HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09092003 - D.4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM. DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD , 5Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County
DATE: September 9, 2003 0
SUBJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-20) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-15). THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1140 DUNSYRE DRIVE IN THE UNINCORPORATED
LAFAYETTE/WALNUT CREEK AREA, COUNTY FILE #RZ033125, MASSOUD
FANAIEYAN (APPLICANT AND OWNER), (SUPERVISORAL DISTRICT 11)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR I!ZECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ACCEPT the recommendation of the County Planning Commission, as contained in
Resolution No. 10-2003, to approve the rezoning of a portion a 2.42-acre parcel totaling
25,000 square feet from Single Family Residential (R- 0) to Single Family Residential
(R-15).
2. FIND the Mitigated Negative declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for
this project to be adequate for the purposes of compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, and adopt the same.
3. INTRODUCE the ordinance giving effect to the aforesaid rezoning; waive reading and
set date for adoption.
4. ADOPT the findings contained in the County Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-
2003 as the basis for the Board's action.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
®MOMMENDATION of ONTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
—.APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURES :
ACTION OF BOARD ON�*ptember 9, �A(?� �APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHERX
SEE ATL40W ADDED" FOR BOM ACTIN
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT NOW ) 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: Road Marie Pletras(925)335-4216 ATTESTED Septeniber 9, 2003
JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Orig:Community Development Department SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: Massoud Fanaieyan(Applicant and{owner)
City of Walnut Creek ) ,`
City of Lafayette �$
File BY _-- "��PUTY
�
September g, 2003
Board of supervisors
File#RZ033125
Mage 2
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 rezoning request.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The applicant is requesting the rezoning of a portion of a 2.42 acre parcel from Single
Family Residential (R-20) to Single Family Residential (R-15) to establish one consistent
zoning district for the property.
The site fronts along Dunsyre Drive in the Lafayette area. To the south of the property are
small pockets of diverse zoning districts consisting of Multiple-Family (M-29), Single Family
Residential (R-10), and Retail Business (R-B); the remaining areas to the west, north and
east are zoned Single Family Residential (R-15). The uses in the immediate area are
predominantly single-family residential homes, various retail businesses, and office
complexes.
The County Planning Commission heard the applicant's request on July 8, 2003.
Commissioners Mehiman and Terrell expressed their concern regarding the steepness of
the site and its appropriateness for five lots rather than the four lots which would have been
allowed under the existing zoning. The Commission, after evaluating the proposal and the
evidence submitted, voted to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning to the Board of
Supervisors.
The Community Development Department has not received any additional letters from the
general public since the County Planning Commission hearing regarding the request to
rezone the property. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the
proposed rezoning.
Consequence of Inaction or Denial of Proposal by the Board
In the event that the Board denies the request, that portion of the property zoned Single
Family Residential (R-20) zoning would remain. The County Planning Commission
approved the vesting tentative map for five lots contingent upon the Board's approval of the
rezoning. If the site is not rezoned, the subdivision will be limited to four lots.
ADDENDUM TO ITEM I).4
September 9, 2003
The Board of Supervisors considered the request by Massoud Fanaieyan(applicant&owner)to
rezone a portion of a parcel from Family Residential (R-20) to Single Family Residential (R-15)
on the property located.at 1140 Dunsyre give i�, the unincorporated Lafayette/Walnut Creek
area, County File#RZ033125.
Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director, Commr -,ity Development Department presented the staff
report and recommendations.
The chair opened the public hearing and the ibllowitig persons presented testimony:
Massoud Fanaieyan, 1140 Dunsyre Drive, Lafayette;
Betty Karris, 1166 Dunsyre Drive, -aCayette;
Jamil Abu-Hamdeh, 101 Park Aven._ze, Walr:ut Creels.
The Chair then closed the public hearing and reltl mied the matter to the Board for further
discussion. Supervisor Uilkema recommended to the Board that the request for rezoning be
denied based on the inconsistency with the ge,,icrai plan due to the massive grading that would be
required and the steepness of the property. Suer visor Gioia second the motion and the Board
took the following action:
• CLOSED the public hearing
■ DENIED the request by Massed Fanaieyan (applicant and owner)to rezone a
portion of the subject parcel from single; family residential (R-20) to single family
residential(R-15) on the property located at 1140 Dunsyre Drive in the
unincorporated Lafayette/Walnut Crccic area.
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. 10- 2003
RESOLU'T'ION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATION FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING BY
MASSOUD FANAIEYAN (APPLICANT & OWNER) (RZ033125) IN THE
ORDINANCE CODE, SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING FOR
THE LAFAYETTE/WALNUT CREED..AREA OF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, a request by Massoud Fanaieyan (Applicant & Owner) to rezone a
portion of a 2.42 acre parcel totaling 25,040 square feet from Single Family Residential
(R-20) to Single Family Residential (R-15), for which an application was received by the
Community Development Department on:March 3, 2003; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for review and comments between May
30, 2003 and June 20, 2003 and the Planning Commission adopted the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program at their meeting on July 8, 2003; and
WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was
scheduled before the Planning Commission on Tuesday July 8, 2003, where all persons
interested therein might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission took public testimony and closed
the public hearing; Commissioners Mehlman and. Terrell raised concerns regarding the
narrowness of the private road for visitor parking, steep slopes, and the loss of trees on
proposed Lot 1;
WHEREAS, Commissioners Clark and Battaglia responded by referring to the
County's private road standards, how infill projects should be encouraged and that the
applicant agreed to save as many trees as possible;
WHEREAS, on "Tuesday, July 8, 2003, 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program are adequate for the purposes of compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and adopts same;
2. RECOMMENDS to the Board of Supervisors the APPROVAL of the rezoning of
the site from the Single Family Residential (R-20) District to the Single Family
Residential (R-I5) District;
2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation are as
follows:
A. REZONING FINDINGS:
1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the
General Plan.
Project Finding: The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the
General Plan relative to the site, namely that the site has a single family
residential — low density designation which allows for the establishment of
single family residences.
2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district
are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent
districts.
Project Finding: The zoning district within the immediate adjacent
properties consists of(R-15), Single Family Residential District.
3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use
proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial
success.
Project Finding: The subject site is surrounded by a variety of zoning
districts consisting of single family residential, multi-residential and retail
business, therefore, the community has already demonstrated the need for
the proposed single family residential designation.
B. Growth Management Element Performance Standards Findings
1. Traffic: The project will generate less than 100-peak hour trips and sloes
not trigger a Measure C traffic study.
2. Nater: The project is within the boundaries of the East Bay Municipal
Utility District. `dater service is available for the project.
3. Sanitary Sewer: The project is within the boundaries of the Contra Costa
Central Sanitary District. Sanitary sewer service is available for the project.
4. Fire Protection: The subject property is within the Contra Costa County
Fire Protection District boundaries and the applicant will be required to
comply with the District's requirements.
3
5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element standard is 155 square
feet of Sheriff facility station area per 1,000 population. Therefore, there is
no policy requirement to contribute to Sheriff facility improvements.
