa❑
► I .. N alala D 111111
4--Zskll% 0 � I q(n
I I ori r � - 11111 11111
-
I
V
c G
:T
n
G I I,•1 —_1
I
If Oi G � OI
I
9
� �_, !IIIA IIS!'IIh,111lllllllill ►�ili'11�I 111 � � rE",.
IO '111z ,'I I .� iIL1 , II �I
z m lit-IllI I►I I I II Ifi,III I I I I III I
D "" �I�
k _ � +;,►1+'IIY�II ..Illi I - I� ;I l �1►
- I'IIII VIII i!I.1111'.I X11 1 �:li�. II 1111111: III I II 1
„, , II II II 1►1I
...� � z + aD � •� v
'lll 111 titi ll�!'ll "i"""'; D
O'==L�I I O " 11 I I 'ISI OD I II(I
� � �I' IL�I .IILIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIfIII i � I � �.
Dir _ �O IIIIII I IIII�I
L
�. LJ; �� , �, � �� ,� I � III i• ���o I I' I Iiljl'
V11,71
ncl
d
S
n
Z I -l.—,771—.i
C � k
�;
.�
I Cl
lif
M
r ?
m � �
00
O m � -
°E = o sZ
: N O
Z -
_ f"l
C5 Mz:
D
e �
I \
HIM
j{��
�Jl�lOD Ili II 'Giri:l4iA, I ]�
loon
L-il
�I�I�I� i1,II I Illlrl 9111 EIL
EI�
,II I,!IIII li'll! III I \\ -
!I '115At.--P II I �I I IIIIII I II .
� ill II 1u'll,'
1111ll
III:5L:PIj.' i (IIII I I i i I I I I,
7�01L11°
�I,�i�Q
�p�° _ !jll'I!`III11111�1i ij,��
I z ®
i;li�liil'I illl�ll
i i pl
E3
c � III SO
z _ ;III: I I,I 1 �ilVl
�. i.. �I i;li�lll iill�l '� Ik�I1�111 I,
- .� j .,ir+::i';� !•' . � I I Cil I l;l.l
n 2
Adlbk
TAMARIND PLACE
n t rr
�0 \
x
f. J
1 _
r r !
D
I r
5
' �_ _ TOP
��"�� °gig}
& b
iff
cl ! I C >D
-
� x
J I TAMARIND PLACE
SUBDIVISION 8500 TYPICAL FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE
,y
ro �n u I WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA � i
!` ~ }
I Irk
'c �- m ^`
'; �' +i
L
mz
0
a �'._ /J \ x
j:��+Lr •j rL' F4� �H £xo ZO ',_-' t n
u�rl^r� i z IC
Z +t• z no
�F 6LrWi �
ao
z m Z 5
xii'- y yf �i
¢ s
SIII.. s{jji,�ij.� _;. - ,_rte:� ,� •�;..
i. ed
TAMARIND PLACE _
Ec�
is o SUBDIVISION 8500 ILLUSTRATIONS f'. =
WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA `-.a �
Community • Contra • Dennis M.Barry,AlCP
Development
Community Development Director
Department Costa .....
I
County iq F_=M
CES
;��
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
J U 0 0 2001
Martinez, California 94553-0095
Phone: 11VEIR COUNTY CLERK
(925) 335-1217 CON TIR�AICOSTA COUNTY F
h ,
August BY i
001 DUTY
RENOTICE
OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
County File#RZ00-3097/SD00-8500/DP00-3056
Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to
date, this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa
County has prepared an initial study on the following project:
Focus Realty Services (Applicant); Stow Partners (Owner). The applicant is requesting to
rezone an 1.14 acre property (comprised of two lots totaling 49,601 sq. ft.) from R-10,
p t:1
Single-family Residential to P-1,Planned Unit District. The applicant is also proposing to
subdivide the subject property into 10 lots and to build one two-story single-family
dwelling unit with an attached two-car garage in each lot. A variance is requested for P-1
to permit development on 1.14 acre property, where 5 acres minimum is required.
Additionally, the applicant is proposing to remove several trees and to alter few trees to
accommodate the proposed development. The applicant will have to comply with the
County Protected Tree Ordinance.
The subject property is located at 1343 Boulevard Way, in the Walnut Creek area.
