The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12122006 - D.4 - --= - TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �: ti°`.;. ' Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County °oma VUU DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2006 SU13JECg': HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVING THE REZONING OF A 2.59 ACRE SITE FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-7)TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (P-1)THAT INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM AREA TO ESTABLISH A PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (2.59 ACRES REQUESTED, 5 ACRES REQUIRED) AND APPROVAL OF A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ELEVEN HOMES AT 150 HILLSIDE LANE IN THE MARTINEZ AREA. (COUNTY FILES#RZ053172 & #DP053101) (DISTRICT II) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATIONS A. OPEN the public hearing and receive testimony on the rezoning and final development plan. B. ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for this project finding that it is adequate for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VO E OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT�i - CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN v s,vat✓a�as�5� Contact: Ryan Hernandez(925)335-1206 ATTESTED JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Ong:Community Development Department SUPERVISORS A D COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cc: Golden Oak Development Inc. (Applicant&Owner) Public Works Department GIS BY DEPUTY File December 12, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#RZ053172 & DP053101 Page 2 C. ADOPT the recommendation of the County Planning Commission, as contained in Resolution No. 26-2006, to: 1. Rezone from Single Family Residential (R-7) to a Planned Unit District (P-1) that includes a variance to the minimum area to establish a P-1 (2.59 acres requested, 5 acres required); and 2. Approve the final development plan for eleven homes with the recommended conditions of approval. D. INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 2006-45 giving effect to aforesaid rezoning, waive reading, and adopt the ordinance. E. ADOPT the findings contained in the County Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-2006 as the basis for the Board's action. F. DIRECT the Community Development Department to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. II. FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant is responsible for the cost of processing the rezoning and final development plan request. III. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The applicant is seeking to subdivide 2.59 acres into 11 lots. The residential project site consists of a vacant hillside that has a slope of greater than 26 percent over the majority of the parcel. The lots are sited south of the proposed private access road (Hillside Lane) that connects to Blum Road west of the property. The site is located on the east side of Interstate 680 with the closest residence more than 500 feet away from the edge of pavement. Interstate 680 is at an elevation of 70-feet. The terrain from the freeway takes an uphill climb to 160-feet and then slopes down to 120-feet between the closest residence and the freeway. The project consists of 11 single-family homes on individual lots with an average lot size of 8,500 square feet. Individual parcels vary from 3,580 to 13,123 (net) square feet, resulting in a net residential density of 5.12 units per acre, which falls at the lower end of the designated density range for this property. A rezoning to P-1 and a final development plan are being requested by the applicant. The development consists of 11 new, detached, single-family residences that are positioned at the bottom of, and around the existing hill. The applicant has agreed to dedicate all development rights to the County for the area south and west of the three foot concrete drainage ditch located directly south of the proposed residences on lots 2, 3 and 5 through 11. Eight of the eleven new homes are three-story homes with a maximum height of 35-feet. The three-story floor plan is comprised of a garage on the first story with two stories of living space above. Each floor plan, ranging from 2200 to 2400 square feet (not including garage), provides four bedrooms, a two car garage, and 2.5 baths. December 12, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#RZ053172 & DPO53101 Page 3 A. Environmental Review Mitigations were proposed and agreed to by the applicant that reduce all potential impacts to a less than significant level. The County Planning Commission determined the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts and recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The applicant has accepted the proposed mitigation monitoring program. B. County Planning Commission Hearing After determining that the proposed applications successfully integrated individual residences with the physical constraints of the site and provided for harmonious composition of mass, scale, color and textures of the houses, staff supported the approval of the applications. Approval of the subdivision is contingent on the approval of the proposed rezoning by the Board of Supervisors. The County Planning Commission heard the applicant's rezoning, subdivision, and development plan request on October 10, 2006. After evaluating the proposal and the evidence submitted, the Commission voted to approve the subdivision .and recommend approval of the proposed rezoning and final development plan to the Board of Supervisors. This approval was unanimous. Following the Commission action, no appeals were filed. The only matter before the Board is action on the proposed rezoning and final development plan. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed rezoning and final development plan. IV. Consequence of Inaction or Denial of Proposed Rezoning by the Board The County Planning Commission approved the vesting tentative map for 11 lots contingent upon the Board's approval of the rezoning and final development plan approval. If the site is not rezoned, the applicant will not be able to exercise the tentative map approval and the subdivision will be null and void. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 26-2006 RESOLUTION NO. 26-2006 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDATION INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY GOLDEN OAK DEVELOPMENT INC. (APPLICANT & OWNER), IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING, FOR THE MARTINEZ AREA OF SAID COUNTY. (COUNTY FILES#RZ053172 & DP053101) WHEREAS, a request by Golden Oak Development Inc. (Applicant & Owner) to rezone 2.59 acres from Single Family Residential (R-7) to Planned Unit District (P-1) that includes a request for approval of a variance to the minimum area to establish a P-1 (2.59 acres requested, 5 acres required), County File #RZ053172; and a request for approval of a final development plan for eleven single family homes, County File #DP053101, for which an application was received by the Community Development Department on July 19, 2005, County Files RZ053172 and DP053101; 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 June 13, 2006 and July 13, 2006; and WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission on Tuesday August 8, 2006, and was continued as an open public hearing to allow staff and the applicant to resolve residential design challenges; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, October 10, 2006, the County Planning Commission where all persons interested therein might appear and be heard, and having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the evidence submitted in this matter approved the project on consent; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the County Planning Commission: 1. FINDS that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopts same; 2. FINDS that the proposed rezoning to Planned Unit District (PA) is consistent with the General Plan including the Single Family High Density Land Use Designation; 3. FINDS that the proposed development plan is consistent with the General Plan and constitutes a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. 4. RECOMMENDS that the Board of Supervisors ADOPT the proposed rezoning of the site from Single Family Residential (R-7) to Planned Unit District (P-1) that includes a request for approval of a variance to the minimum area to establish a P-1 (2.59 acres requested, 5 acres required) and that establishes a preliminary and final development plan P-1 for 11 homes. Page 2 5. APPROVES the proposed tentative subdivision map for 11 residential lots subject to conditions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission FINDS as follows: A. Rezoning Findings - Section 26-2.1806 requires that the following findings be made before a property is rezoned: I. Required Finding: The change proposed substantially complies with the General Plan. Prosect Finding: The site is zoned Single Family Residential (R-7) and has a General Plan designation of Single-Family Residential High-Density (SH) land use. The project site is an under utilized property in a residential neighborhood, but due to the steep hillside terrain is vacant. The Planned Unit District (P-1) is appropriate since it allows the applicant flexibility to design around the hillside while maintaining consistency with the general plan designation of high density land use. The applicant has provided a private tree lined street with sidewalk, guest parking, and landscaping. This, coupled with modified architectural details and incorporation of two two-story homes along Hillside Lane, staff has determined that the Planned Unit criteria have been met. 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 County Code specifically lists residential uses as being appropriate for P-1 districts and states that P-1 districts are compatible with the SH land use designation. The subject property lies between Interstate 680 and Blum Road just north of the Blum Road and Pacheco Boulevard intersection. There are residential and commercial uses in the vicinity and along Blum Road. This property is surrounded by small and large lot residential properties and the rezoning to Planned Unit District is appropriate. The adjacent property to the south, Tract 8784, has recently been rezoned to Planned Unit District. 3. Required Finding: The community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed. Prosect Finding: The County demonstrates a need for housing opportunities of all types. Infill housing developments are needed in order to lessen the pressure to expand housing development into previously undeveloped parts of the County, namely the East County region. This rezoning of this property to P-1 will allow the same density which is consistent with the SH designation while providing a desirable and aesthetically pleasing product. Page 3 B. Variance Findings Approval of Variances 1. Required Finding: That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of 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. Prosect Finding: 3-Foot Retaining Walls Maximum, 10-Foot High Retaining Walls Requested: Retaining walls located on adjacent properties are proposed to construct a private road and turnaround for compliance with the standards of the Public Works Department and Contra Costa Fire Protection District. The applicant has worked out an agreement with the adjacent properties to build and maintain this private road and turnaround. The retaining walls are proposed on the project site and on adjacent properties. Walls that are located on the project site do not require variances since the zoning district that is proposed is a Planned Unit District. The standards of the P-1 District are established with the approval of the preliminary and final development plans that are reviewed by staff to ensure consistency with applicable General Plan policies; but the zoning codes are flexible to allow for just this type of development. Since the retaining walls are proposed within a Single Family Residential (R-7) zoning district variance for the height of the retaining walls are required. When developing hillsides retaining walls are used. There are retaining walls that are over three feet in height used throughout this area of Blum Road. Retaining walls were reviewed and approved as a part of Tract 8784 that are over three feet in height. These retaining walls do not constitute a grant of special privilege. 5-Acre Minimum Area Required Establishing a Planned Unit District, 2.59 Acres Requested: Through the designation of this site as a P-1 District, the developer would provide more open area than is normally seen in conventional zoning by grant deeding the development rights of the hillside to the County via a scenic easement. This, in combination with the other attributes of the project (landscaping, sidewalk, and guest parking), meets the objectives of the Planned Unit District. 2. Required Finding: That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Prosect Finding: 3-Foot Retaining Walls Maximum, 10-Foot High Retaining Walls Requested: The hillside topography requires the extension of Hillside Lane to accommodate the new Page 4 proposed homes. To minimize the overall grading the homes are proposed at the base of the hill, which requires the private road to be placed in its present location. Since the steep topography does not allow the road to be placed anywhere else on the property variances are needed to allow retaining walls over three feet in height. 5-Acre Minimum Area Required to Establish a Planned Unit District, 2.59 Acres Requested: P-1 zoning is established for the adjacent southern property and other properties in the immediate vicinity of the project site. P-1 rezoning would most likely be approved for a 5-acre site in this area if the Final Development Plan described development that was consistent with the single-family development pattern in the area. The proposed project is consistent with that development pattern in terms of density, but cannot meet the 5-acre minimum required for P-1 districts because of its location and surroundings. 3. Required Finding: That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Proiect Finding: 3-Foot Retaining Walls Maximum, 10-Foot High Retaining Walls Requested: The retaining walls will be used in the establishment of a private road and turn around to access 11 single-family residences. The property is surrounded by single-family residences and the construction of II more homes meets the intent and purpose of the district. 5-Acre Minimum Area Required to Establish a Planned Unit District, 2.59 Acres Requested: Approval of the variance request would allow a rezoning of the property from R-7 to P-1 for the purpose of developing 11 single-family units. Though the R-7 designation could allow for density specified in the General Plan, the product prepared by the applicant consists of higher architectural design, lot configuration, and landscaping aiding in the visual quality and fulfills the purpose and objectives of the P-1 zoning district. The area of"open space"from the properties that have grant deeded the development rights to the County also is reason for approval. The P-1 will allow the density to be met while substantially meeting the intent of the land use district. C. Findings to Establish a Planned Unit (P-1)District Adoption of P-1 Zoning and Approval of a Preliminary or Final Development Plan. 1. Required Finding: The applicant intends to start construction within two and one- half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. Project Finding: The applicant has expressed a desire to begin construction immediately after required permits and approvals have been obtained. Page 5 2. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County general plan. Proiect Finding: The General Plan designation for the project site is Single Family Residential High Density. Staff's recommendation of approval for the 11 single-family units is consistent with hillside polices 10-24, 10-28, and 10-29 of the General Plan. This density is at the bottom of the range, but is appropriate due to the topography of the site. 3. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. Project Finding: This section of Blum Road is characterized by residential development west of Blum with a section of residential east of Blum, but the primary use east of Blum is Public/Semi-Public including a Public Works Maintenance Yard and property owned by the Mountain View Sanitary District. The proposed development will be of a higher architectural quality, providing an "open space" area consisting of the lots that have grant deeded the development rights to the steep hillside located south of the proposed houses. The desirability of the project lies in its utilization of the land to produce housing that is consistent with the zoning and General Plan. The aesthetic quality and lot configuration offer an "open space" area that enhances the project as a whole. The project provides for a density level that falls below the range, but due to the extremely steep topography of the site is consistent with the General Plan. The single-family residences can provide adequate guest parking and some private yard areas. The addition of the landscaping plan will increase the visual and aesthetic characteristic of the project. This use of an underutilized property helps fulfill the County Housing Element within the General Plan. D. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated 11 additional AM and PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. 2. Drainage and Flood Control: Condition #65 of this permit requires that the applicant collect and convey all stormwaters entering or originating within the project to an adequate natural or manmade water course. The Final Map may not be filed until the collect and convey requirements and improvements have been met. The site lies within Flood Zone "C". 3. Water and Waste-DiW2sal: The project site is within the Contra Costa Water District and Mountain View Sanitation District service areas. The districts have indicated that capacity exists to support the development. Page 6 4. Fire Protection: Prior to the approval of a final map, the applicant is required to demonstrate that all of the proposed development is located within one and one-half miles of a fire station, or that development within the project that is more than one and one-half miles from a fire station shall be required to provide automatic fire sprinkler systems. The nearest station is Station 9 located at 209 Center Street, Pacheco, CA approximately 1.3 miles away. (Ref. COA 18) 5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station per 1,000 population. The small population increase associated with this project is not significant. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant is required to establish a police services tax district to mitigate the impacts of the development on police services. 6. Parks & Recreation: The proposed project will have a minor cumulative effect on demand for park and recreation facilities, and is subject to payment of park dedication fees in the amount of $2,000 per residential parcel to mitigate impacts. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 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 were given by motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Snyder, Battaglia, Clark, Gaddis, Terrell and Wong NOES: None ABSENT: Murray ABSTAIN: None Donald Snyder, Chair County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California ATTEST:: cion�� SO/Dennis M. Barry, Secretary County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California FINDINGS MAP ORDINANCE 2006-26 ORDINANCE NO. 2006 -45 (Re-Zoning Land in the Martinez Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I: Page G-13 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map (Ord. No. 2005-03) is amended by rezoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also Community Development Department File No. RZ053172 } FROM: Land Use District R-7 ( Single Family Residential ) TO: Land Use District P-1 ( Planned Unit District } and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.002. er In Wi .,......�i.�liGP 'ice - .,....... , ' ....._� Austen Way _ .. .,.. an T A Way ._ _. i ! R P-t C" I I ° T f 6 ' ® H16stge i i P't , SECTION ll. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 dats after passage, and within 15 days of pa sage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the 6 j T.� a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on 'j _ "_by the following vote: Supervisor Ave No Absent Abstain 1. J. Gioia Qb O O ( ) 2. G.B. Uilkema (?Q O O ( ) 3. M.N. Piepho pC) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. Vacant { } O O ( ) 5. F.D. Glover ATTEST:Jo Cullen, County Administrator and Clerk the Board of Supervisors Chairman of the Board By Dep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO._ 2006 - 45 RZ0531'72 . Golden Oak Development J Findings Map 66 ® .......... ....... AustenWay .. ........ ........... --------------- --- Alan Way P-I Ilk K P-1 V Benita We 7--- 'Hillside L, f P-1 % piti"Of......00" 0 Martinex,, P-1' P-I O 'RQ \ ...._ utb ------ -————————— L Rezone from R-7 to P-1 Martinez Area I D. Snyder Chair of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of page G-13 of the County's 2005 zoning map. indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the Mattel-Of Golden Oak Development - RZ053172 ATTEST: Secretary of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of Calf. ;a. MAPS I L 9.e. s. SITE i0i 05 004, DP PLAN 059 RZ053i72 (vrtrt rr�� RR **�nr V�INtdOAM3 '00SHOdd gQ� aanaw»w tOO8 NOIS�I+IQHIISa021�d�5LL MIJ�Illu d S pp.-az1(PI.nl 'p0m� wvcM a=.aw i°°(�.dma,wara,'��` s.•, dVIK dAlydimai >az a Oow, ad \ SPO $ Q ` wIn LILI �t\1CL 1 / / e A u v m ySeeaetlesQ��e7fOSPRB�ikRE R, r >� 117-1 c¢iotl k 533k i /6 .. h 1 F W hype S (a CO 6 tSF LIT' 2 Fix CD 00 / / ..-"`` ✓ ( � PIS fl B5• /. � r � _V N IVM If k 1 cam �$ � k A � � �j � i i •;u: a , alw �� J � � 9 ''� L 1f 1 [t 1 e ` I' p 3 I ' II H ✓: Y i � { s I t 1 k 1 �q + 1�• ce � �; jJ �• y• F ti 1 Z S. RUjp It 5 1 g y� 13 / z" a° �, r ' , = Q ly cc L III +'i- �•'! 1 a / �i "l/�j/ t� � � � dyy yyp � // \t� �• O W F 3 vpa �R y\ / CQgS t � , r �t 9 A G O D N m T �0✓o d Q pL i9m dLrn ✓d pY �U'3 YD Do' 6CMNJ�!' Nm£ � sod o ' c�1 Z'LN GU d dEs2GG`� U d o2v'„-o,a UY �^YY a+ N � �ov 6� d 00 c � Pb wn19 Lo L_ J a c .1000 C()LO Y O J 0 Q t`'• r cloo W c� Y@ d 4 e� d r O O O �U c U-) � LO Gp� 0 rn 5� JCC 0 O 1 p N 4 Q 00 NOD D �i�1 y M1 �Gti IrL V• Y� .i� y r i' Y, }` �`^--...il�'--._ _��1.� Y"`f l [ 1 1 Y 3 G d+x �. Z-< �`+�'_j ,1dr2 il,. 1e � ��'.(;A +�l,�a'•Jx4.m � ! "i Yqa �. Awl kn 5"'Llt o KIP i i�`k..r•-.Fy��.W '�f � f'd {.r _ ��Y N •�° � ' r '3 u a f c �s p O ;• r j � ..' f� vTM z`�i tM1 t$^Y ��r '� f � °n •� {+" kn �1 , i tJ" �- s s L f e# !, �' ' L 0 �' !A M {.aE c" c2&! `+• t'm *` �x+5 a •1' y"ir t F YS [x s U r'Va �$A;t t� (�> 1fy4�,�t#'. -f -t ii��.,2 q�Fr •;,jo F y b '�i'et�� ^'F'+�""� a ",� ].�� ..R.' ��e1 � Cd ea,�.�e{i EY 2' �{�d' F'Y]R x t•{�—� ;�,.L^ �� k i .. Nt t .t .q3 n, s ' ;u •�rF; �` t''h,jv, Ii i (l_iFtnA'© _ :0.99-LLd91�6 il' __ _� IOC49 mnnnm ila>9axt Biz.Qw_a ta>ua EeimC lme cOC i I � 65 Y=�IN o0— r _ kk� 11 f� {lfrt ON BM- l��YY-��17�74 _ - - - - - - - _ _ - - - ------- --------- -_ -- -- _-_% ti u w�r1i W n 12i2 n ggO O (_1 7= � -.n u rcn� y�gsvu 1 G�l W ou ara��S w ` x z w U� <z z a �3�coNv � °ywma Zr""a w z q �aQa a Z�aw LL Ua0 ¢ 5uaw M F=ZVz Ua OU � p V m _ 'gym Vo�.a 0a4 utzzo.z�� zoz� �a � .0h Oniv QGOn<ni YF' zz Ile 1 oo<CL � au4 r- O"' ��h Imo— �¢4 sUOv x �w�i v W&w Zp ' H DUmw Q zzmCim Q zW°3a'¢ x P z zo-u< 2 w�w 4 4 O , FUNa Z2 r-Uoa (7 w �. LU W WUa imo W OUyzen ww�'ttU rv� e�X O39z„0 - U< - v oaoSMM ��O-Gwa C) arvn O <O�QnvN; UwaLli v/0Un3aa n Lij Uj Lij r 3 d f VJ '1 yQ / I i W CLt ::Z 6� k 1 4 r N3V\fdOl9A]CI 7-7- ---------- 3- A ---------- --- -------- --- ----------- ---------------------- -- --- ---------- ------- ----------------------------- ------ - ------------------------------------------------------------------- �.0 <.0 000 000 Lli %F �2 2 2 v 7 2!2 z Roo 000 0 zOE @ 00 F zo-. 50 Z NO' 0 o 2 0��c H-,r 'S 0 CD - ----- -!!- L ----1-11 4-Ilu HUI-,-H V) In�l -- x 0 IT� ml I I ffIH u oz j�'4 W ,-, < z UX.0w z � < azfuOw < Q <0 Z< 5 <. L)�� 0. ZQ < R; u zbzo� 0 6 A zn ZPN-m (z) < < < 3: z'o 0 jl� z 0 >a < 0 0� Lki z< wo 9 Ae ><O§ u z .. F. ou" < ��. oo� LD < < Z'� u Gi P' < z U 0 � , ,, z z U LU �� 9- z z U�- �zu-,c wou< w , <<u u<0 -Z--- 0 :k!z" - ,-Io -Z 3: oof 0 < ou U-U a_ F� z 0 u < UJ V) 0 Z � r U ui LU < ry L/P) Z 0 U \t li' � �� ,� I�I __–.g� -10�i$[�'— '"' 'G- - —a�_�"�� .�--�� yS.tt Yt t_tl-.� -= IOC9Y ouoslm IWaaoid Oli 4wa_1ea�l�AON� n0.coc_ �ii I �I &Ne - OEM MPALOO[FF -INCHOUDo a --'INRMG- NI-- d I l-- -- - -4V N-3 3:-;TK-- �-s 3-j M-SS 3 C14 4A tv-'ZI CO ----- ----- wei sj oL ui o Ea�j ,F +III 11 .I I �'I I y .Iq pit, 7 71 7 Flr7-17 T I 1 7. I C I CR jjj cc ERE] m jll, al ,.,..�.._.._�,_.........._,.u......,_........w,.W........m.._m..m.�...w..a.,.._...._...._.._...«..,,,,.....,.r._...,«...,..._......,.,....,,._.,..,..,,,..<..,...,...-......_r...,.m..w.,...a.:..............-........_........_,...._n-.... .....,..,�..,M.,,, I u, I BL I �6s 1�1 -71 _ coB�ouoZm-aloau.0�o,z awa i.oil._.nalme/.oa coa ' -- '�_ _ q _ _ � - -- � II Ij w JlSD.90 U YIGD II — -_. —I _ ^1 4-1-J�.7- 0� ®q� _. -CROUQ*97d'�Lal BBBY Z69=9L8 I, G � _ _ �.. _ _ 9tb oNmll'o?N➢ioo�a,l�4�eip q�olN,wuQ._vBwq I' 1� 1 itIHW—/� .WMC1V-.� .Z.2GI. 2111J12ulJ�lp 1 � —-------- --- � f _..____ ------ O Ar N all CC 2 LLI }oaf � u V; INmow o � u � a � iQ I Q 3Is U Y 3 m n 3 3 w I l I l ❑❑ i _ I I I I I I I II I ' _ I - I ' it � it I I 1 FE-11 i I I � I II 4I I I ui i CO �:. F^ - CO tl W qq- r- '-�'j= I l I I I i i I mI I I ' I 1. oa �� I I _ �. EaE 1A 7 z ' I I � I I - � i MOO ,-000 I I I RED]Z I I a� 0®® O w I Q -, o 0 I I . I I I i I 1 I .................-- _____4ocq9.ouozmv Isionsaid-OIZ-quad',cmils AvpnO_,vmo_TC)C A ---------- lI U NI_�LW3VIA-012AM-, -3--- Xl= V-(D--N=3(PCDO-- U! -led U) I _j i MIS Ul klqpl oi- kf' rc g.m . 0 Lu 4 Z_ Vy , 1. W I I a ; i � Ej jII -zl LB U) CC; LT OT EEI. IE 0I IT F-1 MOD IE f== --= IOC9Cauo B6C9S6 LLB II -;v ------------- IN -Z - - JIO'PIOOOO-'-011l-PIPPILqlgz Z- zv -V.&-N3C]q 2)u C11 C/) N 66 I I IF cr 01- 01 R-� i J x v Lu a C-c-C- -0.0 V)S-)g tD I II LLJ U) �a I I __ lY it I A,M Fool j/�wf L PM [lit 11 1=1 E3 LLJ El ❑ NOV, I- S [Ell I---- ------ rI 00OU a -7- ❑0 0 n1l Ell ET-1 1 z 0 ❑ El oL--- --- - ------ LLI i T.A ,100111 OIODIJU zr1 v G d IDIII CN ,III II oU Wok U r i; uj co CD EE ELEE] I I- k9f,_ +:ldJ is Dd Cc ujjj 631 =1 71 [Ell TI I J, noo Fol CC 41- FE 11 T1 i L= I LL) LL_ ........... ......--- ......... t . 3 Z-Vd- 13`7 X3_ -jN3ANac)11®p fE9 A-3-0 _ _ -- _e faau �,o- 1 j C14 li Cl) _j 0 cr- LLJ 3� I. Lo I a - ! I I I I I I � I . I � � I I _ . I LU cru Em fill 13 I— r4 w-L 3"1 Ir El ,�tm 1 --iX ❑®❑❑ 1� I T 1-1 ro z 01 cc:! ° I ❑ r LU 1 '.j t alvanuctia alm -V&N(D 5N UX3 �N Ir -A- ia -V(D- It ----------- ................ TlRf cli TL Wz 0 F- ty 01 tij i II III 01 it I !I;; it 11 t 7C or t I _-i 1�� l I! IIII�0 ------------ An- ItI Dun It �0gg 1 1 W � l !, II II i �_ -� Ono , fit Q LU II 1 Ilse 9-Iss 4-4 mill it L ll . it tIt JIM; il it ) i �j I I -Ijl it :it E31B II 1 fit II I T �1� I i lh � fiJ-� It LU d'i Wit lit cr. � tH��vda73r.aa un:�wwo� �: Sli -mom uHnaar�seoablko^ f 1 JU114O!I(17 I 8 1 I1 < `u as �Jy60. m0< U6��¢ z CYUpK NC F'YY�Ou Z�wV L� I , ' n L6<O aotrSYJ YN6<YJ26< Y LJOOZ JZ lL - O 02K..0 Omu ZYZLNxO OJO>6V H pZ 10POI OJ IL 25 g •S s @ P Suns $ •2 ggg e, g: ons t 8p zsagg� F b° a °Bp .._ �u_` 01 o� n 3• P� b g Ei pF E{i yyy Duero •..1-...-, � _f' �S Y ' �' O �yp0 (Q'dO�U�Ouy=nJJ2nGC � •err � 1 r---/-��-... ��=..�L t � I Ru jr _ Pc 3 pu 3 � A ,� oq. - � �..�y , �,/ �r� �-� �/ i / ,des. ✓� ��;�.. //�-L�_ _-.._ ' 1 f� F ao� i ocl 13 • - S - J _ I "`=-- � 9 • s 111 ' tel l /i ,/ E' d 1 � r /` /. !� l i / / i / LA/ LA 71-7 z / t. ✓ % • : - O �t � C IA r 1 1 e=' ti �i FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR RELATED APPLICATION SD059004 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAP -COUNTY FILE 4SD059004. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN COUNTY FILE 4DP053101. and REZONE TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT COUNTY FILE#RZ053172: A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated I1 additional AM and PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. 2. Drainage and Flood Control: Condition #65 of this permit requires that the applicant collect and convey all stormwaters entering or originating within the project to an adequate natural or manmade water course. The Final Map may not be filed until the collect and convey requirements and improvements have been met. The site lies within Flood Zone "C". 3. Water and Waste Disposal: The project site is within the Contra Costa Water District and Mountain View Sanitation District service areas. The districts have indicated that capacity exists to support the development. 4. Fire Protection: Prior to the approval of a final map, the applicant is required to demonstrate that all of the proposed development is located within one and one-half miles of a fire station, or that development within the project that is more than one and one-half miles from a fire station shall be required to provide automatic fire sprinkler systems. The nearest station .is Station 9 located at 209 Center Street, Pacheco, CA approximately 1.3 miles away. (Ref. COA 18) 5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station per 1,000 population. The small population increase associated with this project is not significant. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant is required to establish a police services tax district to mitigate the impacts of the development on police services. 6. Parks & Recreation: The proposed project will have a minor cumulative effect on demand for park and recreation facilities, and is subject to payment of park dedication fees in the amount of $2,000 per residential parcel to mitigate impacts. B. Findings for Approval of a Rezoning 1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the general plan, Project Finding: The site is zoned Single Family Residential, (R-7) and has a General Plan designation of Single-Family Residential High-Density (SH) land use. The project site is an under utilized property in a residential neighborhood but due to the steep hillside terrain is vacant. The Planned Unit district, (P-1) is appropriate since it allows the applicant flexibility to design around the hillside while maintaining consistency with the general plan designation of high density land use. The applicant has provided a private tree lined street with sidewalk, guest parking, and landscaping. This coupled with modified architectural details and incorporation of two 2-story home along Hillside Lane, staff has determined that the Planned Unit criteria have been met. 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 County Code specifically lists residential uses as being appropriate for P-1 districts and states that P-1 districts are compatible with the SH land use designation. The subject property lies between Interstate 680 and Blum Road just north of the Blum Road and Pacheco Boulevard intersection. There are residential and commercial uses in the vicinity and along Blum Road. This property is surrounded by small and large lot residential properties and the rezoning to Planned Unit District is appropriate. The adjacent property to the south Tract 8784 has recently been rezoned to Planned Unit 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 County demonstrates a need for housing opportunities of all types. Infill housing developments are needed in order to lessen the pressure to expand housing development into previously undeveloped parts of the County, namely the East County region. This rezoning of this property to P-1 will allow the same density which is consistent with the SH designation while providing a desirable and aesthetically pleasing product. C. Findings to Establish a Planned Unit (P-1)District Adoption of P-1 Zoning and Approval of a Preliminary or Final Development Plan. 1. Required Finding: The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. Project Finding• The applicant has expressed a desire to begin construction immediately after required permits and approvals have been obtained. 2. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County general plan. Project Finding: The general plan designation for the project site is Single-Family Residential High Density. Staff's recommendation of approval for the 11 single family units are consistent with hillside polices 10-24, 10-28, and 10-29 of the General Plan. This density is at the bottom of the range but is appropriate due to the topography of the site. 3. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. Project Finding: This section of Blum Road is characterized by residential development west of Blum with a section of residential east of Blum but the primary use east of Blum is Public/Semi-Public including a Public Works Maintenance Yard and property owned by the Mountain View Sanitary District. The proposed development will be of a higher architectural quality,providing an "open space"area consisting of the lots that have grant deeded the development rights to the steep hillside located south of the proposed houses. J The desirability of the project lies in its utilization of the land to produce housing iiia! is consistent with the zoning and General Plan. The aesthetic quality and lot configuration offer an "open space" area that enhances the project as a whole. The project provides for a density level that falls below the range but due to the extremely steep topography of the site is consistent with the General Plan. The single family residences can provide adequate guest parking and some private yard areas. The addition of the landscaping plan will increase the visual and aesthetic characteristic of the project. This use of an underutilized propero)helps fulfill the County Housing Element within General Plan. D. Approval of Tentative Map • Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative rnap unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. Project Finding: The project is consistent with all the elements of the General Plan. The land use designation is SH, which allows for single-family high-density development. The tentative map is approved for 11 new residential lots on a 1.59-acre parcel, which is on the lower side of the density range and is consistent with the General Plan. • Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Project Finding: Public Works requires that the project comply with collect and convey regulations and design standards for construction of private roads. Improvements include the private road and turnaround (Hillside Lane). The County Geologist stated that the site is suitable for construction from a geologic standpoint with the implementation of the geologic mitigations. E. Variance Findings Approval of Variances • Required Finding: That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of 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. Project Finding: 3-Foot Retaining Walls Maximum, 10-Foot High Retaining Walls Requested: Retaining walls located on adjacent properties are proposed to construct a private road and turnaround far compliance with the standards of the Public Works Department and Contra Costa Fire Protection District. The applicant has worked out an agreement with the adjacent properties to build and maintain this private road and turnaround. The retaining walls are proposed on the project site and on adjacent properties. Walls that are located on the project site do not require variances since the zoning district that is proposed is a Planned Unit District. The standards of P-1 district are established with the approval of the preliminary and final development plans that are reviewed by staff to ensure consistency with applicable General Plan policies; but the zoning codes are flexible to allow for just this type of development. i C Since the retaining walls are proposed within a Single Famiip Residential, (R-7) zoning district variance for the height of the retaining walls are required. Mien developing hillsides retaining walls are used. There are retaining walls that are over three feet in. height used through out this area of Blum Road. Retaining walls were reviewed and approved as apart of Tract 8784 that are over three feet in height. These retaining walls do not constitute a grant of special privilege. 5-Acre Minimum Area Required Establishing a Planned Unit District, 2.59 Acres Requested: Through the designation of this site as a P-1 district, the developer would provide more open area than is normally seen in conventional zoning by grant deeding the development rights of the hillside to the County via a scenic easement. This in combination with the other attributes of the project, (landscaping, sidewalk, and guest parking) meets the objectives of the Planned Unit District. • Required Finding: That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Project Finding: 3-Foot Retaining Walls Maximum, 10-Foot High Retaining Walls Requested: The hillside topography requires the extension of the Hillside Lane to accommodate the new proposed homes. To minimize the overall grading the homes are proposed at the base of the hill which requires the private road to be placed in its present location. Since the steep topography does not allow the road to be placed anywhere else on the property variances are needed to allow retaining walls over three feet in height. The topography deprives this property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. 5-Acre Minimum Area Required to Establish a Planned Unit District, 2.59 Acres Requested: P-I zoning is established for the adjacent southern property and other properties in the immediate vicinity of the project site. P-1 rezoning would most likely be approved for a 5- acre site in this area if the Final Development Plan described development that was consistent with the single-family development pattern in the area. The proposed project is consistent with that development pattern in terms of density but cannot meet the 5-acre minimum required for P-1 districts because of its location and surroundings. • Required Finding: That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Project Finding: 3-Foot Retaining Walls Maximum, 10-Foot High Retaining Walls Requested: The retaining walls will be used in the establishment of a private road and turn around to access I1 single family residences. The property is surrounded by single family residences and the construction of]] more homes meets the intents and purposed of the district. 5-Acre Minimum Area Required to Establish a Planned Unit District, 2.59 Acres Requested: Approval of the variance request would allow a rezoning of the property from R-7 to P-I for the purpose of developing 11 single-family units. Though the R-7 could allow for density specified in the general plan the product prepared by the applicant consists of higher architectural design, lot configuration, and iandscaping aiding in the visual quaiin- and fulfills the purpose and objectives of theP-1 zoning district. The area of "open space"fi•ona the properties that have grant deeded the development rights to the County also are reasons for approval. The P-1 will allow the density to be met while substantially meeting the intent of the land use district. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General 1. This approval is based upon the exhibits received by the Community Development Department generally shown on the revised Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Plan Sheets 1, 2, 3 and 5 dated April 13, 2006 subject to the revised and recommend modifications, Architectural Plans by Arete Inc. dated October 3, 2006 and on the Preliminary Landscape Plan dated November 2005. The approval is also based upon the following reports: A. AEI Consultants,2005. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment(APN# 159- 230-004, 159-240-006, 159-240-005), July 20. B. AEI Consultants,2005. Phase H Subsurface Investigation Report(APN# 159- 230-004), August 25. C. Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., 2005. Blum View Estates-Residential Development Environmental Noise Study,August 22. D. Darwin Myers Associates, 2005. Geologic Peer Review and CEQA Section for Blum View Estates,APN 159-190-024 and-031, and 159-230-004, June 13. E. Diablo Engineers, Inc. (DEI), 2005. Preliminary Geotechnical Report for Subdivision 8784, Blum Road, Pacheco,April 29. F. Ellen, S. D. and Wentworth, C. M., 1995. Hillside Materials and Slopes of the San Francisco Bay Region. US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1357. G. Nilsen,T.H., 1975. Preliminary Photointerpretation Map of Landslide and other Surficial Deposits of the Port Chicago 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Contra Costa and Solano Counties. H. Stewart,Patrick,ISA Certified Arborist, Atlas Tree Service, 2004. Tree Survey for Blum Road, Subdivision 8784, Lots 1-13, Martinez, CA, October 5. 1. Wood Biological Consulting, 2004. Biological Assessment for the Proposed Blum View Estates Project Site, October 21. J. Wood Biological Consulting, 2005. Botanical Survey for Blum View Estates, April 18. 6 2 Approval is Contingent on Consistent Approval of Related Rezoning and Final Development Plan Applications – This subdivision shall be approved contingent upon approval of the rezoning request File # RZO53172 from Single-Family, R-7 to Planned Unit District, P-1 and Final Development File#DP053101. IF the site is not rezoned this approval shall be null and void. Any inconsistencies between the Final Development Plan and the tentative map application will require modification of the tentative map approval prior to any development being authorized. 3. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, issuance of grading permits or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall submit a letter indicating that it will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the Department (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul the Department approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. 4. Compliance Report – At least 45 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of grading permit, which ever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a report on compliance with the conditions of approval with this permit for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The fee for this application is a deposit of $1,000 that is subject to time and materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit, additional fees will be required. A. Except for those conditions administered by the Public Works Department, the report shall list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. The report shall also indicate whether the applicant believes that he has done all the applicant is in a position to do to comply with the applicable condition. (A copy of the computer file containing the conditions of approval may be available; to try to obtain a copy,contact the project planner at 335-1206.) B. Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the condition of this report prior to filing the final map. 5. —` Prior to filing of the final map the applicant shall grant deed all of the development rights over the area south and west of the three foot concrete drainage ditch located directly south of the proposed residences on lots 2, 3 and 5 through 11. The applicant shall supply language of the grant deed and legal description of these proposed lots for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and Public Works Department. The applicant shall provide a deed disclosure to all property owners of lots 2, 3, 5 through 11 that they are responsible for maintenance of the entire property including the area that has been dedicated to the County. Residential Design 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall provide for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a colors and materials sample. The materials submitted shall provide sufficient variation to enhance the subdivision design. The guide for development shall be the Single-Family(R-6)District, subject to the Zoning Administrator's review and approval at the time of issuance of building permits, except as follows: A. Stories Maximum of three stories; except on lots 5 and 8 where 2- '/2 stories are the maximum B. Primary Structure Height Maximum of 35-feet C. Primary Structure Setbacks As generally Shown on Pen-neo Plans 1-4 D. No Accessory Structures are allowed on the property except for small sheds that do not require building permits. 7. Prior to the filing of the final map the applicant shall record a deed disclosure for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that includes the standards for development in Condition of Approval#6 of this permit. Enhanced Architectural Fagades 8. Prior to filing for grading permits the applicant shall submit altematives to the submitted three story designs that provide alternatives that will minimize the bulk of the front elevation and shall incorporate stone(e.g. brick, flagstone) on the lower section of the house and a combination of stucco, siding, and shutters for the upper sections three story residence. The final front elevations shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Additionally, the applicant shall alternative garage door locations rather than all garage doors being located on the left side of the front elevation. Variation to the distance of the garage door from 25-foot access easement shall vary from lot to lot. Alternative Street Names 9.-- Submittal of Alternative Street Names — At least 30 days prior to filing a Final map, three alternative street names for the proposed private road shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Department, Graphics Section (335-1270). The Final Map cannot be certified by the Community Development Department without the approved street names. s Sieht Obstruction at Intersections 10. Prior to the filing of the final map the applicant shall provide evidence for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that project is in compliance with Chapter 82-18. Transportation Demand Ordinance 11. Prior to filing the final map, the applicant shall contact the local transportation, Contra Costa County Connection to determine services presently provided or planned in the future. The applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that the Transportation Demand Ordinance has been fulfilled. Notice of Airport in the Vicinity 12. Prior to filing the final map a deed notification is required to be recorded and submitted to the Community Development Department with the following language: "Notice of Airport in the Vicinily The property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is know as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations and state highways (for example: noise, vibration, and odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the . property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. " High Voltage Wires 13. Disclosure of High Voltage Facilities — Where a lot is located within 300-feet of high voltage electric transmission line, the applicant shall record the following as a deed notification: "The subject property is located near a high voltage electric transmission line. Purchasers should be aware that there is ongoing research on possible potential adverse health effects cause by the exposure to magnetic field generated by high voltage lines. Although much more research is needed before the question of whether magnetic fields actually cause adverse health effects can be resolved, the basis for such a hypothesis is established. At his time no risk assessment has bee made. " When a Final Subdivision Map Report issued by the California Department of Real Estate is required, the applicant shall also request that the Department of Real Estate insert the above note in the report. Q Variance 14. Approval is granted to allow the variances that meet the requirement of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as follows: E The minimum area for establishment of a residential Planned Unit District (P- 1) is five (5) acres. 2.59 acres granted for establishment of a Planned Unit District The maximum height for retaining walls within the yard back is 3-feet. Retaining Walls with a maximum height of 10 feet allowed. Payment of Any Supplemental Application Fees that are Due 15. This application is subject to an initial application fee of($20,204.00), which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs`through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If additional fees are owed, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. Police Service District 16. __ Election for Establishment of a Police Services District to AuLrment Police Services—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 11 residential 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 filing the Final Map. The property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of holding the election, payable at the time the election is requested by the owner. Allow a minimum of three to four months for processing. Fire Protection District 17. Prior to the approval of a final map, the applicant is required to demonstrate that all of the proposed development is located within one and one-half miles of a fire station, or that development within the project that is more than one and one-half miles from a fire station shall be required to provide automatic fire sprinkler systems. IF the project requires fire sprinkler system then a deed disclosure for each new residential lot shall be recorded with the Final Map. This disclosure shall indicate that I0 "The proposed structure has been designed with automatic interior fire- suppression sprinkler system that meets the design standards of the Consolidated Fire Protection District. This provision is required at Ieast in part so as to allow a plan consistency determination associated with the approval of the Blum View Estates subdivision." Restrictions on Development of Sales Model Units 18. _ Prior to the issuance of building permits for construction of sale model units, the applicant shall provide documentation evidencing compliance with the requirements with the Water Conservation in New Developments Ordinance (Chapter 82-26) and Residential Sprinkler System Option Ordinance (718-6). However, all sales model units shall be require to comply with the improvement standards and reporting requirements of the Water Conservation in New Developments Ordinance. Final Landscape Plan 19. Prior to the filing the final map or issuance of grading permits, whichever occurs first, a Final Landscape Plan that has been prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administratdr and shall be incompliance with the County Water Conservation Landscape Ordinance 82-26 and shall be installed prior to approval of final building permit. The plan shall include landscape/irrigation plans that are full- sized and in color that will include plant colors, locations of signs, and retaining walls. Included with the final landscape plan shall be colors and elevations of any and all signage associated with the project. Aesthetics 20. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit a retaining wall plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, for all walls associated with the construction of the private road and turnaround of the project site. These walls shall be constructed of a material and color that would blend into the natural hillside landscape. 21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the outdoor lighting associated with the proposed development shall be designed and located to minimize ambient light levels for any given application, consistent with public safety standards. Lighting shall be placed in areas of pedestrian activity and at building entrances, and shall be minimized elsewhere. Ornamental, pedestrian scale lighting fixtures shall be utilized to the degree possible. Lighting fixtures shall be designed to minimize glare and the direct view of light sources. No lighting shall blink, flash or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. (Mitigation Measure—Aesthetics 1) Air Quality 22. _ Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit and throughout construction for all construction contracts the following measures shall be implemented at all ii construction sites for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator to ensure these measures have been incorporated into the construction plans: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily(preferably with water sweepers)all paved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily(preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. • Hydroseed or apply(non=toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply(non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. (Mitigation Measure—Air 1) Biology 23. Prior to any site disturbance and if land-clearing activities are to commence between February 1 and August 15, a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The purpose of the preconstruction survey would be to determine if occupied nests are present within the zone of influence of the project. If land-clearing activities are performed outside of the nesting season, that is, between August 16 and January 31, no preconstruction surveys for nesting raptors are warranted. The survey area should include all large trees, grassland, and scrub habitat within 250 feet of the limits of work. If any occupied raptor nests are found within the zone of influence, grading and construction shall be prohibited within an adequate setback(generally 250-feet), as approved by a qualified biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. Work within the setback would have to be delayed until after the young have fledged, as determined during surveys by a qualified biologist, or until after the nesting season, as described above. (Mitigation Measure—Biology 1) 24. Prior to any site disturbance and if land-clearing activities are to commence between February 1 and August 15, a pre-construction survey for nesting passerines shall be conducted prior to the destruction of any suitable nesting habitat. The survey area should include all trees, bushes, grassland and structures within 100 feet of the limits of work. If land-clearing activities can be performed outside the nesting season, that is, between August 16 and January 31, no surveys for nesting passerines would be warranted. If any occupied passerine nests are found within the zone of influence, grading and construction shall be prohibited 12 within an adequate setback (generally, 75 to 100 feet), as approved by a qualifies biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. Work within the setback would have to be delayed until after the young have fledged, as determined during surveys by a qualified biologist, or until after the nesting season, as described above. (Mitigation Measure—Biology 2) 25. Prior to the initiation of any grading, a survey for suitable ground burrows shall be preformed by a qualified biologist. Survey protocol calls for walking transects over the property affording 100 percent visual cover of the site. If no suitable ground burrows are observed, grading may proceed. If suitable ground burrows are present, a qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction nesting burrowing owl survey following California Department of Fish and Game protocols, which call for the performance of four crepuscular (early morning or late evening) surveys. Any active nests must not be disturbed until the young have fledged. Compensation of habitat loss, at a mitigation ratio to be determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game,would be required. Areas of bare ground or with grasses less than six inches in height may attract burrowing owls during the winter season. If construction resumes after a period of construction inactivity following clearing, a habitat evaluation of the site should be conducted prior to ground disturbance the following season to determine burrowing owl occupancy. All burrows containing active nests shall be identified by flagging, and shall be protected by a no-disturbance buffer zone of 250 feet. (Mitigation Measure—Biology 3) Cultural 26. If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during project construction activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist shall be contracted to evaluate the discoveries and make recommendations regarding their potential significance and extent throughout the site. If such deposits cannot be avoided, they shall be evaluated for their California and National Register eligibility. If the deposits are not eligible, additional mitigation is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, they shall be avoided or adverse project effects shall be mitigated. Upon completion of the archaeologist's evaluation, a report shall be prepared documenting the methods and results of the research, and recommendations for additional mitigation. The report should be submitted to the County of Contra Costa and the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University. (Mitigation Measure — Cultural 1) 27. If paleontological resources are encountered during subsurface construction activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist can evaluate the finds and make recommendations. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, they shall be avoided by project construction activities and recovered by a qualified paleontologist. Upon completion of the recovery, a paleontological assessment shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further monitoring for paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include: 1) the results of any geotechnical investigation prepared for the project site; 2) specific i3 details of the construction pians for the project site; 3) background research; and 4) limited subsurface investigation within the project site. If a high potential to encounter paleontological resources is confirmed, a monitoring plan of further project subsurface construction shall be prepared in conjunction with this assessment. After project subsurface construction has ended, a report documenting monitoring, methods, findings, and further recommendations regarding paleontological resources shall be prepared and submitted to the County Community Development Department. (Mitigation Measure—Cultural 2) 28._ If human remains are encountered at any point during project construction, work shall halt and the Contra Costa County Coroner shall be notified immediately. In addition, the archaeological monitor shall be contacted to examine the situation. If human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. (Mitigation Measure—Cultural 3) Geology 29. Prior to recordation of the VTM, all grading and drainage plans are subject to review of the County Geologist and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. All graded slopes shall be contour rounded to mimic natural terrain features, and the project shall have an efficient drainage system. The plans shall be prepared by appropriately licensed professionals. (Mitigation Measure Geology 1) 30. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, provide a grading remediation plan and report for the review of the County Geologist, and review and approval of the Building Inspection Department (""BID"). The report shall evaluate hillsides whose performance could affect planned improvements. Specifically, the drainage swale on proposed Lots 5-8 shall be subject to this requirement. The analysis shall include additional borings and laboratory test data. The slope stability analysis shall be performed for both static and dynamic conditions using an appropriate pseudo-static horizontal ground acceleration coefficient for earthquakes on the Concord and Hayward faults in accordance with standard practice as outlined in DMG Special Pub. 117, 1997. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 2) 31. All measures identified in the approved geotechnical reports to provide for slope stability shall be incorporated into the final grading plans. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project geotechnical engineer shall review the plans to verify that these measures are incorporated and that there is no unacceptable hazard from unstable slopes or post-development differential settlement. (Mitigation Measure —Geology 3) 32. _ Concurrently with recordation of the VTM, record a statement to run with deeds to the property acknowledging the geotechnical study by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to conclusions, including the long-tern maintenance requirements, and noting that the report is available to prospective buyers from seller of the parcel. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 4) 14 33. Grading, improvement, erosion control and building plans shall employ, as appropriate, the following surface drainage measures in construction: concrete- lined ditches to carry runoff; both cut slopes in bedrock and fill slopes in excess of 8 feet high shall be graded to 2.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter; cut slopes in colluvium or soils shall be graded to 3:1 (maximum; positive grading of building pads for removal of surface water from foundation areas; individual pad drainage; avoidance of sprinkler systems (as opposed to drip irrigation systems) in the immediate vicinity of foundations; grading of slopes to eliminate over-the-bank runoff; and re-vegetation of permanent slopes. Interim protective measures for runoff shall be followed during the construction phases when slopes are most susceptible to erosion. The final design shall incorporate subsurface drainage measures, including the installation of subsurface drains within major new fills and landslide repair area. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 5) 34. During grading, the geotechnical engineer shall observe and approve all keyway excavations, removal of compressible colluvium materials down to stable bedrock or in-place material, and installation of all subdrains including their connections. All fill slope construction shall be observed and tested by the project geotechnical engineer, and the density test results and reports submitted to the County to be kept on file. Cut slopes and keyways shall be periodically observed and mapped by the project geotechnical engineers who will provide any required slope modification recommendations based on the actual geologic conditions encountered during grading. Written approval from the Contra Costa County BID shall be obtained prior to any modification. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 6) 35. During stripping operations, topsoil shall be salvaged for future use as a dressing on final graded slopes that are within the deed restricted open space. Specifically, approximately 6 inches of topsoil shall be track-walked on the final graded slopes that are within the deed-restricted open space. (Mitigation Measure— Geology 7) 36._ During grading, unstable colluvial soils and landslide deposits within developed portions of the properties shall be re-graded to effectively remove the potential for seismically induced landslides in these materials, as recommended in the approved geotechnical reports. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 8) 37._ Prior to issuance of building permits for residences within this subdivision, submit an as-graded report of the engineering geologist and the geotechnical engineer with a map prepared by a civil engineer showing engineering geology/lithology details of cut pads and keyways, final plans and grades for any buttress fill with its keyway, subsurface drainage, subdrain cleanouts, disposal and pickup points, and any other soil improvements installed during grading, as surveyed by the project survey or civil engineer, and in accordance with requirements of the geotechnical engineer. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 9) 38._ All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season (April 15 through October 15) only, and all areas of exposed soils shall.be replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15, only erosion control work shall be allowed by the grading permit. Any modification to the above schedule shall be subject to review by the Grading Section of the Building i5 Inspection Department and the review and approval of the Zoning A ciminisnator. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 10) 39. Prior to issuance of the building permits, submit a final geotechnical report providing design and construction measures, where appropriate, to minimize expansive soil effects on dwellings (e.g., pad overcutting to provide uniform swell potential; and soil subgrade moisture treatment). The required report shall also provide design criteria for differential fill thickness lots and differential settlement, and shall include provisions for geotechnical monitoring to verify compliance with foundation recommendations. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 11) 40. Prior to issuance of building permits chemical testing of representative building pad soils shall be submitted to determine the level of corrosion protection required for steel and concrete materials used for construction.The following measures shall be implemented where appropriate to protect against corrosion: use of sulfate- resistant concrete and use of protective linings to encase steel piping buried in native soils. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 12) Hazards 41.^ Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall complete a detailed survey that identifies the exact location of the 16-foot pipeline easement. The boundaries of the easement area shall be clearly marked during construction activities to ensure that the construction personnel know when they are working within or close to the easement so that they may use proper precautions. (Mitigation Measure—Hazards 1) 42. _ To alert potential buyers to the existence of the pipeline and associated hazards, deed notification shall be filed for every residential parcel within 50-feet of the pipeline easement. The notification shall clearly indicate that the pipeline, though currently not in use, has explosive potential and that an accident involving the pipeline could cause extensive damage to private property as well as serious person injury or death. (Mitigation Measure—Hazards 2) Hydrology 43. The applicant shall construct storm facilities, both on- and, if necessary, off-site in accordance with the drainage requirements of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9) to adequately convey storm water run off from the project site to an acceptable receiving facility or watercourse. (Mitigation Measure — Hydrology 1) Utilities 44. Implementation of conditions of approval 30 through 32 (Mitigation Measures Biological 1, 2, and 3) would reduce potential impacts to the special-status animals to less than significant levels. (Mitigation Measure—Utilities 1) Child Care 16 45. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay a fee of$400.00 per lot/unit toward childcare facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. Park Dedication 46. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of$2,000 per residential unit. Construction 47. Construction Period Development Activity Restrictions — Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction noise, dust, litter, and traffic control requirements: A. Time Limits on Construction Activity - All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: New Year's Day(State and Federal) Birthday of Martin Luther King,Jr. (State and Federal) Washington's Birthday/Presidents' Day(State and Federal) Lincoln's Birthday(State) Cesar Chavez Day(State) Memorial Day(State and Federal) Independence Day (State and Federal) Labor Day(State and Federal) Columbus Day(State and Federal) Veterans Day(State and Federal) Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal) Day after Thanksgiving(State) Christmas Day (State and Federal) The following websites provide specific details on the actual days that the state and federal holidays occur: Federal Holidays hqp://www.opm.gov/fedhol/ California Holidays hitt://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers that are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generation equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible. C. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. 