6. Parks & Recreation: At the building permit issuance for the homes, the
applicant will be required to contribute a park dedication fee in accordance
with ordinance requirements. Currently, the park dedication fee is
$2,000.00 per new residence.
7. Flood Control & Drainage: The project will be required to meet all collect
and convey requirements.
(Ref The Growth Management Element, Chapter 4, of the General Plan)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairperson and Secretary of this Planning
Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same
to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of
California.
The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given
by motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 by the following
vote:
AYES: Battaglia, Clark, Wong, Gaddis
NOES: Mehlman, Terrell
ABSENT: Hanecak
ABSTAIN: None
Len Battaglia,
Chair of the County Planning Commission
County of Contra Costa, State of California
ATTEST:
Dennis M. Barry, Secretary
County of Contra Costa
State of California
1 1ndingsMap
W
c M R-20
M°29
Rezone From R-20 7o R-15 Rodeo Area
i, Leonard Battoolia Chair of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission,State of California,do hereby certify that this is a true and
correctoopyof�pag N-13 of -te County's 1978
-zoning--
indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission
in the matter of Masoud Farlaiey.atm - k7Q33125
AHEST
Secret vyof eCorlaCostaCounty
PlarvingComm n,Sta#eofCaff.
CRAFT ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO.
(Re-Zoning Land in the
Lafayette Area)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
SECTION I: Page N-13 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map(Ord.No.78-93)is amended by re-zoning
the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein
(see also Community Development Department File No. RZ033125 )
R-15 Single Family Residential
FROM: Land Use District R-20 ( Sin21e Family Residential )
TO: Land Use District R-15 ( Single Family Residential )
and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to
Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.003.
SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within
15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in
the , a newspaper published in this County.
PASSED on by the following vote:
Supervisor Aye No Absent Abstain
1. J.Gioia ( ) ( ) ( ) ( }
2. G.B.Uilkema ( ) ( ) ( ) { )
3. M. Greenberg ( ) ( ) ( } ( )
4. M. DeSaulnier ( } ( ) ( ) ( )
5. F.D.Glover ( } ( ) ( ) ( )
ATTEST: John Sweeten,County Administrator
and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Chairman of the Board
By .Dep. (SEAL)
ORDINANCE NO.
RZ033125 Fanaieyan
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 8, 2003
STAFF REPORT
_.
Agenda Item#
Community Development Contra Costa County
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY,JULY 8, 2003
1. INTRODUCTION
MASSOUD FANAIEYAN (Applicant&Owner), County Files RZ033125 and
SD028694: The applicant requests the rezoning of a portion of APN 177-140-001
from.R-20(Single-Family Residential, 20,000 square feet per parcel)to R-15
(Single-Family Residential, 15,000 square feet required). The applicant requests
approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide approximately 2.42 acres into 5
lots. The subject site's address is 1140 Dunsyre Drive, in the Lafayette/Walnut
Creek area. (R-15/R-20) (ZA: N-13)(CT: 3400.00)(Parcel 4177-140- 001)
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with the attached conditions of approval.
III. GENERAL INFORMAITON
A. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Low Density/ 1.0 to
2.9 units per net acre.
B. Zoning District: A portion of the property which includes all of proposed
parcel 1, and a sliver of parcel 2 is zoned R-20, 20,000 square feet
minimum. The applicant has submitted a rezoning application to rezone that
portion to R-15, 15,000 square feet minimum. The remaining portion of the
property is zoned R-15.
C. CEOA: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted May 30, 2003. The
applicant has agreed with all mitigations. Adopt the mitigation monitoring
program.
The City of Lafayette sent comments on lune 19, 2003,regarding aesthetics,
geology and soil and the rezoning. See section IX for staff response.
_. _.
.
__
2
D. Previous AMlications:
1) 3940: Zoning Investigation for Mobile Home
2) 139-71: Mobile Home Land Use Permit
3) 2042-74: Expired Mobile Home Land Use Permit
4) MS 264-78: Approved 4 lot subdivision
5) MS 86-88: Approved 4 lot subdivision
6) PR0O0033: Preapplication review for 4 lot subdivision
E. Regglatoa Pro ;rarrs:
1) Active Fault Zone: The subject site is not in an active fault zone.
2) Fault Hazard Area: The subject property is in flood zone C of minimal
flooding,Panel#0290.
3) 60dBA Noise Control: The subject property is not within a 60dBA noise
Control zone.
IV. SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION
The subject site is on the north side of Highway 24 near the City of Lafayette
boundary with the City of Walnut Creek as shown on the vicinity map. The site
consists of approximately 2.3 acres of moderate to moderately steep sloped south-
facing vacant hillside. The property is bounded on the north and west by Dunsyre
Drive, an unimproved gravel road that accesses three residences at the top of the
ridge above the site. The southern boundary of the site is formed by a parking lot
for an office building accessed via Camino Diablo at the base of the slopes.
The site ranges from approximately 520 foot elevation to 440 foot at the south
boundary line. A gravel and soil track provides access to the site from Dunsyre
Drive along the western property boundary. A large Swale crosses the site from
the ridge top to the north, across the western end of the site. The Swale forms a
bowl-shaped area with several near level benches that step down,north to south
from Dunsyre Drive to the downslope property line. The eastern end of the
property is characterized by a uniform, moderately steep, slope that is formed by
part of the ridge that extends across the property. There is a prominent,
approximately 20-30 feet high, cut for Dunsyre Drive above the eastern end of the
property.
3
The applicant's Geologic Hazard Assessment prepared by Mr. Curt Jensen dated
January 21, 2003 reviewed eleven sets of aerial photographs of the site spanning
the time period from 1928 through 2002.
The site was undeveloped in the 1928 photographs. The site appeared to be used
for agriculture. There was a well-developed drainage that appeared to be
continuous along the Swale at the western end of the site.
All the trees on the site have been proposed for removal including some Oak
trees. The applicant has informed staff that he is willing to try to save the Oak
trees.
Dunsyre Drive was constructed between 1928 and 1954. The 1954 photographs
show three residences at the western end of the site that was accessed by the
existing narrow driveway.
The office building and parking area on the neighboring property south of the site
were constructed between 1980 and 1982. Part of this construction included the
existing cut slope, V-ditch and gravity retaining wall.
V. AGENCY COMMENTS
A. Health Services Department-Environmental Health Division: Memorandum
dated September 26, 2002. No comments.
B. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District: Memorandum dated October
17, 2402. See attached.
C. Building Inspection Department-Grading Division: Memorandum dated
October 21, 2002. Grading plans and permit,preliminary RPT required.
D. California Historical.Resources Information System: Memorandum dated
October 21,2002. There is a low possibility of historical resources. Further
study for historical resources is not recommended.
E. Public Works Department-Flood Control: Memorandum dated October 23,
2002. The Flood Control Division offer the following comments: 1) The
proposed project is located within Drainage Area 121 (DA 121), an
unformed drainage area. The area has no drainage fee obligation for the
proposed project; 2)All storm waters originating or entering the proposed
development be conveyed,without diversion of the watershed, to the nearest
watercourse with defined bed and banks or adequate man-made drainage
facility; 3) The applicant shall be required to verify the capacity of the down
stream system.