(R-10) (ZA: N-13) (CT: 3410.00) (Parcel # 185-360-019 and 020).
The proposed development will not result in any significant impacts.
L_
A copy of the negative
neg
negative declaration and all documents referenced in the
I Z__
declaration may be reviewed during business hours in the offices of the Community
Development Department, and Application and Permit Center at McBrien Administration
Building, North Wing, Second Floor, 651 Pine Street, Martinez.
Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month
Public Comment Period- The Period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the
environmental documents extends to Thursday,August 23, 2001 at 5:00 P.M. Any
comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address:
Name: Telma Moreira, Project Planner(925) 335-1217
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4`h Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
It is anticipated that the proposed Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at
a meeting of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, August 28, 2001 at 7:00 P.M.
This meeting was continued from July 24, 2001 to August 28, 2001. The hearing will be
held at the McBrien Administration Building, Room 107, Pine and Escobar Streets,
Martinez.
Project Planner
Telma Moreira
cc: County Clerk's Office (2 copies)
0 •
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Rezoning/Subdivision/Development Plan
RZO 1-3097/SDO08500/DP003056
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: Telma Moreira
(925) 335-1217
4. Project Location: Project is located at 1343 Boulevard Way, in the Walnut
Creek area
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Focus Realty Services
3675 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Suite 350
Lafayette, CA 94549
6. General Plan Designation: Multi-family Medium Density, lunit/per
10,000 sq, ft.
7. Zoning: P-1, Planned Unit District
8. Description of Project: The applicant is requesting to rezone an 1.14 acre property
(comprised of two lots totaling 49,601 sq. ft.) from R-10,
Single-family Residential to P-1, Planned Unit District.
The applicant is also proposing to subdivide the subject
property into 10 lots and to build one two-story single-
family dwelling unit with an attached two-car garage in
each lot. A variance is,requested for P-1 to permit
development on 1.14 acre, where 5 acres minimum is
required. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to
remove several trees to accommodate the proposed
development.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is surrounded by commercial, multi-family and
single-family residential units.
10. Other public agencies whose approval -Contra Costa Health Department
is required(e.g.,permits,financing -Public Works, Engineering Division
approval, or participation agreement).
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning Transportation/ Public Services
Population & Housing Circulation — Utilities& Service Systems
Geological Problems — Biological Resources — Aesthetics
Hydrology and Water — Energy&Mineral — Cultural Resources
Air Quality Resources — Recreation
Mandatory Findings of — Hazards X No Significant
Significance — Noise Impacts Identified
3
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one
effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and (2) 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
upon the proposed project.
Signature Date
Teli!ia Moreira
CCC Community Development Department
Printed Name
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-Quad Sheet Panels -Walnut Creek, CA
2. The(Reconsolidated)County General Plan(July 1996)
3. General Plan and Zoning Maps
4. Project Description
5. Zoning Ordinance
6. Site plan
7. Site Visit on April 9, 2001
4 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a _ _ X
scenic vista?(Source 9 1,2,4,7)
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, _ _ _ X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?(Source# 1,2,3,4,7)
C. Substantially degrade the existing _ _ X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? (Source#1,3,4,7)
d. Create a new source of substantial light _ _ _ X
or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
Source# 1,4,7)
SUMMARY: The property is relatively flat and comprised of two lots totaling 49,601 sq.ft. There are two
residences in the property and several mature trees throughout the two lots. The applicant is proposing to
demolish the existing structures,remove 28 trees and alter 5 trees. Most of the trees are small in stature and
only 10 trees are greater than.15"in diameter. Among the larger trees were 6 valley oaks, 2 Monterey pines
and the Blue Atlas cedar and coast redwood.The applicant is also proposing to subdivide the property into 10
lots and to locate one two-story single-family residential unit in each property. It will be conditioned that the
applicant provides a landscaping/irrigation plan and replanting,based on the tree diameter size, of all of the
County protected trees that will be removed with this development. The subject site is not located in any
scenic vista. All of.the construction impact will be temporary, and it will not degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agricultural and farmland. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, _ _ _ X
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
5 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation lmyact Impact
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?(Source #2)
b. Conflict with existing zoning for _ _ _ X
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?(Source 2,4,7)
C. Involve other changes in the existing _ _ _ X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(Source#2)
SUMMARY: Based on the Contra Costa County General Plan,the proposed project will not result
in the conversion of any Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance to
nonagricultural use. Additionally, none of the parcels of the proposed project are within the
Williamson Act Contracts.