1. D. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and is prohibited on state and federal holidays. E. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. F. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post at 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 also be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles and the 24-hour emergency number shall be expressly identified on the notice. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. Recourse in the Event of Two Confirmed Violations of Permitted Times for Construction Activity Upon a finding by the Zoning Administrator that there are two confirmed violations of the conditions of approval relating to construction activity, the applicant is responsible for paying all County costs to retain a monitor to ensure that work hours and other restrictions are adhered to. This may involve the monitor being present during off-work hours, before and after permitted work hours, and on weekends. Violations would be subject to a Stop Work Order and notice of possible revocation of permit approval. Inclusion of Time Limits on Improvement/Construction Plan Notes—Prior to clearance of improvement plans (including subdivision, grading,building),the notes for the plans shall include the above time limits on construction activity. 18 PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 05- 9004/PERMIT DP 05-3101 COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP General Requirements: 48. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions there from must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. The drainage, road and utility improve- ments outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the revised Tentative Map received by the Community Development Department on April 13, 2006. 49. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the Transpor- tation Engineering Division. Roadway Improvements—Blum Road 50. Applicant shall construct a street-type connection with minimum 20-foot radii curb returns at the intersection of Hillside Lane and Blum Road. Roadway Improvements—Hillside Lane(off-site) 51. Applicant shall improve existing Hillside Lane to have a minimum 20-foot pavement width within the existing 30-foot wide access and Utility easement, as shown on the revised tentative map. Applicant shall construct curb, a minimum 4-foot wide sidewalk, and necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage facilities. Sidewalk will only be required on one side of the roadway. Roadway Improvements—Hillside Lane(on-site) 52. Applicant shall construct an on-site private roadway extending Hillside Lane to current County Private Road Standards with a minimum traveled way width of 20 feet within a 26.5-foot right of way easement and an additional 10-foot public utility easement, as shown on the revised Tentative Map. The applicant shall construct curb, gutter, and a minimum 4-foot wide sidewalk on one side of the street, and necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage. Although the street is to remain private, it shall be constructed to County public road standards as to horizontal and vertical alignment, as well as the pavement structural section. The turnaround proposed at the roadway terminus shall conform to Public Works and Fire District standards. 53. Applicant shall develop and enter into a maintenance agreement that will insure that the proposed private road will be maintained and that each lot in this subdivision that will use the proposed private road will share in its maintenance. Roadway Improvements—Private Road(on-site) 19 54. Applicant shall construct an on-site private roadway to serve proposed Lots 1-4 to current County Private Road Standards. The private road shall feature a minimum traveled way width of 20 feet within a 25-foot access and utility easement, and additional minimum 5-foot public utility easements on either side, as shown on the revised Tentative Map. The applicant shall construct curb, gutter, and a minimum 4.5-foot wide sidewalk on one side of the street. Although the street is to remain private, it shall be constructed to County public road standards as to horizontal and vertical alignment, as well as the pavement structural section. The turnaround proposed at the roadway terminus shall conform to Public Works and Fire District standards. 55. Applicant shall construct a street-type connection with minimum 20-foot radii curb returns at the intersection of the proposed private road and Hillside Lane. 56. Applicant shall obtain all necessary rights and/or easements to construct improvements, including grading, on adjacent properties. Access to Adjoining Property: Proof of Access 57. Applicant shall furnish necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site,temporary or permanent,public and private road and drainage improvements. Encroachment Permit 58. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center, if necessary, for construction of any improvements within the right of way of Blum Road. Parking: 59. On-site street parking shall be prohibited wherever the curb-to-curb pavement width is less than 28 feet. "No Parking" signs and pavement markings shall be installed along these portions of the on-site roadway system, including the turnaround areas, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Sight Distance: 60. Applicant shall provide sight distance at the intersection of Hillside Lane and Blum Road and for a through traffic design speed of 30 mph. 61. Applicant shall provide sight distance at the intersection of the on-site private road and Hillside Lane for a design speed of 15 miles per hour. Landscaping, walls, fences, signs, or other obstructions must be placed to maintain adequate sight distance. Utilities/Und ergrounding: 62. All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Maintenance of Facilities: 63. 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 roadways. 20 Pedestrian Facilities: 64. 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. Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey 65. 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. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 66. Applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the Ordinance Code and Public Works Design Standards. 67. Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. 68. Any surface or subsurface storm drain facility within the subdivision conveying runoff from private streets or more than one parcel shall be installed within a minimum 10-foot wide private storm drain easement. Restricted Development Areas 69. Applicant shall grant deed development rights to Contra Costa County over the rear portions of, Lots 2, 3, and 5 through 11. The limits of the restricted development area should be from the site boundaries (southern and eastern) to the 3-foot wide concrete ditch proposed at the back of each residence. The purpose of this restricted development area is to prevent the construction of future improvements in the unimproved portions of the proposed lots. Considering that any additional development beyond that proposed in the revised tentative map may increase the overall impervious area beyond the l acre threshold currently used to trigger the submittal of a Storm Water Control Plan, restricted development rights would ensure clean water ordinance limits are not exceeded. 70. Property Owner shall record a deed notification to notify all future property owners, with the exception of the owner of Lot 1, of the restricted development area at the rear of their property. The deed notification shall inform the property owner that no impervious surfaces can be placed within the designated restricted development area. Provision "C.3" of the NPDES Permit 71. In compliance with the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, it has been determined that this project does not require submittal of a Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP). New or redeveloped impervious surface area proposed in this application totals less than one acre (43,560 square feet),'which is the threshold for submittal of a SWCP. However, this project is 21 required to incorporate storm water quality elements to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEPi. This must include efforts to limit new impervious surface area, limit directly connected impervious areas, provide for self retaining areas and include other Best Management Practices to the MEP. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): 72. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules,regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay Region or Central Valley Region). Compliance will include developing long-term best management practices (BMP's) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate, where feasible, some or all of the following long term BMP's in accordance with the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage: Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins. Slope pavements to direct runoff to landscaped/pervious-areas,where feasible. Shallow roadside and on-site swales Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to buyers. Other alternatives as approved by the Public Works Department. 22 ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90- day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication,reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit,begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. 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 11). C. 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. D. 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. E. This subdivision will be subject to compliance with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements.for the Martinez Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of building permits. F. Applicant shall comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 57 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to filing a Final Map. G. Portions of this project are located in a Special Flood Hazard Area as designated on the Federal Emergency Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2000-33) as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. H. Comply with the requirements of the Mt. View Sanitary District. I. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Water District. J. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District. K. Comply with the requirements of the County Office of the Sheriff. L. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Permits are required prior to grading and construction. The fees include but are not limited to the following: Park Dedication $2,000 per residence. Child Care $400 per residence. An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by contacting the Building Inspection Department. M. Police Service District Costs and Necessary Processing Time—The applicant is advised that the tax for the police services district is currently set by the Board of Supervisors at $200 per parcel annually (with appropriate future Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments). The annual fee is subject to modification by the Board of Supervisors in the future. The current fee for holding the election is $800 and is also subject to modification in the future. The applicable tax and fee amounts will be those established by the Board at the time of voting. The applicant is advised that the election process takes from 3 to 4 months and must be completed prior to recording the Final Map. N. 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 July of 2005,the date the vesting tentative map application was accepted as complete by the Community Development Department. The vested rights also apply 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. SDO59004-- 10/3/06 rah G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\SD059004_COA.doc 1•% COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS October 10, 2006 August 8, 2006 Agenda Item Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10. 2006— 7:00 PM Hillside Estates L INTRODUCTION Golden Oak Development(Applicant&Owners), This project consists of three applications: A. County File #RZ053172 —A request for approval to rezone the property from Single Family Residential, R-7 to Planned Unit District, P-1, for eleven homes. The applicant requests approval for a variance to the minimum area to establish a Planned Unit District(2.59 acres requested, 5-acres required) B. County File #SD059004 — A request for approval of a vesting tentative map to subdivide a 2.59-acre property into eleven single-family residential lots. The average lot size is approximately 8500 square feet. C. County File #DP053101 A request for approval of a preliminary and final development plan to establish 11-single family residences (2200-2400 square feet in size). Additionally, variances for ten foot (maximum) retaining walls within the yard setbacks are requested on two adjacent parcels. These walls are necessary for the construction of a turnaround at the end of the private road. The subject site is located at 150 Hillside Lane in the Martinez area. (Zoning: Planned Unit District,P-1) (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 159-190-007). II. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to: A. That on the basis of the whole record before it, including the Initial Study and the comments received, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis. The documents or other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based may be found at the Community Development Department, 651 Pine. Street, Martinez, CA under the custodian of the project planner, Ryan Hernandez(925) 335-1206. B. Find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for the project and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Hillside Estates C. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors: 1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for this project for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 2. Adopt the findings and approve the proposed rezoning to the Planned Unit (P-1) District. 3. Adopt the findings and approve the proposed Final Development Plan with conditions. D. Approve the tentative map, including a condition that makes approval contingent on Board of Supervisors adoption of the proposed P-1 rezoning and the Preliminary and Final development applications. III. BACKGROUND The Commission opened the public hearing and took testimony on August 8, 2006 and motioned to continue this item to allow the applicant and staff to work out differences with respect to the previous staff recommendation to eliminate one lot due to site plan and elevation differences. The Commission directed staff to return upon reaching a mutually agreeable solution. Staff is satisfied with the proposed modified plans dated October 3, 2006 (attached). The incorporation of two 2-story homes on lot 5 and lot 8 (in place of the 3-story homes that previously lined Hillside Lane)breaks the monotonous effect that the proposed three story homes created. The addition of larger porches that now feature a front gabled roof design also eliminates the "wall" effect from the street. The larger porches also deemphasize the garages. This coupled with the slight increase in elevation along Hillside Lane and the previously proposed landscape plan creates a project that is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit District. rV. CONCLUSION With the proposed modifications described above staff recommends approval of the proposed eleven lot subdivision. These modifications allow staff to make the required findings for approval of the rezoning to the Planned Unit District. rah 10/3/06 G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\SD059004_10-1 OSR.doc S-2 Hillside Esrares C. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors: 1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for this proiect for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Qualiry Act and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 2. Adopt the findings and approve the proposed rezoning to the Planned Unit (P-1 j Distract. 