4
F. East Bay Municipal Utility District: Memorandum dated October 24, 2002.
A main extension at the applicant's expense from the Brookwood Pressure
Zone will be required to serve the subject property. The applicant should
contact E.BMUD's new business office to request water service estimate to
determine the costs and conditions for providing for in the project sponsors
development schedule. Due to EBMUD's limited water supply, all
customers should plan for shortages in time of drought.
G. Public Works Department-County Clean Water Prog Memorandum
dated June 4&. 10, 2003. See attached.
VL GEOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS
At the County's request,Darwin Myers Associates, the County's consulting
geologist,reviewed the application and Vesting Tentative Map submitted as 30-
day comments on the proposed project.
In Mr. Myers' 30-day comments, a detailed engineering geological investigation
was requested that analyzes slope stability and provides planning level
recommendations (e.g., slope gradient, soil parameters for retaining walls,
preliminary foundation recommendations). The investigation was to involve
work by both a geotechnical engineer and an engineering geologist.
The applicant submitted a Preliminary Geotechnical/Geologic Study prepared by
Jensen-Van Lienden Associates, Inc. on January 21, 2003. The report provided
conclusions and recommendations based on the original Vesting Tentative Map
submitted with the application on September 18, 2002 showing the access road at
the bottom of a steep slope. On March 12, 2003 a second review by Darwin
Myers Associates provided findings and recommendations based on the Jensen-
Van Lienden Associates provided Geotechnical/Geologic Study dated January 21,
2003. Since then the applicant has submitted a revised Vesting Tentative Map.
The Revised Vesting Tentative Map is an improvement from the original proposal
with potentially less need for corrective grading and avoiding the need for a high
retaining wall along the southeast property line.
At the request of Darwin Myers Associates, the applicant submitted a
supplemental review of the revised Vesting Tentative Map by Jensen-Van
Lienden Associates dated May 20, 2003. Jensen-Van Lienden Associates
concluded that the new plan is superior to the original Vesting Tentative Map
from a geotechnical/geologic perspective,because the new plan removes some
potential difficulties posed by the original plan. Jensen-Van Lienden
recommends further geotechnical and geologic investigation prior to recording the
Final Map. Jensen-Van Lienden Associates concluded that the January 21, 2003
study is still adequate for tentative map planning purposes. The investigation
shall be for the subdivision as a whole, and not on a lot-by-lot basis as some of the
geotechnical and geologic issues are not limited to individual lots.
5
The site is steep, and landslides are mapped upslope of the site, and Jensen-Van
Lienden confirmed landslides, creeping fills and areas of active mass wasting on
the site. A relative slope stability map issued by the California Geologic Survey
classifies the site as most susceptible to slope failure. The hillsides in the most
susceptible area are considered to be "naturally unstable, subject to failure, even
in the absence of the activities of man." The soils and clayey bedrock are inferred
to be moderately expansive.
VII. REZONING
The applicant has requested to rezone (RZ033125) lot 1 and a portion of lot 2 of
this proposed subdivision(SD028694) from R-20(Single Family Residential) to
R-15 (Single Family Residential). The General Plan Designation for the site is SL
(Single Family Residential—Low Density), the R-20 and R-15 are compatible
with the General Plan.
During staff's review of the major subdivision application it was discovered that a
portion of the property was zoned R-20 creating variances to width and depth on
proposed lot 1 and a sliver of proposed lot 2. Staff advised the applicant to
submit a rezoning application since findings of special circumstances could not be
made for the variances.
VIII. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONSIDERATION
The Public Works Department has reviewed the revised tentative map for the
proposed subdivision on April 9, 2003. The following comments reflect the
revised tentative map.
Background Information
The tentative map has been revised to eliminate the separate private road to serve
the five proposed parcels. In lieu thereof,the applicant has revised the site pian to
create down-sloping lots that directly access Dunsyre Drive. This will eliminate a
significant amount of grading and infrastructure necessary to subdivide the
subject property.
Road Requirements
Dunsyre Drive itself is unpaved. The road's gravel surface is experiencing
erosion and potholing in the vicinity of the subject property due to inadequate
road drainage. The applicant is proposing to pave the road to 18.5-foot and install
appurtenant drainage facilities to the Camino Diablo intersection. This roadway
section should he increased to at least 20 feet(face to dike to face of dike)to
conform to Uniform Fire Code requirements. Note that this pavement width is
not wide enough to allow for any on-street parking.
6
The existing 40-foot road easement is sufficient to satisfy the private road
easement requirements of the County Ordinance Code.
Drainage
All drainage from the project must be collected and conveyed in an adequate
storm drain system to an adequate nature watercourse or adequate man-made
facilities. In addition to the street drainage, an interceptor ditch or other drainage
facility will be required at the rear of these down-sloping lots to intercept storm
water runoff and convey it to an acceptable point of discharge.
IX. CITY OF LAFAYETTE COMMENTS
The City of Lafayette responded to the Notice of Review and Intention to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for County File RZ033125 and SD028694. This
property is in the City of Walnut Creek's sphere of influence,however the County
welcomes comments from all neighboring jurisdictions. The City of Walnut
Creek did not respond to the Notice of Review and Intention to Adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
Aesthetics: I. a, b and c.
The City of Lafayette disagrees with staff s conclusion that the project would not
have a significant impact on the aesthetics, scenic resources and on Highway 24, a
scenic highway.
The City of Lafayette has not given a"fair argument"based on substantial
evidence that a significant adverse environmental impact exist. This property is
not in the sphere of influence of the City of Lafayette. The hillside is not a
designated scenic ridge in the County General Plan. During staff's field visit, it
was observed a range of development in the near vicinity, such as the Elite Tile
building, an office building and parking lot, a house on top of the hill with
antennas around the perimeter of the property and a new house being built just
below the subject property. In staff s opinion,the project is consistent with the
surrounding development along Highway 24.
As a condition of approval all new residential development shall be subject to the
review and approval of the County Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of
a building permit. Additional conditions addressing design guidelines for hillside
development shall be included to help reduce excessive mass and bulk. A
landscape plan shall be required to help soften and buffer the homes from the
surrounding neighbors.
Geology and Soil
The City of Lafayette agrees with the conclusions of the mitigation measures.
However, they are requesting the County to add a condition of approval to allow
the Lafayette city engineer to review the soil and foundation reports and the
grading and drainage plan prior to submittal and/or filing the final map.
In staff's opinion this request is not justified, since this property is not within the
sphere of influence of the City of Lafayette. A condition of approval shall require
all geological and foundation reports to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning
Administrator and County Consulting Geologist. Additional conditions are also
included requiring a drainage plan, erosion control plan and landscape plan.
Rezoning
The City of Lafayette considers the rezoning inappropriate,based on aesthetic,
geologic issues and the surrounding development patterns and lot sizes.