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:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation _ _ _ X
of the applicable air quality plan?
(Source#2,4)
b. Violate any air quality standard or _ _ _ X
contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation?(Source#2,4 )
C. Result in a cumulatively considerable _ _ _ X
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Source#4)
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial _ _ X
pollutant concentrations?(Source#4)
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a _ _ _ X
substantial number of people?
Source #2,4)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
SUMMARY: Neither the proposed rezoning nor the proposed development should affect
the air quality of the subject site or the air quality of the area.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect,either _ _ _ X
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans,polices, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Source #1,2)
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any _ _ _ X
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 US Fish
and Wildlife Service?(Source# 1,2)
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on _ _ X
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?(Source# 1,2)
d. Interfere substantially with the movement _ _ _ X
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Source # 1,2)
e. Conflict with any local policies or _ _ _ X
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Source # 1,2,5)
f. Conflict with the provisions of an _ _ _ X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local,regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
Source # 1,2,4)
SUMMARY: Besides the trees within the property,there are no significant biological resources on
7 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
the subject site.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the _ _ _ X
significance of a historical resource as
defined in 315064.5?(Source # 1,2)
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the _ _ _ X
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 315064.5?(Source#1,2)
C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique _ _ _ X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?(Source#1)
d. Disturb any human remains, including _ _ _ X
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
(Source# 1)
SUMMARY: A memorandum dated January 2, 2001 was received from the Historical Resources
Information System which states that there is a possibility of historical resources to be found in the subject site
and further study for historical resources is recommended. On March 6,2001 the Community Development
Department received an archeological survey prepared by Basin Research Associates, which states that the
general area appears to have moderate archeological sensitivity for prehistoric resources due to the proximity of
Las Trampas Creek;however,no prehistoric,Hispanic or American Period arQheological resources have been
recorded,reported or observed within or adjacent to the project. Hence the impact or archeological resources is
minimal.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the
project?
a. Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects,including the
risk of loss, injury,or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, _ _ _ X
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
(Source #1,2, )
2. Strong seismic ground shaking? _ _ — X
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incomoration Impact imm
3. Seismic-related ground failure, including — _ _ X
liquefaction? (Source#1,2 )
4. Landslides?(Source# 1,2) _ — — X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss _ _ _ X
of topsoil? (Source# 1,2) ^
C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is — X
unstable,or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
(Source# 1,2)
d. Be located on expansive soil,as defined in — X
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (Source# 1,2)
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting — — X
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water? (Source#1,2)
SUMMARY: A geo-technical investigation prepared by Jensen-Van Lienden Associates,Inc,was submitted
on December 6, 2000. County Geologist Darwin Myers has reviewed the submitted report and provided the
following comments: The site is underlain by Quaternary alluvial deposits (Qu). The ancestral trace of the
Calaveras fault, which is considered to be inactive, is shown to be '/z mile past of the site. The site soil is
expansive, and the submitted geo-technical report by Jensen-Van Lienden Associates provides measures to
avoid/minimize damage form expansive soils.The subsurface data indicate that the liquefaction potential is nil,
and there are no landslide or fault hazard issues on the subject site. The County is recommending that at least
60 days prior to issuance of filing of the final map,the applicant should submit a preliminary geology,soil and
foundation report meeting the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for his review and approval.
Additionally,the Community Development Department recommends that improvement,grading and building
plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall address the specifics of the
approved subdivision mad and update design recommendations in the Preliminary Report as warranted.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public _ X
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? (Source#4)
b. Create a significant hazard to the public _ _ _ X
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
9 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Imnact Incorporation Impact Impact
into the environment? (Source #4)
C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle _ _ X
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
(Source#2,4)
d. Be located on a site which is included on a _ _ X
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?
(Source#2,4)
e. For a project located within an airport land _ _ _ X
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. (Source#2,3)
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private _ _ _ X
airstrip,would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source # 1,2)
g. Impair implementation of or physically _ _ _ X
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(Source#2,4)
h. Expose people or structures to a significant _ _ _ X
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Source#2,4)
SUMMARY: There are no hazardous substance sites located within the project vicinity. The proposed
project will not have any impacts with relation to hazardous materials.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or _ _ X
waste discharge requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies_ _ X _
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
10 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)?