3. Adopt the findings and approve the proposed Final Development Plan with conditions. D. Approve the tentative map, including a condition that makes approval contingent on Board of Supervisors adoption of the proposed P-1 rezoning and the Preliminary and Final development applications. III. BACKGROUND The Commission opened the public hearing and took testimony on August 8, 2006 and motioned to continue this item to allow the applicant and staff to work out differences with respect to the previous staff recommendation to eliminate one lot due to site plan and elevation differences. The Commission directed staff to return upon reaching a mutually agreeable solution. Staff is satisfied with the proposed modified plans dated October 3, 2006 (attached). The incorporation of two 2-story homes on lot 5 and lot 8 (in place of the 3-story homes that previously lined Hillside Lane) breaks the monotonous effect that the proposed three story homes created. The addition of larger porches that now feature a front gabled roof design also eliminates the "wall" effect from the street. The larger porches also deemphasize the garages. This coupled with the slight increase in elevation along Hillside Lane and the previously proposed landscape plan creates a project that is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit District. IV. CONCLUSION With the proposed modifications described above staff recommends approval of the proposed eleven lot subdivision. These modifications allow staff to make the required findings for approval of the rezoning to the Planned Unit District. rah 10/3/06 G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\SD059004_10-1 OSR.doc I,\1 S-2 Agenda Item# . —�- Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY,AUGUST 8, 2006—7:00 PM Hillside Estates I. INTRODUCTION Golden Oak Development(Applicant&Owners), This project consists of three applications: A. County File #RZ053172 —A request for approval to rezone the property from Single Family Residential, R-7 to Planned Unit District, P-1, for eleven homes. The applicant requests approval for a variance to the minimum area to establish a Planned Unit District(2.59 acres requested, 5-acres required) B. County File #SD059004 — A request for approval of a vesting tentative map to subdivide a 2.59-acre property into eleven single-family residential lots. The average lot size is approximately 8500 square feet. C. County File #DP053101 — A request for approval of a preliminary and final development plan to,establish 11-single family residences (2200-2400 square feet in size). Additionally, variances for ten foot (maximum) retaining walls within the yard setbacks are requested on two adjacent parcels. These walls are necessary for the construction of a turnaround at the end of the private road. The subject site is located at 150 Hillside Lane in the Martinez area. (Zoning: Planned Unit District, P-1) (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 159-190-007). II. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to: A. That on the basis of the whole record before it, including the Initial Study and the comments received, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis. The documents or other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based may be found at the Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA under the custodian of the project planner, Ryan Hernandez(925) 335-1206. B. Find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for the project and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. C. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors: Hillside Estates 1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for this project for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 2. Adopt the findings and approve the proposed rezoning to the Planned Unit (P-1) District. 3. Adopt the findings and approve the proposed Final Development Plan with conditions. D. Approve the tentative map with the elimination of lot 11, including a condition that makes approval contingent on Board of Supervisors adoption of the proposed P-1 rezoning and the Preliminary and Final development applications. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting_ The proposed project is surrounded by large and small lot, single-family rural and suburban development to the north,northeast, and south. Interstate 680(I-680) is located over 500-feet west of the site. North. The northern adjacent property is currently being processed for a two lot minor subdivision, County File MS060020. Beyond that the area adjacent to Blum Road, is an existing, rural single-family neighborhood. Northwest of the project site is an additional 9.08-acre vacant parcel located at the end of Emshee Lane that is also designated for future . single-family development. Further north, beyond the large-lot rural single-family development is a trailer storage park that is bound on its northwestern edge by the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe railroad. East. Across Blum Road, to the east, is the Contra Costa County Public Works Maintenance and Corporation Yard (County Yard). Southeast of the project site, and south of the County Yard, is Seasons Cemetery. Northeast of the project site, and north of the County Yard, is additional single-family development. South. Immediately south and west of the project site, is an approved 11.56 acre 27 lot subdivision (Tract 8784) that is currently vacant. South of this project are additional single family residential lots. West. Beyond Tract 8784 lies the Contra Costa Canal, which is bound further west by Interstate 680 (500-feet). B. Existing Conditions and Setting. The project is generally located on the northeastern side of a hilltop with steep, north-facing slopes extending from the crown of the hill. The property is 2.59 acres in size and nearly 70 percent of the site has a slope of 26 percent or greater. Elevations on the project site range from 71 to 178 above mean sea level. The project is the shape of a skewed rectangle, with the western property line approximately doubles the length of the eastern property line. The existing project site is vacant and undeveloped, and is comprised of native and non- native grasses (e.g., wild oats, black mustard, creeping wild rye, narrow-leaf milkweed) and . trees (i.e., Almond and Black Walnut). S-2 Files#RZ053172,DP053101,SD059004 County Planning Commission Tuesday,August 8,2006 Access is provided via a private road (Hillside Lane) extending west from Blum Road which intersects with Pacheco Boulevard approximately '/-mile to the south. To the west and south is an approved subdivision consisting of 27 new lots, 23 of which would be developed with new, detached, single-family residences. One of the new parcels is currently developed with a single-family residence, fronting Blum Road, and would remain as such when the 23 new units are constructed. Two of the remaining lots would be dedicated as open space, and the final lot would be a remainder lot that could be developed with similar single-family units in the future. To the east is the Contra Costa County Public Works Maintenance and Corporation Yard. Further north, at the northern terminus of Blum Road, is a paved trailer park. To the southeast east is the Seasons Cemetery. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Treatment Facility is located approximately '/4-mile southeast of the project site, and Buchanan Field Airport is located approximately'/4-mile to the southeast. The northern portion of the project site is traversed by an existing 16-foot fuel line easement. The fuel line under laying the easement, referred to as the Ozul fuel pipeline, is owned by the United States Air Force.' The 8-inch pipeline was used to transport petroleum from a Concord pump station to a petroleum storage facility in Martinez for approximately 40 years? In 1999, petroleum operations were terminated and the pipeline was drained, cleaned, and pressure tested to assess if leaks were present, of which, none were identified.' To control internal erosion, the pipeline is filled with nitrogen gas. To control external erosion, a cathodic protection system is operated.4 The Defense Logistic Agency (DLA) manages the pipeline, and is responsible for any monitoring and cleanup activities related to the pipeline.' The General Plan designation for the site is Single-Family Residential High (SH), which allows 5.0 to 7.2 dwelling units per net acre, and the site is zoned R-7 (Single-Family Residential with 6.2 units/acre). The proposed project would develop the site with single- family lots ranging from 3,580 square feet (net) to 13,123 square feet (net) for an average lot size of approximately 8,500 square feet, or 5.120 units per net acre, consistent with the General Plan designation for the site. C. General Plan. Single-Family High Density (SH). D. Existing Zoning. R-7 (6.2 units/acre). E. Adjacent Residential Project. In April of 2006, the adjacent property to the south, obtained approval of a 27 lot subdivision, final development plan and rezone to construct 23 single- family residences with associated landscaping,private roadway and parking areas. AEI Consultants,2005. Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report for 24-Acre Vacant Parcel,APN 159-230-004, Martinez, California,94553,August 25. z Ibid. a Ibid. "Ibid. 'Ibid. S-3 Hillside Estates F. Regulatory Programs. 1. 60 dba Noise Control: To quantify the existing noise environment at the project site, Charles M. Salter and Associates conducted noise measurements for a continuous period of 42 to 48 hours. The measurements were taken at various locations to determine how noise levels vary at different lots throughout the project site. Based on the measurements, the dominant noise source in the area is vehicular traffic along Interstate 680(I-680). To a lesser extent, noise from aircraft flyovers and Blum Road also contribute to the existing noise environment. IV. PROPOSED PROJECT The following section describes the proposed residential project,its associated site improvements and preparation, construction and phasing, and requested entitlement approvals. A. Residential Development. The proposed project consists of 11 new, detached, single-family residences on individual lots. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is being requested by the applicant to subdivide one existing parcel,totaling 2.59 acres, into 11 new lots, with an average lot size of 8,500 square feet. Individual parcels would vary from 3,580 to 13,123 (net) square feet,resulting in a net residential density of 5.12 units per acre. A Final Development Plan is also requested to establish building footprints, setbacks, lot coverage/floor area ratio, site improvements, and building design, architecture and detailing. The residential lots would be located on the north side of the new roadway intended to service the development. The applicant has proposed four house plans that would be interspersed throughout the 11 new residential lots, each providing three-story houses with a maximum height of 35-feet. Each floor plan, ranging from 2200 to 2400 square feet (not including garage), would provide 4 bedrooms, a two car garage, 2.5 bathrooms. Parking would be provided on the lowest story of the three-story home. B. Landscape. 15 trees, existing Almond and Black Walnut trees located on the site would be removed as a part of the approval of the Final Development Plan, in accordance with the Tree Protection & Preservation Ordinance. A conceptual landscape plan for the residential development is on file with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. All front yards and slope areas would be landscaped at the time of initial construction. Similar landscaping would be planted at the entries to each residence, street trees would be planted along Hillside Lane, and other groundcovers, accent plants, shade trees, and screening trees would be planted on the site. "Good neighbor" fences (finished both sides) would be built along side lot lines, and Versaloc retaining walls would be integrated throughout the site, but would generally be located behind and between units, thereby hidden from public view. Where visible, retaining walls would be of decorative design with a"versa-loc" style. C. Transportation and Circulation. The project would be designed such that an existing private road, entitled Hillside Lane, would extend and provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the new houses, extending westward from Blum Road and terminating at turn around in the northwestern portion of the site. The new road would be located along the northern edge of the developed portion of the project site, and would be improved to provide a sidewalk on one side (i.e., southern edge), as well as curbs and gutters to facilitate stormwater drainage. Hillside Lane would be designed to accommodate one vehicular lane, curbs and gutters, and a sidewalk on the south side. The overall right-of-way would be 30-feet wide, with a curb to curb width of 20 feet wide. Each residence would have covered parking within a two-car garage, as well as S-4 Files#RZ053172,DP053101,SD059004 County Planning Commission Tuesday,August 8,2006 driveway width and length large enough to accommodate two, uncovered parked vehicles. In addition 10-guest parking spaces are provided along the street in the six spaces provided in the northwestern corner of the subdivision and four spaces in the southeast portion of the site. Infrastructural utilities (i.e., sanitary sewer, potable water, gas, and electricity) would be extended from Blum Road via underground conduits in Hillside Lane to each of the new residences. D. Site Preparation. Site preparation would include removal of 15 trees, and extensive hillside grading and slope stabilization to develop the 11 new residential pads and roadway alignment. The project has been designed to minimize grading qualities and depth to the greatest extent possible given the greater than 26 percent northeastern facing slopes of the site since the residences are proposed closer to the base of the hill. E. Construction and Phasing. Details of the construction and phasing are not known at this time, but re anticipated taking approximately 15 to 18 months once construction of the units commences. V. AGENCY COMMENTS A. County Geologist: In a report dated March 30, 2006, the County Planning Geologist reported on his peer review evaluation of the soils report submitted with the application. The report was provided by Terrasearch Inc. provides adequate geologic and geotechnical data sufficient to define the landslide and grading impacts and to identify detailed mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring Program that is attached does include the soils mitigations. B. Airport Land Use Commission: The memorandum dated July 1, 2004, indicates that the project site is within the Buchanan Airfield Influence Area and the Airspace Protection Contours. The Airport Influence Area encompasses location commonly over flown by aircraft as they approach and depart the airport or fly within the traffic pattern. A deed disclosure for the project is recommended that indicates to potential homebuyers these homes are located within the Airport Vicinity. This recommendation has been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval (SUB COA#XX) C. Contra Costa County Health Services (Hazardous Materials Programs): In a memorandum dated January 26, 2006, attached, the Hazardous Materials Programs suggests the applicant provide the Community Development Department mitigation options to reduce the potential hazard of the pipeline, specifically if it is placed back into service. D. Other Public Agencies: Comments were received from the Contra Costa Fire Protection District, the Office of the Sheriff, Martinez Unified School District, and the Mountain View Sanitary District. These agency comments are attached to the staff report and do not provide any significant land use concerns with the project but rather provide requirements that are to be fulfilled by the applicant. S-5 Hillside Estates VI. STAFF ANALYSIS &DISCUSSION A, Consistency with General Plan Policies • Land Use Element—General The proposal is consistent with the following general Land Use Element policies: Policy 3-8: Infilling of already developed areas shall be encouraged—In accommodating new development, preference shall generally be given to vacant or underused sites within urbanized areas, which have necessary utilities installed with available remaining capacity, before undeveloped suburban lands are utilized. Policy 3-16.- Community appearance shall be upgraded by encouraging redevelopment, where appropriate, to replace inappropriate uses. Policy 3-28: New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where it will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment and upon the existing community. • Land Use Element—Policies for the Vine Hill/Pacheco Area: This project does not conflict with any of the outlined policies in the specific Vine Hill/Pacheco Area land use element of the General Plan. • Noise Element: Policy 11-5; pertains to development in residential areas that are subject to single events such as nearby Buchanan Field Airport. The project should be designed so that indoor noise levels due to these single events shall not exceed a maximum A-weighted noise level of 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other habitable rooms. The applicant shall show compliance by including needed noise insulation features included in the design. B. Proposed Zoning (P-1): The site is 2.59 acres in size. The minimum area required to establish a Planned Unit District is five acres, therefore, the site requires a variance. See Variance Findings in the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval "5-Acre Minimum Area Required Establishing a Planned Unit District, 2.59 Acres Requested." Staff has reviewed the lot layout proposed for the three story homes. The project is a conventional "cut and fill" development with cuts of 4,800 cubic yards and fill of 8,050 cubic yards for a total import of 3,250 cubic yards. The site currently requires grading and retaining walls that reach a maximum height of eleven feet. To that extent the houses have been designed to be three stories with the garage being located on the ground level and living space on the upper two levels. 