In staff's opinion the rezoning is appropriate since the surrounding property is in
the R-15 Single Family Residential Zoning District. The property has a small
portion zoned R-20,therefore,the rezoning would avoid variances to lot size and
average width for proposed lot 1 and a portion of lot 2. Staff advised the
applicant to submit the rezoning, since findings could not be made justifying the
variances.
X. STAFF ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
An�propriateness of Use: The proposed subdivision is in a transitional area that
has slowly developed through the years into a single-family neighborhood along
Dunsyre Drive. However, some neighbors still keep livestock maintaining a
semi-rural atmosphere on the west side of Dunsyre Road above the applicant's
property. The subject property is vacant with some mature trees, including a
some Oak trees proposed to be removed. As mentioned previously,the applicant
is willing to try to save the Oak trees. In staff's opinion,the applicant may want to
consider saving some of the mature trees by incorporating them into the erosion
control plan. The applicant is proposing to build single-family residences.
Site Plan Analysis: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.42-acre parcel
into five lots in the Lafayette area. The applicant revised the original site plan by
relocating the access off Dunsyre Drive as recommended by Larry Gossett, Public
Works Department consulting civil engineer. By accessing the proposed homes
directly off Dunsyre Drive, the overall development as mentioned above would be
less disruptive and ultimately less expensive than the grading,paving and
retaining walls necessary to construct a separate access as originally proposed.
However,when future development occurs front yard variances will be required
to develop homes along Dunsyre Road. The Private Road Standards require
__ _...
setbacks to be taken from the edge of easement rather than the actual property
line. Dunsyre Drive's edge of easement goes beyond the existing access down the
hill. The Public Works Department's conditions of approval requires the
applicant to widen and pave existing Dunsyre Drive from the east property line
westerly and southerly to its intersection of Camino Diablo. The improvements
shall include a 20-foot wide travel way. This will be a tremendous improvement
to an access in extremely bad shape. In staff s opinion findings could be made for
front yard variances based on steep topography.
Additional conditions of approval shall be included addressing design guidelines
for hillside development to reduce the effective visual bulk of development.
General Plan and ZoningCompliance: The proposed subdivision is consistent
with the goals and policies of the General Plan. As previously discussed, the
applicant has submitted a rezoning application to be processed simultaneously
with this application. The rezoning is for a portion of the property, specifically lot
1 and a sliver of lot 2. The rezoning shall apply the R-15 single family zoning
district to the whole property. The rezoning of this property to the R-15 zoning
district shall avoid unnecessary variances since defensible findings as required by
the County Ordinance Code Section 26-2.2006, could not be made by staff.
XI. CONCLUSION
In staff's opinion,the proposed subdivision is compatible with the surrounding
single-family residential properties.
.......................
_.
PERTINENT
VT
CORRESPONDENCE
__
V4 1 woo
Ening Mom,Vise Mayor
/z'
- c11 (COVNCiL
Carol Fsderlghi,Wyor
Carl Andurl
Ivor SAMWn
1AFAYM 1 Don Tatzin
June 19, 2003
Rose Marie Pietras
Contra Costa County
Community Development Derartment
651 Pine Street,North Wing, 4t Floor
Martinez,CA 94553-0095
Re: Proposed Subdivision County File#SD028694/Fanaicyan
Dear Ms.Pietras,
I am 'responding to your Notice of Review and Intention'to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for County File#SD028694. Upon review of the environmental checklist form
and a visit to the site, the City of Lafayette submits the following comments.
,Aesthetics: I.a., b., and c. Disagree with conclusion that the proposed subdivision will have
`ono impact" on aesthetics or scenic resources. The project site is located on the lower
reaches of a Lafayette Class Ill designated ridge. Off site views to the ridge will be
impacted by development of the hillside. Development of the subdivision will also be
visible from Highway 24, a scenic highway, as is the house now under construction. at 1100
Dunsyre Drive.. The checklist should identify that the project may have a potentially
significant impact unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation measures should include
design review by the public and the City of Lafayette.
Geology-and Sails. Agree with conclusions but request additional mitigation measures. The
City of Lafayette is currently involved in mitigating the impacts of erosion and drainage on
public property from the development of 1100 Dunsyre Drive. In light of this, the City
( requests that mitigation measures 1 and 2 be modified to allow the Lafayette city engineer to
` review the sail and foundation reports and the grading and drainage plan prior to submittal
LLand/or filing of the final map.
ss I is highest ratin,%Class III is lowest rating,
POST OFFICE;SOX 1968
3675 MT.DLk8Lo BLVD.,SUrrE 210,LAIAYETTE,CA 9049-1468
TELEPHONE:(925)234-1968 FAX:(925)284-3169
http1P www.ci.1afayc%%a.ca.as
i-VUU r-US/UJ .;
t
j
Rose Marie Pietras
June 19, 2003
Page 2
It is also the opinion of the City of Lafayette that the concurrent application to rezone
portions of the property from R-20 to R-15 is not appropriate. This opinion is based on the
aesthetic and geologic issues as well as surrounding development patterns and lot sizes.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed project. Please contact me if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Christine Sinnette
Senior Planner
299-3241
csinTiette@ci.lafayette.ca.us
i
t2�lzc�t2� .Lcz i5.3, �'7
P. O. BOX 222
LAFAYETTE,CALIFORNIA 94549
PHONE (n2--) 2S3-8500
QrY
i 1
June 6, 2003
C=)
t._
Rose Mare Pietras "'
=31UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. , fi
651 pine St, North Wing, 4th Fl.
Martinez, Ca. 945.53
Re: File Number SD02869
Un
- l an strongly opposed to all the variances
and requests, including "Negative Declaration",
being applied for in this file .
Our four large abutting lots on the Westerly
side of Dunsyre Drive contain areas of
almost an acre each, and they would be ,
negativeley affected by all the requests
in the subject file .
Enclosed are copies of two letters which
address serious concerns pertaining to this
area. . These concerns should be first
considered and mitigated before any further
actions are taken on the subject file.
,Anthony G. Lagi s s .�
enc 10sure s- (Dennia Ido Barry`) :
previous objections: to this application
Ma led, on June 6, 2003, to Rise Marie Pietraa*
''L
MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
t
o m rn u n ity Conti ����,�M.���,,�,��
otor
Development Costa
Department Chun /
County Administration Building MAY 3 0 r
651 mine Street
4th moor,North Wing 81,
OOUNTYCLERK
Martinez,California 94553-0095 STA C UNTY.
Phone: C#EPUTY
(925)335-1210
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND,INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
County Fide #SDO28694
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:
MA.SSOUD FANAI 'YAN (Applicant&Cerner),County File SD028694: The applicant requests
the rezoning of portion of APN 177-140-001 from R.-20(Single-Family Residential,20,000 square
feet per parcel) to R-15 (Single-Family Residential, 15,000 square feet required). The applicant
requests approval of Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide approximately 2.42 acres into 5 lots.(R-
15/R.-20)(ZA:N-13) (CT: 3400.02)(Parcel#17'7-140-001)
The proposed development will not result in any significant impacts.