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage _ _ X
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage _ _ X
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of thecourse of a stream or
river,or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-or off-site?
(Source#4,6,7)
e. Create or contribute runoff water which _ _ X _
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? (Source#4,7)
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water _ _ X
quality? (Source#4)
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood _ _ _ X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
(Source# 1,2)
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area _ _ X
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?(Source# 1,2,7)
I. Expose people or structures to a significant _ _ X
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam? (Source#1,2,4 )
j. Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? _ _ _ X
(Source# 1,2)
SUMMARY: Storm water runoff from this site flows easterly towards Las Trampas Creek via a combination
of underground facilities and open creeks. Portions of this system in the vicinity of Blade Court are know to be
deficient and have a long history of flooding problems. The County Subdivision Ordinance will require the
applicant construct an adequate storm drain system to serve this project. The Applicant has submitted a
drainage study from Dewing Lane to the confluence with Las Trampas Creek. This study has been reviewed
11 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
by both Public Works and Food Control staff,and it has indicated that the existing creek is able to contain the
required design storm. Additional off-site mitigation within this reach of the creek does not appear to be
necessary.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would
the project:
a. Physically divide an established community? _ _ _ X
(Source#4,)
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, _ _ _ X
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project(including,but
not limited to the general plan,specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
(Source#1,2,4,5 )
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat _ _ _ X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Source#2 )
SUMMARY: The proposal is rezoning from R-10 to P-1. The general plan designation is 12 to
20.9 unit/per net acre. Net acreage is assumed to constitute 75% of gross acreage for all uses, except for
Multiple Family designations, where is assumed to comprise 80%. The proposed 10 unit project is at 12
unit/net acre density. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the general plan designation.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the
project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known _ _ _ X
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
(Source#2)
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- _ _ _ X
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan,specific
plan or other land use plan? (Source#2)
SUMMARY: There are no known mineral resources on the project site.
XI. NOISE- Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of _ _ X ,
noise levels in excess of standards established
12 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact iwK!
in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies?
(Source#2,4)
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of _ _ X
excessive ground borne vibration or ground
borne noise levels?(Source#4)
C. A substantial permanent increase in _ _ _ X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
(Source#4)
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase _ _ X _
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
(Source#4)
C. For a project located within an airport land _ _ _ X
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
(Source#2,4 )
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private _ _ _ X
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source#2,4)
SUMMARY: The site is not located within the 65 dB noise zone. All of the noise generated at the
site will be from construction, and it should be temporary in nature.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING-
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an _ _ X
area, either directly(for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?(Source#4)
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing _ _ _ X
housing,necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
(Source #4)
C. Displace substantial numbers of people _ _ _ X
necessitating the construction of replacement
• 0
13 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Imnact
housing elsewhere?(Source#4)
SUMMARY: The site currently allows the establishment of one single-family dwelling on each individual
site. The proposed project will allow a ten lot subdivision, minimum 10 single-family residential units. The
proposal is consistent with the general plan MM. Multi-family Residential Medium Density.
The maximum allowed number of dwelling units approved after the proposed subdivision,would not trigger
any considerable population growth.
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 (Source#2,4):
1. Fire Protection? _ _ X _
2. Police Protection? _ X _
3. Schools? _ X _
4. Parks? _ _ X _
5. Other Public facilities? X
SUMMARY: The proposed project will not have any potentially significant impact on public services.
XIV. RECREATION -
a. Would the project increase the use of _ _ X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Source#2,4)
b. Does the project include recreational _ _ _ X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Source#4)
SUMMARY: The proposed project will have less than significant impact on existing recreational facilities.
14 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would
the project:
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is _ _ X
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)?