A copy of the mitigated negative declaration and all documents referenced in the mitigated negative
declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and
Application and.Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building,North Wing,Second Floor,
651 Pine Street,Martinez, during normal business hours.
Public Comment Period-The period for accepting consents on the adequacy ofthe environmental
documents extends to 5.001'.M.,June 20,,2003. Any comments should be in ATiting and submitted
to the following address:
Rose Marie Pietras
Community Development Department
Contra Costa.County
651 Pine Street,North Wing,4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Office Hours Monday-Friday: 8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m.
-- . _... ___A —- W — n...[ . 11- P..:..d....... -.0 ..--L.
r
It is anticipated that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at
a meeting of the Zoning Administrator on July 7,2003. The hearing is anticipated to be held at the
?VlcBri n Administration.Building,Room. 107,Pine and Escobar Streets,Martinez.
Rose Mare Pietras
Senior Planner
cc: County Clerk"s Office(2 copies)
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Subdivision 8694
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 Dumber: Rose Marie Pietrss, Senior Planner, (925)335-1216
4. Project Location: Saranap/Walnut Creek
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Massoud Fanaieyan
38 St. Stephens Drive
Orinda, CA 94563
6. General Plan Designation: Singh-Family Low
7. Zoning: The property is zoned as follows: one parcel in the R-20;
one parcel has a split zoning of R-20 and R-15 and the
remaining three parcels are in R-15 zoning
district.
8. Description of Project: The applicant requests the rezoning of a portion of APN
177-140-001 from It-20(Single-Family Residential,20,000
square feet per parcel)to R-15 (Single-Family Residential,
15,000 square feet required). The applicant requests
approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide
approximately 2.42 acres into 5 lots.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Open space and Single-family residential
10. Other public agencies whose approval
is required(e.g.,permits,financing
approval,or participation agreement):
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one
impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Land Use and Planning Transportation/ — Public Services
_._ Population&Housing Circulation. — Utilities & Service
X Geological Problems Biological Resources Systems
Water _ Energy & Mineral — Aesthetics
Air Quality Resources — Cultural Resources
Mandatory Findings of Hazards — Recreation
Significance — Noise No Significant
Impacts Identified
F:\clrn1a\31935\Check1ist 2000062600
2
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A-MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed prof ect 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-
.1 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.
,0 -7
140, X73
i t<.zre Date
° �i: ar1't
CCC Community Development Department
For: Rose Marie Pietras
FAch-71a\31935\Check1ist 2000-062600
3
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:
I. Contra Costa Resource Mapping System.-{quad Sheet Panels .
2. The(Reconsolidated)County General Plan(July 1996)and EIR on the General Plan(January 1991).
3. General Plan and Zoning Maps.
4. Contra Costa County Code,including zoning and subdivision ordinances and the State Planning and
Zoning Law, Subdivision Map Act and California Environmental Quality Act.
5. Project Description and Proposed Vesting Tentative Map Subdivision stamped dated September 18,
2002, prepared by Ed Rivilla Consulting, 2129 Fox Glen Drive, Fairfield, CA 94533. Revised
Vesting Tentative Map stamped dated March 3,2003.
6. Geologic Review dated October 18,2002 prepared by Darwin Myers Associates.
7. Public Works Department Comment Memo on Subdivision 8634 dated October 23,2002,prepared by
Paul R.Det ens of Flood Control Division.
8. Public Works Department Comment Memo on Subdivision 8634 dated February 3,2003,prepared by
Lawrence Gossett,Consulting Civil Engineer,Engineering Services.
9. Agency Comments
10. Field Review on February 13 and 20,2003 by Community Development Department.
11. Preliminary Geotechnical/Geologic Study dated January 21,2003 prepared by Jensen-Van Lienden
Associates,Inc. Supplemental Review of Revised Vesting Tentative Map dated May 20, 2003.
12. Geologic Review dated March 12,2003 by Darwin Myers Associates
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
impact IncMoration hrmact act
1. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a X
scenic vista?Source 1, 2,3,4, 5 & 10 e
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, 5 &. 10
C. Substantially degrade the existing i X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? Source 1, 2, 3,4,5 & 10
d. Create a new source of substantial light _ _ X
or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
Source 1,2, 3,4, 5 & 10
F:\chn1a\31935\Checklist 2000-062600
4
SUltirIM.ARY: This is a developed area. along Highway 24, a designated scenic highway in the County's
General Plan,Transportation and Circulation Element. The proposed five lot subdivision is compatible with
the surrounding development of single family homes.
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 X
Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Fan-nland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use? Source 1,2, 3 &4
b. Conflict with existing zoning for X.
agricultural use, or a Williamson '
Act contract? Source 1,2, 3 &4
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 1,2, 3 &4.
SUMMARY: The project site is not agricultural land. It is not near agricultural land. There are no impacts
on Agricultural Resources.
in. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air duality 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 1,2, 3 &4
b, violate any air quality standard or X
contribute to an existing or projected _
air quality violation? Source 1,2, 3 &4
C. Result in a cumulatively considerable X
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment
F:lchrJa\31935\Checkhst 2000-062600
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
linoact 1nc0m!xa6on JTa p act h ac
under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard(including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Source 1,2, 3 &4
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial i X
pollutant concentrations? Source 1,2,3 &4
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a r X
substantial number of people?
Source 1, 2, 3 &.4
SUM VLA,RY: Conditions of approval shall require standard construction operation requirements for the
issuance of County grading and construction permits.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect,either _ X
directly or through habitat modifications, e
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 & 3
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 &3
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? Sources 1, 2 &3
d. Interfere substantially with the movement v J 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 &3
e. Conflict with any local policies or _ X
ordinances protecting biological resources,
FAchn1a\31935\Checldist 2000-062600
Fotcntially
significant
Potentially Unless Less than
significant Mitigation significant No
Lmpact Incorporation act act
such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Source 1,2 &3
f Conflict with the provisions of an X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Flan,
or other approved local,regional,or
state habitat conservation plan?
Source 1,2 &3
SUiN ARY: The applicant has marked all trees, some of which are protected, to be removed. Staff shall
require as a condition of approval a Tree Replacement flan.
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 9
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the _ X
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to x15064.5? Source 9
C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? Source 9
d. Disturb any human remains, including X
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Source 9
SUMMARY: According to the California Historical Resources Information System memo dated October 21,
2002, "There is a low a possibility of historical resources. Further study for historical resources is not
recommended."
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
F:\chn1at31935\Checklist 2000-062600
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Imuact Incorporation .Fact hw t
of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
Sourcel,2, 3,4, 6, 7, 11 & 12
2. Strong seismic ground shaking? _ X -
3. Seismic-related ground failure,including - X
liquefaction? Source 1,2, 3, 6, 11 & 12
4.Landslides? Source 1, 2, 3,6, 11 & 12 - X - -
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the lass - i X _w
of topsoil? Source 1,2,3,6, 11 & 12
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, 3, 6, 11 & 12
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, 3, 6, 11 & 12
C. Have soils incapable of adequately - - - X
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste disposal systems where sewers are riot
available for the disposal of waste water?