(Source #4)
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,, _ _ X
a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
(Source # 1)
C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, _ _ J X
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?(Source#4)
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design _ _ _ X
feature (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous inter-
sections)or incompatible uses(e.g., farm
equipment)?(Source#4)
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? _ _ X
(Source #4)
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? _ X
(Source#4)
g. Conflict with adopted policies,plans, or _ X
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
(Source # 1,4)
SUMMARY: The proposed project is to create 10 lots with 2 attached car garage,which allows a maximum of
4 off-street parking spaces. There will be 4 parking spaces proposed along Tamarind Place, the proposed
private street within the development. There are also additional parking space available along Boulevard Way.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements _ _ X
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? (Source#4)
b. Require or result in the construction of new _ _ __ X
water or wastewater treatment facilities
15 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incomoration lm= I�act
or expansion of existing facilities,the
construction or which could cause significant
environmental effects? (Source#4)
C. Require or result in the construction of new — — X —
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities,the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
(Source#4)
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to — — X —
serve the project from existing entitlement
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlement needed? (Source#4)
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater _ X
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project(s)projected demand in addition to the
provider existing commitments? (Source#4)
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient _ — X —
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project(s)solid waste disposal needs?
(Source#4)
g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes _ — X
and regulations related to solid waste?
(Source#4)
SUMMARY:
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE-
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade _ _ — X
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?
b. Does the project have impacts that are indiv- — X ,
idually limited,but cumulatively considerable?
(Cumulatively considerable means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
16 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact lncomoration Impact In1DaCl
when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
C. Does the project have environmental effects _ X
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings,either directly or indirectly?
SUMMARY: The proposed project should not cause any impact on the environment nor on
human Beings if applicant complies with County Ordinance requirements and staff recommendations
e
CommunityContra • Dennis M.Barry,AICP
Development
Community Development Director
Costa
Department COS __ . _. .._.�. _..�. -_-
II ff ; `r, _,
County Administration Building OUn I 1
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing g@
Martinez, California 94553-0095
JUN `
S
9 20�
Phone:
(925) 335-1217 - - _-�—
= L: "`iiZ Co
UNT'd CLERK
Tune 19, 2001 Ai 6STA COU( TY
DEPUTY
REVISED
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A
PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
County File# RZ00-3097/SD00-8500/DP00-3056
Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to
date, this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa
County has prepared an initial study on the following project:
Focus Realty Services (Applicant); Stow Partners (Owner). The applicant is requesting to
rezone an 1.14 acre property (comprised of two lots totaling 49,601 sq. ft.) from R-10,
Single-family Residential to P-1, Planned Unit District. The applicant is also proposing to
subdivide the subject property into 10 lots and to build one two-story single-family
dwelling unit with an attached two-car garage in each lot. A variance is requested for P-1
to permit development on 1.14 acre property, where 5 acres minimum is required.
Additionally, the applicant is proposing to remove several trees and to alter few trees to
accommodate the proposed development. The applicant will have to comply with the
County Protected Tree Ordinance.
The subject property is located at 1343 Boulevard Way, in the Walnut Creek area.
(R-10) (ZA: N-13) (CT: 3410.00) (Parcel# 185-360-019 and 020).
The proposed development will not result in any significant impacts.
A copy of the negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative
declaration may be reviewed during business hours in the offices of the Community
Development Department, and Application and Permit Center at McBrien Administration
Building. North Wing, Second Floor, 651 Pine Street, Martinez.
Office Hours Monday - Friday:8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Office is closed the 1st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month
Public Comment Period- The Period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the
environmental documents extends to Monday,July 9, 2001 at 5:00 P.M. Any
comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address:
Name: Telma Moreira, Project Planner(925) 335-1217
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, North Wing,4`h Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
It is anticipated that the proposed Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at
a meeting of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 at 7:00 P.M.
The hearing is anticipated to be held at the McBrien Administration Building, Room 107,
Pine and Escobar Streets,Martinez. It is expected that the County Planning Commission
will also conduct a hearing on the application at that same meeting.
Project Planner
Telma Moreira
cc: County Clerk's Office (2 copies)
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
5 i�Y,;i `� .T"-.C.. v�, f a 't S` •.... '� !fir I 1 .' ..
� 7 FS 1 -�} ���,,,s �•�� �- � uy-i �T_ h- 1 T i
1,3_1�•htJl ++I�4(L'ki ri:h� 4 '��4r rt..'. �•I +T`t \ •�.�
'�.yam," � ..�g��_•:- 1 1 i. i J.r- �'a,li V�� +
- J'��q2;,1•;' ::F. �-�,:ytR �� .�i r � .� r, ��'{I � r J. t Y
74
ri v -y 1 a Y 5 y t J .r/y�. •„-�. �t F { z-
in
C^',r�s--Air�'�w °'�F �-i�• r�x.Psf��f �4a �;r�`t� -1"i' a'r�c� �j3�r
jt IT 4 ,A •�i` �--
'Pill"
l r Imo.