Source 1, 2, 3, 6, 11 &12
SUN4MARY:
At the 'County's request, Darwin Myers Associates, the County's peer review geologist, reviewed the
application and Vesting Tentative Map submitted as 30-day con ntents on the proposed project.
In Mr.Myers' 30-day comments,a detailed engineering geological investigation was requested that analyzes
slope stability and which provides planning level recommendations(e.g.,slope gradient,soil parameters for
retaining walls,prelitninary foundation recommendations). The investigation was to involve work by both a
geotechnical engineer and an engineering geologist.
The applicant submitted a Preliminary GeotechrticallGeologic Study prepared by Jensen--Van Lienden
Associates,Inc. on January 21, 2003. The report provided conclusions and recommendations based on the
original Vesting Tentative Map submitted with the application on September 18,2002 showing the access road
at the bottom of a steep slope. On March 12,2003 a second review by Darwin Myers Associates provided
findings and recommendations based on the Jensen-Van Lienden Associates Inc. Preliminary
Geotechnical/Geologic Study dated January 21, 2003. Since then the applicant has submitted a revised
Vesting Tentative Map on March 25, 2003 with the access to each parcel off Dunsyre Drive. In staff's
opinion,this is an improvement from the original proposal with potentially less need for corrective grading and
avoiding the need for high retaining walls along the southeast property line.
F:\chnla\31935\Checklist 2000-062600
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant ivltigation Significant No .
Irnact L*scorpoation factImpact
At the request of Darwin Myers Associates, the applicant submitted a supplemental review of the revised
vesting tentative map by Jensen-Van Lienden Associates dated May 20,2003. Jensen-Van Lienden Associates
concluded that the new plan is superior to the original Vesting Tentative Map from a geotechnical/geologic
perspective,because the new plan removes some potential difficulties posed by the original plan. Jensen-Van
Lienden recommends further geotechnical and geologic investigation prior to recording the Final Map.
Nevertheless,Jensen-Van Lienden Associates concluded that the January 21,2003 study is still adequate for
tentative reap planning purposes. The investigation shall be for the subdivision as a whole,and not on a lot by
lot basisas some of the geotechnical and geologic issues are not limited to individual lots.
The Public Works Department comments received from Engineering Services and Flood Control reflected the
configuration reflecting the first submittal. It was made clear in a phone conversation between Community
Development Depadment staff and Larry Gossett,Consulting Civil Engineer for the Public Works Department
on May 15,2003,that the revised map is an improvement resulting in less impacts. Public Works Department
comments still apply with the exception of a required grading plan prior to accepting the application as
complete. Mr.Gossett recommended in comments received on February 3,2003, "the applicant may wish to
consider revising the project such that the proposed homes access directly from Dunsyre Drive. While portions
of this property are relatively steep,this maybe less disruptive and ultimately less expensive than the grading,
paving and retaining wall necessary to construct a separate access road."
Impact
Slone Stability
VI.a.3&4,c&d: The site is steep,and landslides are mapped upslope of the site,and Jensen-Van Lienden
confirmed landslides,creeping fills and areas of active mass wasting on the site. A relative slope stability map
issued by the California Geologic Survey classifies the site as most susceptible to slope failure. The hillsides in
the most susceptible area are considered to be"naturally unstable,subject to failure,even in the absence ofthe
activities of man.". The soils and clayey bedrock are inferred to be moderately expansive.
Mitigation Measure
1. At least 30 daysprior tofiling a Final Map,submit a geologic,soil and foundation report meeting the
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the County
Peer .Review Geologist. Improvement, grading and building plans shall carry out the
recommendations of the approved report. The report shall provide detailed measures for a)
remediation of the slope beneath the proposed residences; b) evaluation of stability of the slope
across Dunsyre Dr.from the proposed residences; e) speck standards and criteria for design of
retaining walls,foundations,drainage;and d)monitoring during construction. It shall also evaluate
the grading plans and present a slope stability analysis for static and psuedo-static conditions.
2. At least 30 days prior to submittal of the Final subdivision Map,submit a grading and drainage plan
for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The map shalt include typical sections and
identify areas proposed far retaining walls and reinforced earth.
F:\c1m1a\31935\Chec1dist 2000-052600
( Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Imz�act b=aration J=act ac*
3. The earthworkshall be completed in one construction season,with the gradingpermit not issued after
,July 10'*(latest)and all work(except erosion control)shall be completed by October I'`. 411 erosion
control measures shall be in place by October 15'h.
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 1,2, 3 &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
into the environment? Source 1,2,3 &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 1,2, 3&4
d. Be located on a site which is included on a — — — X
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Goverment Code Section 65862.5
and,as a result,would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
Source 1,2, 3 &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 result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area. Source 1,2,3 &4
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, 3 &4
g. Impair implementation of or physically _ — — X
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Source 1,2, 3 &4
h. Expose people or structures to a significant _ — — X
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires,including where wildlands are adjacent
;w:\chrla',31935\Checklist 2000-052600
10 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
h2pact h oration act hmact
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? Source 1,2,3 &4
SUMMARY: No impacts due to hazards and hazardous materials.
VIII. HYDROLOGY.AND WATER QUALITY-
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or X
waste discharge requirements? Source 7&8
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
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)?Source 7&8
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? Source 7& 8
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage _ X
pattern of the site or area,including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river,or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-or offsite?
Source 7 & 8
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 7 & 8
f Otherwise substantially degrade water X
quality? Source 7 & 8
g. Place housing within.a I00-year flood i 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 & 3
FAchm1a1319351Checkhst 2000-062600
Potentially
signifiimnt
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
I n act IngWoration aft L*nuact
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area — — X
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows? Source 1,2&3
1. 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 darn? Source 1,2&3
j Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? — X
Source 1,2&3
SUMMARY:: Per Public Works Department comments received on February 3,2003,"All drainage from the
project must be collected and conveyed in an adequate storm drain system to an adequate natural watercourse
or adequate roan-made facilities. 'T'here are some culverts and interceptor ditches that currently accept some of
the storm water runoff from the subject property. County Code will require that the applicant verify the
adequacy of the downstream drainage system, prior to being allowed to discharge runoff to them. Access
rights for the use of these private facilities will also need to be verified."
TX. LAND USE,AND PLANNING-Would
the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?_ — — X
Source 1,2, 3 &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, 3 &4
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat — 4 X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? Source 1,2, 3 &4
SUMMARY: The property is between two different zoning districts which splits lot 2 between the R-20 and
R-15 zoning districts. Staff informed the applicant/owner during a meeting on January 29,2003 that lot 2 is at
variance and that variance findings could not be made for the inadequate size dimensions for reasons that no
special circumstance exist. Therefore,staff requested a rezoning application be submitted to run concurrently
with the subdivision. Otherwise staff would include a condition of approval with the subdivision requiring a
rezoning application. If the rezoning was not approved the subdivision be reduced to four lots eliminating the
lot with split zoning.
On February 20, 2003 the applicant submitted a rezoning application (County File # RZ033125) to run
concurrently with the subdivision.
FAch-r 019351Checklist 2000-062600
12 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless tress than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
act eco tion Iran sect act
X. NffNERAL 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 6
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 6
SUMN. AR.Y: There will be no impacts to Mineral Resources on the subject property.
XI. NOISE-Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or.generation of — _ X
noise levels in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies?
Source 1,2, 3 & 8
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of — — i X
excessive ground borne vibration or ground
borne noise levels? Source 1,2, 3 &8
C. A substantial permanent increase in — _ X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Source 1, 2, 3 &8
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase — _ X
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Source 1, 2, 3 & 8
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
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Source 1, 2, 3 &.8
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 1,2, 3 & 8
F:\c!m1a131935\Checklist 2000-062600
13 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
significant Mitigation Significant No
iMR—aC* Inco=ation J=ct irmact
SUMMARY: Comments received from the Public`Yorks Department on February 3,2003 states that"any
noise studies,which may be required,shall be based on ultimate road widening and ultimate traffic udder the
General Plan."
Construction conditions of approval shall be incorporated that will require time limits on construction time so
as not to expose persons to noise levels above the decibel levels required by the County General Plan,Noise
Element policies.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING-
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an _ __ X
area,either directly(for example,by proposing
new hones and businesses)or indirectly(for
example,through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? Source 1,2 &3
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing _ X
housing,necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Source 1,2 &3
C. Displace substantial numbers of people X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? Source 1,2 & 3
SUMMARY: There are no impacts on Population and Housing.
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 9:
1. Fire Protection.? X
2. Police Protection? _X
3. Schools? X
4. Parks? X
5. Other Public facilities? X
F:\clm1a\31935\Check1ist 2000-062600
14 potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Inaact Inc ration —hmact fact
SUNDJARY: The property is located in an established area, therefore,no impacts on Public Services are
anticipated.
XIV. RECREATION-
a. Would the project increase the use of i X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Source 6
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 6
SLfi0yIAARY: The property is located in an established area, therefore, no impacts on Recreation are
anticipated.
X`V'. 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 8
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 8
C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, X
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks? Source 8
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a X
design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous inter-
sections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm
equipment)? Source 8
F:1c':m1a131935\Check1ist 2000-062600
15 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation significant No
Lnmact Incorporation =p=ct J=act
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? _ X
Source 8
f. Result in inadequate:parking capacity? X
Source 8
g. Conflict with adopted policies,glans,or X
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
Source 8
SUNBIARY: The Public Works Department requires "No Parking"signs be installed along the private roads
subject to the review of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall provide for 3 on site guest parking
stalls.
XVI. UTILI'T'IES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements _ X
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? Source 8
b. Require or result in the construction of new X
water or wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities,the
construction or which could cause significant
environmental effects? Source 8
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 8
d. Tuve sufficient water supplies available to T X
serve the project from existing entitlement
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlement needed?Source 8
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's existing conunitments? Source 8
f. Be served by a landfill with.sufficient X
permitted capacity to accommodate the v
project's solid waste disposal needs?
Source 6
FAchn11a13319351Check1ist 2000-062600
__
16 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Sipificant No
hop—ac-t incorporation actLmvact
9. Comply with federal, state and local statutes X
and regulations related to solid waste?
Source 8
SUItLARY. The property is located within the Central Sanitary District.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDLNGS 4R SIGNIFICANCE --
a. Dees the project have the potential to _ X
degrade the quality of the environment,substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community,reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the'major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are indiv- � � X
idually limited,but cumulatively considerable?
(ACumulatvely considerable means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects,the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable fixture projects)?
C. Does the project have environmental effects X
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings,either directly or indirectly?
SUNIN ARY: With the mitigation measures and conditions proposed above and based on the Sources
described above,there are no findings of mandatory significance for proposed subdivision.
F.lc1mla\3l935\Checklist 2000-062600
MAPS
s. r• Yai�'Lt3 �
•w+rw�n��,,,., '{ � � ik" rte') ,� „/ :�"`"'.� 8Lt � iti7_�:•
��,.dd�� dt -r5��•
to
. �
y�♦ �fc
t�• a, `an
rte. .eft(
Px .y a� *•6Z.Gfi.e5
1 o wd
y
all
caX K C�
C'V{00 ra.
a
co
JL5 f
VA
t V
1 t
i r
i tt
LGL tG c
� '�n {�..'q'E• � _ts` fd}I M»948L.SN —..�..,�
TO ft CWF04A g R3
t� KS S n go-a' �?"�a't Kvaar
_
rr
4
t.
..........
tl
±L
� L
r dt�h
p
Es
e s'sr
as cr
5 �
{
4.
R-2p {
S �
a�
L. C
CR�aa�...T...---.�..
ty
See
1f J
S� Y
+
r_
WHITE c � > •
PONY
SCHOOL
(� '",j„"`� Atl8€Y C7 �' mow'� •�-',
P!3
Tr 9!.s2_ t7 r _
xvtinq the1}9.:.:SL .:.I3i_ ..-- ..�
A...7-� ,..�� a..a�. —..d._.. ®..� -_._.... 5CD D 399 �yf09 "
i •-..;. � _ � � Vim/' � i '�i, �.■ Y:t # #-. �---- � %��I� .,,\ �
i r w
,.,__.„���� '.h. ;;t 1 y; *�;°f � , y R Y i+',--y w �i-�-'l'�" � -�-�-.�.��_a #Y ;:;� �`.��,,„�```.� •
i ` '�. Owl � !'� � ; 11.+:� •r. �'' f�r.'•�-,..,.�' �! ..J.f �i -n� qy'y., t` �F..\ � ``i
� �.. `...�.�.. ,'1 y sr r / I ? { t ,`; 1 '-ice �,.,,w `+.'w.•,.�`*w_`•t.._✓•"•... J
:. I.o"�;����S�;}��); a s a■r ■ r + rt.o' .. l��f' � '.��..„__`".-� 1�i;� .:..`.�-.^ •��•��. ` t_`r•-•```.��
E�:,... �,,t ^./ '•. ,,' -If Y ■r Y■ r * a� (,J/,rte`'+`..•.+ � �=%`''�.�\':�.J j _.� � .'-.. ��e \.,��4�
•�y-f+ `�t C ,-e'er'' r '.+.' ! \ t �`_--�--,� ,r" `".-�- Y"••.�•..� r�'` +, d
�... .r !! ,•1 rt .� l�
F �
yt �►s
* r
57 ILI
AJW�s go" VL
r
r k
or
ayf �� + f�i�►V'
Y _
II _
NOTIFICATION
LIST
Massoud Fanaieyan George C. Moore Anna Maria Lagiss
38 St. Stephens Dr. 1199 Dunsyre Dr. P.O. Box 222
Orinda, CA 94563Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549
Donald&Jo Ann Shaw Westview Park Partners Jamil &Karen Abu-Hamdeh
194 Hillcroft Way 2960 Camino Diablo#300 101 Park Ave.
Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Walnut Creek, CA 94595
Robert Hagin Jr. Adrian &Betty Karris Bill Nicora
22 Highland Dr. 1166 Dunsyre Dr. 1100 Dunsyre Dr.
Napa, CA 94559 Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549
City of Lafayette City of Walnut Creek PUBLIC WORKS
3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 210 1666 North Main Street ENGINEERING SERVICES
Lafayette, Ca 94549 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 ***IN'T'EROFFICE***
_.. _........ ......... ......... ...................