1vti
E.�
w
4
7
`'.. r ,.y ���� /'' � -:, �fah •a' ��!�a
e
,t, ..Y . Y1Y„Yj •4.i,rJ p74^�u.r y s
` v - y�. •up�7jl - I
,:���.f -^?- � N� j:.� •III 1
s 1 fV}.+TtT " CCC'"""� ►.� •y.. 5 _
••-��,�,�N , 7 f ,��,�5,���"�fTY��3{'���n � a�,cS�7ra
_ 1 tr?ldr2�,$Y-�}.���5.-Jfr d T �N r ~lj •�('� i _ _
"i
rr f"'v{.• W•'�jl ?-0o[Y r�. tArrlw
iM.'� 4` r�i ! a�e•.` f
�r}t A rr ,/'1. p r 1r(.nS�1Q! ; a i 'S r r ti z 1t�`, T - R-•
,i ; - ;R�"eP„ _ � N R� .rf " L r , 5 •A", � ,.. �h, � 1-�4�t11�
a •1 .<c
}} 1 f',f'`:r � rpt �' ,.t • - -
h S y
r
-... ,..:..:ir! r .'{ .s+u.?�' sib i int -a • '-n:. •� r -
a" � e
r x � •�y�1 h� � �Jr"�lJ,p��1,r��
'-
n
y 4 S'" 7• 4�11�4� rS Tf -
•';��'��,`�f�•- - .,fes
' rS
'!!r 4 i� � ',r' ` •` 'yrs•
�•n!/k nit/• . 5-S.;
c'JYp�'�1
I� t Y ' ( � � � � -mit • � -
t .
so
a ,
! 1. ...
.f
T 1�r y/w•
-"+7S }gyp r 1 J �1• r. �J / 1 r _,
i ri =.i a.. + /• �t 1' ��1S 6I `+l � \. 71, 2 d r•;_
���'�t^\ � moi• ��i � J.h'ief
jr
f ` �
900.
4 �
•fes y �•� ���'� a e � � + yA<
IN {
/yr �5r~efiFi ;r
ad
4` i b; Arl
PHOTOGRAPHS
TAKEN FROM THE REAR YARD OF
40 IRIS LANE
't w- 's'� 4 yd • i� .J l F ♦ I�+ STC '' L
r � _�Y x � r�i�a � t p �r .'� w � S.ja D�t{• �
to
71
If }
jW w rp
4
: Zo
.@R
a .� y .:r ��f ,*dry, ' r`\ �:g:� t d -•- r _:�`' 'f ,J
Ag
:gam tet,'� .mss ap _ � } d s 3 • .�
d ..
_g'�I. � �•t -f Si .4 .�r 1�W� '�3:' ��O ��f' i".' -�•F Iii. ' f.���-1 �-C!
�'�s Ct r ,. _'r `r moi,'h• ra t► w} ` Ir` �i w
VII, a >3y.61•ei .�2'i� ,k .
_ � . t 4'J4 j* �w� e�rs.'C ri y�-�{ ��°� '� `��iLg"'►�r"r l� �" i�� v i.t' -
L,- � 1 aY,a � Y �°'e�[��p'.{YL �"' Y �• l tom.�,t�� f�a� � i ... e^:7��.3
' ,� �f,.�� � ..mss�4 '�v • r.+'.... 7 ➢ �:��"'� �'d. �;� ^�'r �tik'M ,J ��
04
I MIND'
t
w {,
� a
a •,
t r
tAif C}•
i
}
Page 1 of 1
.
.A
� I
y- e.
de,�:. •-;+'. 1.::�..::.:i.w.::L`. .r c.,Ay��'r( _ .`. •_-a 4�` � �
111 ,.r.••.' ! .�",:•'�•�,:.� ! �. -" :, ^t.: ea•,.. -;�':.:�•�;:
. �s•.t� �_ �ems. tJ: .,�� jx �.. -�;�: ..,._._{. � ^! _ ..'. � -
:..._... r .. . .�sx �( rs. :��,;•:.r,:.:^:` _tib. '.
".�":;�J�imti... {'��esti �5'x � � �� --�x�i'= ::iia, � � ''45f=,• �'r'
y _
f i
•i:J'�xsjylOrW
:•:4;� �4FL��. - ��'�'.-. i••.+h,,5s _ -'•�'','I,:
f F11
''`v � '�- .. 'Lei�� �'•. � �`+-. �#
..-1.'.r �'�:.'.+' _M Via• _ ,i..l� '
erc
,TF
?
_ .':f%.y:i:�.• t4.„:'• .. .Y.•cs
-. �,,,, ao•j•.� .• ,Jam. .`�"...,y;+ �:Rr,..4��c y�:.:�"L.k�
Y. t
'i!f,.. �`e'!`.J'..-?"�,'.�..,: '•�.. 'Ern
�'f ''c is y•'.r:,: ',, .
14. 'JT. ,i:.i Tom':e..�..,. f..,.,..:.: ,...:'V�L::..:,lM•T4':'G'�!`.� `J �,..iw,.:•.:•::�ti+:��.;;5!:,c!i�c'..�:'.r�i,,,.T.:,-.v� :.{
...:;:! ....;,.e•w,;lk. ...,.'-..e...i„ l„.;..a•::....y,;
f....'t s-
_ .:-ral...:,,. .:., -:...r.•..: x ,-:u.. ,x.,-.:-... ..,a�..�a .::.. .'cam•..:..;. :-Y�,`:4:. `r,o�`�':.�`i-..a .�;� .��Y.a
?+ ':.1 :'�SVi ••w+--/v;��:y^Z�.1iS.. _:.w„24:,'��'.s- .iy....�;�', r(:-'fa.:f i N,
.(.- aY.i'�'''." .Ir[._ ..Y.. .'�:17i. ':"S'.::. .:'�:w, ::17;,• ,.L�,.�a,�.:� �1�:'.��'la.. ,l$;_. .�,fs.l.
;;i nW;.. .rt?r:.,:l..?n...l'.•r rt.., ,.lA�, w.yS;�; .:. .1.rMi
{L•. :.:w �....s:,...,.., ....'vx.': .. :.. � '..�':�::. ::. _ �1: s�,'�: •:.{'i.- _.!.};.,.- i:R" :•::�+::�':,a Y;E;..'�;�{y.}:_tl:��;a9rv. '"+P�•..
f;,?.%• .�. ,..:�•�-.x..,:l�...Y7N':ry.,F.:e'•1J,.. "%: _�, 3.. ,;'i•�'" _:�a.l '.t���'.�:�••AM. x�::..:_ ,.A..:.a+.�:.. ,..5;
:.. .,.,i: -.,_....q?,. ;•:r±vs-::,. ..::.-da...: f. �•-�:'j:: ..:T::'w�:.''." .�.:-J S,ai
, .. +.r- .: '....:....w.a .... ...J- ... dtxa.. ,. :•.•1�"•''iii::.:F�is �.'�::.� F. ;F f''F :�.. r,�
.,.p:d.[A.::x,. ,n.z,....'-'A,s,. :'rs.;.,..�,.. :'::r=.,'..'.i4';;SF7k�':�� "p�:': •'.._ ,:�...�. - ''.� ..� _
_..J•.:-,.r,:' .�. .,.�;:.•ta�'.�� ...�?!,.�r;,, �::�::°:'�� -�:`:v.�+�:. a�' �;e::�::::;=:?;;;:;;� �:�s�;:+:i•,�y,�_ 3-:.Vie.. :i�,.
•..' A>. � �.,:..'�" .�::ti..2 -i :��,.:.': -. .:\. .Fr,. :.: y .:�: 'r;• .tea•
irc'e',��..''':.•.-.:.i; ..Z'� ':+r'�;.: +.. �.: !c�?.'"�r.r.}':..v-:i r.+:-,,:• Y- ''�If,.wr.... :e.,...,r. yv, �",�'. f
'7f;.�. 3';:. � ":aKri � '�•z-,v r•c.: _ ..:,y....��� �-s:".�•'.•:: :rF:: :S!:..=.x ��k: i
.t: `,�k•'ke:.':,�f: +k:,'`xr .f{5: -t:'y'n,�",.'�i.�r..:?t�i.k :i"1•,i.. v,. !'t,EA::::`�t"s'`'?.2.`I.£a'�,+.!L. .ti.3,
,:h...t'i^:•• t,:- ,...'.•..;,..:1'?;.-.i,.di[�;F`?':..,-.:. ..i ..3.c:, ;�:!S:i' .yk,..�`:}`:s <a� :°y+•: �y¢�?i;;�.>. i.{. If°. •.��,.;�..t.