......... ......... ......... ......... ...........__...._..._.. ...._........__..._.... .._......... _ ...
.......
......._. ......... ......... ..._........_.__. _
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM t �`
(THREE M MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and ;place it in the box near the speakers,
rostrum bef� a eddress g the Board, /
Name: Phone:
lit i • �
Address: � � citY•
I am speaking for myself '" car.- organization:
(nwm of oraW24t on)
XECE tiles
I wish to speak on Agenda Item Date
My comments will be general for against
I wish to .speak en the. subject of
I dna not wish to speak but leave >these comments for the
Beard to considers
m.
REQS RST TO SPEAK FORK `ice
(THREE ('3) JiIE` "L LIMIT)
Complete this form and ,place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: Phan
Address: '> 5 2 t City«% • -
I am speaking for myself ororganization;
("WW of organitat#oa)
CHECX ONE
I wish to speak on Agenda Item � �� ..�.. riots
My comments 'willbe general for against
_ I wish tc speak on the subject of
I dei not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Beard to consider.
RLQiT tBT TO SPEAK FORK
{fi88 (3) kINUTS LIMIT) ,.
Complete this Form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the• Bosrd.
Name: ,�ZA M t j B U .�DF;- 1 thane: . � ` < b o
Andress: 40 t , ` VE' , City:
I am speaking for myself or organization.
(row *f cromf lati ion)
CHECK ONE:
y '"s
... I wish to speak on Agenda Item: Date:'
Icy comments 'will be: general for against '
I wish to ,speak on the subject of
I did not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
RECEIVED
IVED
�
Board of Supervisors 8 2103
c/o Mr. John Sweeten �---�
[1 [__S' EP
ii€' �yViSC3RS
551 Pine Street „s `,A �.
Martinez CA
Sept. 4',2003
Re: File #RZ033125
(Rezone 2.42 acre parcel from R20 to R15, on Dunsyre Drive in Lafayette
Dear Sirs:
The construction of Dunsyre Drive has been in litigation for the last seven years. In order
to help implement the construction and paving of the road, I propose that the issue of
rezoning the above-referenced property not be allowed until the portion of Dunsyre Drive
which this parcel borders is satisfactorily built.
Thank you
Sincerely yours
x
amxl Abu-Hamdeh
RECEIVED
�� +w P,O.BOX 222 7EP
NSA LAFAYETTE,CALIFO NIA)4549 S0 � t��y
PHONE'(4-1<) 283-8500 �+ 0U3
� k} CLERK EOARD OF SUPEtSORS
Aug. 28, 2003 CC A CGGIA CO,
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
651 gine Street
Martinez, Ca. 94553 .1229
Public Hearing September 90 20303
regarding County Pile Z.03312 -
I am completely apposed to all the
requests outlined in this suT"jvect
file.
My opposition was thoroughly outlined
in etidence submitted previously to
your staff member, Rose Marie Pietras,
and conies are enclosed herewith.
Anthony C. La.giss
enclosures
r , r � t Cali
y
YI
.111 h'=
ZI
Y.a It
t d ,)PE i c
N.
�t+.g U,
8 s
r• Oi'
4*
. h
w
o C),ti
CW
ccF'1 w W
LV �+�t
f.
t
r�;1�'11C.11t} �. ..LcZcIG1S
I'.i)_ BOX 11' ✓f
LAFAYEI'IT, CAL110RINIA 945-19
RHONE (411) -53-8500
,Tune 6, 2003
(0
Rose Marie Pietras
COPIT,IUNITY DEVEL,OPME14T DEPT.,
651 Pine St, North Wigg, 4th Fl.
;Martinez, Ca. 94553
Re: ,File Number SD028694
I rim strongly opposed to all the variances
and requests, including "Negative Declaration",
being applied for in this file.
our four large abutting lots on the Westerly
side of Dunsyre Drive contain areas of
almost an acre each, and they would be
negativeley affected by all the requests
in the subject file.
Enclosed are copies of two letters which
address serious concerns pertaining to this
area.. These concerns should be first
considered and mitigated before any further
actions are taken on the subject file.
C1
Anthony G. Lagiss
enclosures.
r
rrfhout; 6A -L'CiP-jJ
I'- t>. I;OS 2t1
COF
Nr. J . H-I chel Petlt7 L
2001 Nol't,h tla:il► S tree t, 111360
1Jalnut creek, ca. �;)tt.�;'y��
Jie: J)utls Tre t:)r.ive, J,a1'a:;e 1.t e, ('a .
This llo l,l, is a foT t.ow -Up Lo the r,1C;et,.i.l1tr,
we helfi -resterda,Y perta:l.n.ing, to the
subject, road easomen t'-. il,r daut;h t.er owns
t he five 1,1111ge, lots on the vies t;erl.1 sidr
of this private road, as you are ai nj,e.
T understand from you that; you will be
handling the engineering for recons true tion
of that destroyed road. I wish to point
out that four of the lots enjoy frontage
on that; right-of-way, as you know. 7 will
expect that paved driveways will be exyended
from the new pavement to the front property
lines of the four lots.
Also, I would like to request that the
utilities deeded for future development
be installed within the right-of -way
prior to installation of new pavement,
Q ga,s, water, and sewersq, in order to
protect the integrity of new road pavement;.
r .
1
Irk
f �V
DUNSYRtE DRIVE {Draft 12-04-02
Items of concern expressed by Antlionv Laoiss
1. The Porterate a
g t the property line with the Lagtss lot needs to be re-surveyed to
order to clarify the exact boundaries and road ROW lines. This is the very same
concern as voiced by G. Moore.
2. The original road was narrower and steeper, but paved. AIS lowered the road grade
locally along AL's property line of the 2 center lots #13 and #14. He also installed a
"very deep and wide"drainage trench along the four lots. The deep excavation of this
drainage trench damaged the two center lots by de-stabilizing the edges. The final
result is no,:v a lo�*,'er road grade which is causing continual erosional and slide
damages to the lots. The train problem has become the access issue to the front of
the lots. Direct access needs to be established. to each lot individually.
3. The house development on the Kohler parcel, across the road, requires utilities to be
brought to the property line and adequately installed. It would be essential to have
the same utilities (PGE, Sanitary and Water) extended and "stubbed out" within the
ROW of each of the four lots.
4. The road repair solution needs to re-establish ease of access to the four lots.
Installation of individual accesses to each of the two center lots (#13 and #14) should
be established as part of the road repair.
5. There is an overhead power line crossing lots #13, 414 and #l5 without dedicated
easement. PGE apparently installed this power line without informing anybody. It is
imperative to have this overhead power line re-located onto the dedicated, existing
easement which runs essentially east-west close to the north property line of the upper
lot #l5. This re-location needs to be implemented without delay.
C CZ
MOFFATT & NICHOL
1.
x