,
,rn.r.: [.zxF;.,,_ S�J� . ,,�,.{:ic �!�? rrlrr .:ui'.'w• r:'r. .:�._ .''l?'-`-''::,;[r.;:;�l's. ":'g: �,.J....:. .'.i>'�r'P;lx'�...0•iii;::;. ,r-...:�: ,.l
,' ..� ..::::, .. #�'..4`')+zt++'. wr-,,.,:-yr:.y';;vuA, 5, 1., yt�. - .,f•..:., dSa^-:!�
....,. r .. .;h�:...:.e;,,a::. .,•,.�A .. .,. .,v.k,.?f;'ct!..i:i�,,'.:, - ':.a`4!a. .::��i':: �?;,y �.-:i"�.,^.:}+c�
file://D:\TEMP\18\-0489814.JPG 07/09/2001
•; Y� � � a It :�"- ���,^tt r.Y > t � 4 ���.-�.5. �.t.i "ki�,j � 6��_^��v`e
3 �il rz
_► .# { t ! ,, l.'4',yN r 1 ate.'
.� � � $moi.•. ~ a't �� '' �' i-._C 1Lr �w a_- :E� f�,.z!'��Ay�gv�'����gr�.
it
qb
-14
�,'X'� r
,uje 9� F,��d� � '� c�-•, <.� a'i��� �* �i��j� 4 1��� A�-r,.�� �� �� �, l`'f�. v` � y cr
pr ^4
} V
^i M
Fyt 4+ ti x ;.
41.
-£IL-
L :.
1' 1 1 Is 11
�r ft _ •� 9 R L� •.F FO t e• "�"'�i'�_f..�' �t �i'a�+, i� r��� c''�.
-47
Ni
.:7 d-•.'- •z.S it c �' ��� E.1 :moi .,�f�• _°����
rk +� C " -tet e. .r • + �S S'�•.
s: l ,�} ���. �� •Ss'+ r � b_, �SW,
1 �. - t VYJ ,\� ► r-� t }r ar �P�7'S1 kYA 6-1a
� � .ice� i• �1 t V i
� } .:;c � 1.:f{ �. sem' rir,- � Lj3z� ..,,. _ ;, �� •
�1 � _ - ...1 s+ 4� � �� �+�, - b�..-. r .fix: �� 1� i�.tii �_ 3 �►r' 'i,f.
�" i � aM ' � f'Y 7-s''1'`GF er ;'' c: . yr c7�' �.t:�l.�• � j��&` 4 0 f �1��,��{� 3�
L. .' • � a-.� q-�s � I., s 7Gc a .'a.. �.��sr �'• 4 1 rA�+r ,k.�.
y s , MIN
lw7 7 s c t• .�,ti $
1 �'�s� �1 '-'•.;i ���� to { � `g- ' -. .��"ti ��'�I �4'u� ��,� t. � �� � y�j3�T
{
A-[� I-- p"`• �' ��r~ r i r '��; a P� jt,•t
., .'* C �C J- ( r � �+}•G � ��+{,e �� ..a"' \R;� � s �taa���_�hkr' w st�� � r, r ;�
i r
FU
A.
f :"
�r P
�c+ nkr •
kk
,� ,g.,`�9 p n`� i +� n.� ' Y:i �°,1.• .. j i r -��.� rte„ -.
"; � .;. 416 , • :4 �r 1-.� a. :-`. r;� � '�`,t � -- - r -r' !
z�r' � � i Y � i�2�..� ..,..r?�r 5 r� � �'.�4_ �.7ai'•��..n r{l :.
��t)"Q �-�;,��k�y� � �. I _ �' ,M,�.•y �•5'4 ''tea+rS'F
-
��
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: C6LtLkLLL&.-2 ��p � Phone: q `q(44
Address: City: n - n
I am speaking for myself i/ or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Dates: � I
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) . •