70 percent of this site has a slope of 26 percent or greater and the topography significantly limits the placement of the proposed residences and roadway. Staff has determined that the proposed location of the homes is the only feasible location that would not require additional cutting and filling of the hillside. There are General Plan Policies in the Safety Element that S-6 Files#RZ053172,DPO53101,SDO59004 County Planning Commission Tuesday, August 8,2006 guide development of hillsides. Policy 10-24 states that development on open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County shall be restricted and hillsides with a grade of 26 percent or greater shall be protected through implementing zoning measures and other appropriate actions. Policy 10-29 states that very steep hillsides shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading. Policy 10-28 states that residential density is to decrease as slopes increases above 15 percent. The applicant's geotechnical report indicates that the project is feasible. The peer review by the County Geologist incorporates 12 mitigations to ensure that consistency in maintained with the General Plan. Notwithstanding the applicant's geotechnical report, staff has determined that the proposed project should be modified in order for staff to support the objectives of the Planned Unit District. Lots 1-7 appear to be designed in a manner that supports these objectives, however, Lot 11 does not provide or meet the objectives of the P-1 ordinance. To that extent staff recommends that the layout of lots numbered 8-11 be reconfigured to accommodate three lots instead of four, essentially eliminating lot 11. With the elimination of lot 11 the reconfigured lots (8, 9, and 10) can now provide useable yard area. The landscaping, sidewalks, and a tree lined private-street along with condition of approval number 9 to enhance the front elevations and make them less bulky shall provide a streetscape that will meet the planned unit district objectives. Final designs elevations shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. C. Density: The property has 2.49 acres gross and 2.149 acres net. The General Plan distinguishes between gross and net to determine the sites density range, in this case the range is 10.74 to 15.47. The project as proposed falls on the lower end of the density range with 11 lots. Though the 10 lot recommendation falls below the density range staff has determined that it complies with policies which allow for consistency with the General Plan and has detemined that the project will benefit with the elimination of lot 11. D. Guest Parkinjz: The applicant has provided eleven guest parking spaces along Hillside Lane. This in addition to the two required off street parking spaces and the two potential spaces within the driveway area. E. Grant Deed of Development Rights: The applicant has agreed to grant deed the development rights over the portion of property that is beyond the three foot concrete ditch south up the hill. The area beyond the concrete ditch has a slope of greater than 26 percent and is not suitable for accessory buildings, swimming pools, etc. This will provide an aesthetically pleasing hillside for the neighborhood. F. Off-site Pedestrian Facility Improvements: An extension of a private road off of Blum Road, Hillside Lane, would provide access to the site, and would be would be oriented 90 degrees to Blum Road for approximately 300 feet and then an additional 30 degrees north for the length of Hillside Lane. Currently, sidewalk is proposed on the south side of Hillside Lane for .approximately 540 feet. However, there is a gap with no sidewalk for approximately 280-feet to Blum Road. Since the proposed private road is a 20-foot single traffic lane (within a 30-foot easement) it would force pedestrian traffic into the street. This creates an unsafe environment for future residents of the subdivision and is a potentially signification impact. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the applicant will be required to construct sidewalk improvements from the Hillside Lane sidewalk to Blum Road. It is a General Plan police S-7 Hillside Estates (Policy 5-25) to encourage safe and convenient pedestrian travel ways and provide sidewalks where conditions allow. The mitigation measure below requires the applicant to completely fill the gap with sidewalk. Mitigation Measure Transportation-1: The applicant shall construct sidewalk to completely fill the gap created by the subdivision front the Hillside Lane sidewalk to Blum Road. The sidewalk shall be located on the either side of Hillside Lane determined by the existing field conditions. The sidewalk shall extend between the most eastern sections of the subdivision sidewalk to Blum Road and shall be designed in accordance with the Public Works Department standards and shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and Public Works Department. G. Trees: There are a number of trees along the proposed private road that may need to be removed for the extension and construction of Hillside Lane. The applicant and the adjacent northern property owner are working together to save as many trees as possible since these trees are a natural screen from the proposed homes. Staff has recommended that the trees be removed with the above understanding. Staff has also incorporated a condition of approval that requires the applicants to replace trees that are removed at a ratio of 2:1. The location of the new trees shall be proposed by the applicant for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. H. California Air Resources Board (Cal. ARB): There has been recent concern about the location of homes (sensitive receptors) in proximity to major freeways. The California Air Resources Board has published an informational guide to air quality and land use to consider when review projects. There are studies that show public exposure to air pollution can be substantially elevated near freeways. Cal. ARB recommends siting new residences a minimum of 500-feet from a freeway. The site is located on the east side of Interstate 680. The closest residence is 503 feet away from the edge of pavement of I-680. Interstate 680 is at an elevation of 70-feet. The terrain from the freeway takes a steep uphill climb to 160-feet and then slopes down to 120-feet between the proposed closest residence and the edge of pavement. Staff has determined that these guidelines have been met for this project. I. Turnaround, Private Road and Retaining Walls Located on Adjacent Properties: Since the property is constrained by the extreme slope of the site unusual measures were taken to comply with the standards for construction of the private road and turnaround. The applicant has worked out an agreement with the adjacent properties to build and maintain this private road. The road and turnaround require retaining walls. These walls are located on the subject site and are proposed to be placed on two northern adjacent properties. The heights of these walls are proposed to be a maximum of ten feet and are within the required yard setbacks. Property owners of the two adjacent parcels are in agreement to the construction of the retaining walls. This unusual situation becomes more diluted since the retaining walls are within two different zoning districts. Though the affected owners are in agreement with the construction of the retaining walls, a variance is required to allow the walls to be placed in the setback since they exceed the three foot height maximum and since they are in a property that is zoned Single Family Residential, R-7. The subject property is being rezoned to Planned Unit District and does not require variances for retaining walls that exceed the three feet height maximum. Therefore the variances are requested for only the walls that lie on the adjacent properties. The applicants have worked with the northern adjacent property owner and the excess fill from grading will be placed on this property, which is the reason the retaining walls are required. S-8 Files#RZ053172,DP053101,SD059004 County Planning Commission Tuesday, August 8,2006 The northern property owners have filed an application, County File MS060020 currently being processed, desires that the fill be placed on their property to help create a building pad in order to construct a single family residence. J. Existing"Ozu]" 8-inch Pipeline and 16-foot Easement: The existing pipeline is not currently in use (as described on pg. S-3) though there is the possibility to unilaterally begin use of this pipeline by the United States Air Force (Defense Logistic Agency). As such, the site has been designed for the existing pipeline to be located beneath the sidewalk and private road. This, along with the mitigation measures and conditions of approval incorporated into the project will try and ensure the safety of the new owners and all subsequent owners. K. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted June 13, 2006 with the comment period ending July 13, 2006. The Initial Study and the Mitigation Monitoring Program are attached for detailed review. L. Comments Related to the Mitigated Negative Declaration: Staff received a written comment (attached) from Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics. The comments recommend a discloser to potential buyers of the proposed residences due to the proximity of Buchanan Field Airport. This is to help protect the airport from incompatible land uses. Staff.Response: Staff has incorporated a deed disclosure for the project that indicates to potential homebuyers these homes are located within the Airport Vicinity. This recommendation has been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval (SUB COA #13). DC. SUBDIVISION,ROAD AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Traffic and Circulation: The applicant shall improve existing Hillside Lane to have a minimum 20- foot pavement width within the existing 30-foot wide access and Utility easement, as shown on the revised tentative map. Applicant shall construct curb, a minimum 4-foot wide sidewalk, and necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage facilities. Construction of sidewalk will only be required on one side of the roadway. The applicant shall construct on-site private roadways (extending Hillside Lane)to current County Private Road Standards, with a minimum traveled way width of 20 feet within a 26.5-foot(25-foot for Lots 1-4)right of way easement and an additional 10-foot public utility easement, as shown on the revised Tentative Map.The applicant shall construct curb, gutter, and a minimum 4-foot wide sidewalk on one side of the street, and necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage. Although the street is to remain private, it shall be constructed to County public road standards as to horizontal and vertical alignment, as well as the pavement structural section. The turnaround proposed at the roadway terminus shall conform to Public Works and Fire District standards. Considering that the proposed project will be creating a significant amount of impervious surfaces, a restricted development easement should be placed over portions of the site limiting future improvements. This would ensure clean water ordinance limits are not exceeded. Therefore, the applicant shall grant deed development rights to Contra Costa County over the rear portions of Lots 2, 3, and 5 through 10. The limits of the restricted development area should be from the site S-9 Hillside Estates boundaries (southern and eastern) to the 3-foot wide concrete ditch proposed at the back of each residence. Although the steep grades in the restricted development area would not appear to be easily developable, the rights may be quitclaimed, whole or in part, after we have had the opportunity to review future development of the property and are assured that development complies with County Code and meets the Clean Water regulations of that time. Drainage: Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires all storm water entering and/or originating on this property to be collected and conveyed without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse. The applicant should be aware that the County Ordinance Code prohibits discharge of storm waters into the Contra Costa Canal. X. CONCLUSION In order to comply with the General Plan Policies below, staff recommends that the Commission approve a 10 lot subdivision. Staff finds this recommendation to be appropriate and the rezoning to the Planned Unit District is justified for the purpose of implementing the General Plans Housing Element for underutilized properties and allowing increased design flexibility. General Plan Policies Policy 10-24 -- Development on open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County shall .be restricted and hillsides with a grade of 26 percent or greater shall be protected through implementing zoning measures and other appropriate actions. Policy 10-28—Residential density is to decrease as slopes increases above 15 percent. Policy 10-29 --Very steep hillsides shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading. 5-10 PUBLIC COMMENTS STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS—M.S.#40 1120 N STREET 0 P, O. BOX 942873 Flex your power.! SACRAMENTO,CA 94273-0001 Be energy efficient! PHONE (916)654-4959 FAX (916)653-9531 TTY(916) 651-6827 July 11, 2006 Mr. Ryan Hernandez Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 4`n Fl, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Hernandez: Re: Contra Costa County's Negative Declaration for Hillside Estates; SCH# 2006062070 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics (Division), reviewed the above-referenced document with respect to airport-related noise and safety impacts and regional aviation land use planning issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Division has technical expertise in the areas of airport operations safety, noise and airport land use compatibility. We are a funding agency for airport projects and we have permit authority for public and special use airports and heliports. The following comments are offered for your consideration. The proposal is for an eleven-lot subdivision, development plan and rezone to create eleven residential units on approximately 2.59 acres. The project site is located approximately 4,500 feet northwest of the Runways 14L and 14L for Buchanan Field Airport. As discussed in the Negative Declaration, the project site is located within the Airport Influence Area for Buchanan Field. Section 11010 of the Business and Professions Code and Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353 of the Civil Code (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.htmi) address buyer notification requirements for lands around airports. Any person who intends to offer land for sale or lease within an airport influence area is required to disclose that fact to the person buying the property. We advise submitting the proposal to the ALUC and Buchanan Field Airport staff to ensure that the proposal will be compatible with future as well as existing airport operations. The protection of airports from incompatible land use encroachment is vital to California's economic future. Buchanan Field Airport is an economic asset that should be protected through effective airport land use compatibility planning and awareness. Although the need for compatible and safe land uses near airports in California is both a local and a State issue, airport staff, airport land use commissions and airport land use compatibility plans are key to protecting an airport and the people residing and working in the vicinity of an airport. Consideration given to the issue of compatible land uses in the vicinity of an airport should help to relieve future conflicts between airports and their neighbors. These comments reflect the areas of concern to the Division of Aeronautics with respect to airport-related noise and safety impacts and regional airport land use planning issues. We "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Mr. Ryan Hernandez July 11, 2006 Page 2 advise you to contact our district office concerning surface transportation issues. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please call me at (916) 654-5314. Sincerely, ,fD Cc SANDY HESNARD Aviation Environmental Specialist c: State Clearinghouse, Buchanan Field Airport, Contra Costa County ALUC "Caltrans improves mobility across California" E4`4E tiW�,: •...,. STATE OF CALIFORNIA o e Governor's Office of Planning and Research N State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit "f+ oF��,FOP"`* Arnold Schwarzenegger Sean Walsh Governor " Director July 14,2006 Ryan Hernandez Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 Subject: Hillside Estates SCH#: 2006062070 Dear Ryan Hernandez: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on July 13,2006, and the comments from the responding agency(ies)is(are)enclosed. If this comment package is not in order,please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c)of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments,we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Terry Roberts Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL(916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2006062070 Project Title Hillside Estates Lead Agency Contra Costa County Type Neg Negative Declaration Description 11 lots subdivision, development plan and rezone for the construction of 11 single family residences. Lead Agency Contact Name Ryan Hernandez Agency Contra Costa County Phone 925.335.1206 Fax email Address 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing City Martinez State CA Zip 94553 Project Location County Contra Costa City Martinez Region Cross Streets Blum Road and Hillside Lane Parcel No. 159-190-007 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 1-680,SR4 Airports Buchana Field Railways Waterways Contra Costa Canal Schools Land Use Vacant Lot/SFR(R-7)/SFR(High Density) Project Issues AestheticNisual;Air Quality;Archaeologic-Historic; Biological Resources; Geologic/Seismic; Toxic/Hazardous;Traffic/Circulation;Water Quality; Other Issues Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission; Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Department of Health Services; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 06/14/2006 Start of Review 06/14/2006 End of Review 07/13/2006 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. STATE OF CAL>FORNIA� F'�C TRANSPORTATION AND ROLISTNG AMNCY ARNOT D SCHWARZFNF.GGBB._Gpverna DRPARTNENT OF TRANSPORTATION D VISION OF AERONAUTICS—M.S.#40 1120 N STREET P.0.BOX 942873 Fleryourpawer! SACRAMENTO,CA 94273-0001 Be energy g}fleknd PHONE (916) 654-4959 FAX (916)653-9531 TTY(91.6)651-6827 July 11, 2006 RECEIVE® Mr. Ryan Hernandez , Contra Costa County JUL 12 2006 651 Pine Street, 0 Fl, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 STATE CLEARING HOUSE Dear Mr. Hernandez: Re: Contra Costa County's Negative Declaration for Hillside Estates; SCH#2006062070 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans),Division of Aeronautics (Division), reviewed the above-referenced document with respect to airport-related noise and safety impacts and regional aviation landuse planning issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Division has technical expertise in the areas of airport operations safety, noise and airport land use compatibility. We are a funding agency for airport projects and we have permit authority for public and special use airports and heliports. The following comments are offered for your consideration. The proposal is for an eleven-lot subdivision,development plan and rezone to create eleven residential units on,approximately 2.59 acres. The project site is located approximately 4,500 feet northwest of the Runways 14L and 14L for Buchanan Field Airport. As discussed in the Negative Declaration, the project site is located within the Airport Influence Area for Buchanan Field, Section 11010 of the Business and Professions Code and Sections 11.02.6, 1103.4, and 1353 of the Civil Code(htti3://www.leg-info.ca.gov/calaw.htuil) address buyer notification requirements for lands around airports. Any person who intends to offer land for sale or lease within an airport influence area is required to disclose that fact to the person buying the property. We advise submitting the proposal to the A)_.UC and Buchanan Field Airport staff to ensure that the proposal will be compatible with future as well as existing airport operations. The protection of airports from incompatible land use encroachment is vital to California's economic future. Buchanan Field Airport is an economic asset that should be protected through effective airport land use compatibility planning and awareness. Although the need.for compatible and safe land uses near airports in California is both a local and a State issue, airport staff, airport land use commissions and airport land use compatibility plans are key to protecting an airport and the people residing and working in the vicinity of an airport. Consideration given to the issue of compatible land uses in the vicinity of an airport should help to relieve future conflicts between airports and their neighbors. These comments reflect the areas of concern to the Division of Aeronautics with respect to airport-related noise and safety impacts and regional airport land use planning issues. We "Calfram improves mobility nerms Califomin" Mr. Ryan Hernandez July 11, 2006 Page 2 advise you to contact our district office concerning surface transportation issues. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have any questions,please call me at(916)654-5314, Sincerely, Original Signed by SANDY HESNARD Aviation Environmental Specialist c: State Clearinghouse,Buchanan,Field Airport, Contra Costa County ALUC 'Caltrons impraaes mobility across California" ur" hl� ft� c Mi, VIEW SflNliflfl4 3 r , 1. 5 i V V X I MINI August 26,2005 ; Monin¢z,Ca(ifomia-Founded 1423 Mr.Ryan Hernandez Project Planner " Contra Costa County .Y Community Development Dept. DODDO OF DIRECTORS! 651 Pine Street,4a'Floor,North Wing Stanleyk Caldwell ; Martinez, CA 94553-0095 David P Maggi Re: SD059004 Gregory;T.Pyka +, Subdivision 9004 DorothyM Sakazak .'" Hillside Estates i .Randeff E:Williams r j Dear Mr.Hernandez, David RaContreras DtsTtucr'MANAcsx We have reviewed the Tentative Map for the referenced subdivision.The District has no objection to the development as proposed subject to the following: Sheri L.Riddle 1. The sewer main in Hillside Drive should be stubbed to the edge of the paved road on Lot 9 and Bonxn'SEc rBrnxv :' shall be deep enough to reasonably serve the property to the north. The District Engineer shall be the judge of the required depth. Ji Daniel Adams 2 The proposed sewer to Lot 10 shall be shown on the tentative map and should conform to District EEGAe COUNSEE requirements. The sewer main shall be extended to this tot. 3. The sewer main shall be stubbed to the north property line opposite Lot 9. Randolph w.Leptien 4. The existing 6 inch main in Hillside Drive shall be replaced with a new 8 inch main. This task may ENGINEER be accomplished using trenchless technologies(pipe bursting). 5. The property owner shall dedicate a 15'private sanitary sewer easement for the new 8"PVC main in Hillside per District requirements. 6. Each building shall be served with a separate side-sewer connected to the new main. All side- sewers shall be fitted with standard backwater prevention devices. 7. The Developer shall submit plans prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer for review by the District Engineer for the new sanitary sewer mainline extensions and laterals. Plans shall conform to the District's Standard Specifications and Ordinances. 8. The Developer shall enter into a sewer improvement agreement with the District,and post security for sanitary sewer improvements,prior to recording the Final Map. 9. The Developer shall pay plan review, mapping and inspection fees,obtain a sewer construction permit,provide a cash Contractor's deposit and construct all improvements necessary for the development of the project at no cost to the District. 10. The Developer shall obtain a sewer connection permit and pay permit fees for trunk sewer,plant capacity and connection prior to connecting each dwelling unit to the District's system. The District will not issue individual connection permits until after the Sanitary Board has accepted mainline improvements for maintenance and building foundations have been constructed. MT.VIEW SANITARY DISTRICT 3 8 o o ARTHUR ROAD P . O . Box 2757 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 925 - 228 - 5635 \\Clerical-1\clerical-1\Clerical I\IvIVSD1LETTERS\1 I_637Hillside Estates Engineers Conditions.doc FAX: 925-228-7585 ere n4�{� Ax .y✓he�'S.R'� 'A&iP"�WN c:M.. e 1 ' 11. Fees shall be charged pursuant to the Ordinance in effect at the time that the permit is issued. Fees are subject to revision by the District Board without notice. S fl H I i R R 4 � Please feel free to contact the undersigned at 925 228 4218 voice, 925 228 4638 fax, or randv.lotien@lco-inc,com email, should there be any questions. MINI e7 truly yours Martinez,Califomia•Founded 1923 L C,L1C ,r 0 d8 �Sd c � d do h W.Lep'e istric Engineer 4,�r,�.,�, ° Encl. Agency Comment Request Form r� Gj Via facsimile no:925 335 1222 » eT Original will follow by mail AI ems?; ,� Copy wl encl: D. Contreras(D.Riddle) �� uvy �� sr•` ��„r Y TO"• �,, Y� � w• Pier �^, e y :u7 ''Y" m 4 7a w 'fF"x7� w t a f r Y My r' J - 'G Y A tl iiP� F� kms d "ii k 44U j� e ^': ,` '''000 ,;+, ` ��a��• ` u[ kak,. r ,r b TS. j; \\Clerical-1\clerical-1\Clerical I\WSD\LETI'ERS\11_637 Hillside Estates Engineers Conditions.doe CommunityCOntra �\I Dennis M.Barry,AICP Development Community Development Director Department Costa County RECEIVED V County Administration Building 5e L 651 Pine Street ' ° AUG 1 1 2005 cQO 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 �vs . �. Phon(§25)335-1210 STq cbun� Date: AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: Building Inspection }LHSD,Environmental Health Project Planner _HSD,Hazardous Materials P/W-Flood Control(Full Size) County File Number: SbO> 9 UJ t P/W-Engineering Svcs (Full Size) , Date Forwarded Prior To C " _P/W Traffic(Reduced) P/W Special Districts (Reduced) We have found the llowing special programs _Comprehensive Planning apply to this application: _Redevelopment Agency _Historical Resources Information System _LL Redevelopment Area _Fish& Game,Region Fire DistrictCod. I,, AlActive Fault Zone �C Sanitary District AAT. Vl Water District OK7V— (.0 C�Flood Hazard Area,Panel# City / rl VIE—'2 School District /n#W-�1t Q, yt`/LJPAE 60 dBA Noise Control Sheriff s Office-Admin. &Comm. Svcs. _Alamo Improvement Association Within 2,000 ft. Of Hazardous Waste Site _El Sobrante Plg. &Zoning Committee _MAC Traffic Zone _Gen,Svcs.-Dep.Director,Communications Community Organizations CEQA:Categoricai Esemtion Section Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send copies of your response to the Applicant & Owner. No comments on this application. Our Comments are attached Comments: Signa re y- y kit Agency j:\groups\cdadr,"l\rorms\commentmq Date Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00.a.m--5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd &5th Fridays of each month A Co m ` �{,, Contra Dennis M.Barry,AICP l�/ lJ 1 l R Community Development Director De lop. nt t Costa p County Count Ad inistr ion Building SE L Y 9 651 Pine St et 4th Floor, No W' g Martinez, Califo r11 94553-0095 Phon �. ,�. 25)335-1210 STA c6 r Date: 6� AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: _Building Inspection KHSD,Environmental Health Project Planner C HSD,Hazardous Materials _P/W-Flood Control(Full Size) County File Number: S�p>9 UD 1 a P/W-Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Date Forwarded Prior To a )� (�fk '�2 _P/W Traffic(Reduced) _P/W Special Districts(Reduced) We have found the llowing special programs _Comprehensive Planning apply to this application: _Redevelopment Agency _Historical Resources Information System Redevelopment Area _Fish& Game,Region Fire District Active Fault Zone Y, Sanitary District AT- i/l Water District CO►.�A (*y C,Flood Hazard Area,Panel# City School District 60 dBA Noise Control Sheriff's Office-Admin. &Comm. Svcs. Alamo Improvement Association _Within 2,000 ft.Of Hazardous Waste Site _EI Sobrante Pig. &Zoning Committee MAC Traffic Zone Gen.Svcs.- Dep.Director,Communications Community Organizations CEQA:Categorical Exemtion Section 1 I Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send c ies of your response to the Applicant& Owner. No comments on this application. Our Comments are attached Comments: IC atu a )c CCS Agency ,3 ) !s 10-s jAgsoupskdadp"tirosms\commentmq Date Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Community Contra Dennis it Barry, pme Development Community Development Director Costa Department County County Administration Building 5E L 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 1 4� Phono25)335-1210 0 66U, Date: AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: _Building Inspection r _HSD,Environmental Health Project Planner HSD,Hazardous Materials _P/W-Flood Control(Full Size) County File Number: SbOS 9 UJ q P/W-Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Date Forwarded Prior To _P/W Traffic(Reduced) _P/W Special Districts (Reduced) We have found the (lowing special programs _Comprehensive Planning apply to this application: _Redevelopment Agency _Historical Resources Information System IL Redevelopment Area _Fish& Game,Region Fire District J Active Fault Zone �C Sanitary District Al. lA WatC�Flood Hazard Area,Panel# City School District /4W-:-114l� '\I t A 60 dBA Noise Control Sheriff's Office-Admin. &Comm. Svcs. _Alamo Improvement Association _Within 2,000 ft.Of Hazardous Waste Site _EI Sobrante Plg. &Zoning Committee _MAC _Traffic Zone _Gen.Svcs.-Dep.Director,Communications Community Organizations CEQA:Categorical Exemtion Section SSO Kg ( G9$p1N� Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send copies of your response to the Applicant &Owner. No comments on this application. Our Comments are attached Comments: C '0 4J pum Signatu &AA4 S ) ;^ Agency �� .� I l 0 r' j:\gmups\cdedp"1%rmms\commenLmq Date Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1st, 3rd& 5th Fridays of each month O�fVLO4 COs; Contra Costa County ° '°� Fire Protection District TY Fire Chief KEITH RICHTER August 12, 2005 Mr. Ryan Hernandez Contra Costa County Community Development Department C, 651 pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Subject: SUB 9004 150 Hillside Ln. - CCCFPD Project No. 105689 ;. Dear Mr. Hernandez: We have reviewed the subdivision 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 submit two (2) complete sets of plans and specifications of the subject project, including any required built-in fire protection systems, for review and approval prior to construction to insure compliance with minimum requirements related to fire and life safety. Plan review fees will be assessed at that time. (103.3.2.4) CFC 2. The developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 1,000 GPM. Required flow shall be delivered from not more than one (1) hydrant flowing simultaneously for two (2) hours while maintaining 20 pounds residual pressure in the main. (903.3) CFC This includes the reduction for the installation of automatic fire sprinklers. 3. The developer shall provide two (2) hydrants of the East Bay type. Hydrant locations will be determined by this office upon submittal of three (3) copies of a tentative map or site plan. (903.4.2) CFC 2010 Geary Road•Pleasant Hill,California 94523-4694•Telephone(925)941-3300°Fax(925)941-3309 East County °Telephone(925)757-1303 ° Fax(925)941-3329 West County °Telephone(510)374-7070 www.cccfpd.org SUB 9004, Hillside Estates -2- August 12, 2005. CCFPD Project No. 105689 4. Provide access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20 feet unobstructed width, and not less than 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance, 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 45 feet, and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus, i.e., 37 tons. (902.2) CFC Note: Access roads of 20 feet unobstructed width shall have NO PARKING signs posted or curbs painted red with the words NO PARKING - FIRE LANE clearly marked. Roads 28 feet in width shall have NO PARKING signs posted, allowing for parking on one side only, or curb painted red with the words NO PARKING - FIRE LANE clearly marked. Roads 36 feet in width allow for parking on both sides. 5. Dead-end Fire District access roads in excess of 150 feet long shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of Fire District apparatus. The proposed turnaround shown on Sheet 1 of 1 dated 7/19/05 does not appear to comply with Fire District requirements. See attachment for turnarounds. (902.2.2.4) CFC 6. The developer shall submit three (3) copies of site improvement plans indicating fire apparatus access and turnaround area for review and approval prior to construction. (902.2.2.1) CFC Note: This may be the same submittal as the hydrant locations if necessary. 7. Access roads and hydrants shall be installed, in service, and approved prior to construction. (8704.1) CFC 8. Approved premises identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall contrast with their background and be readily visible from the street. (901.4.4) CFC 9. The developer shall provide traffic signal pre-emption systems (Opticom) on any new traffic signals installed with this development. 10. The proposed residential subdivision is located further than 1.5 travel miles from the nearest fire station. Therefore, the homes shall be protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system complying with NFPA 13D. Submit two (2) sets of plans to this office for review and approval prior to installation. (1003.1) CFC SUB 9004, Hillside Estates -3- August 12, 2005 CCFPD Project No. 105689 11. Submit plans to: Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 2010 Geary Road Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 To schedule field inspections and tests, call 925-941-3323. 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, Kaeli Lepkowsky Fire Inspector c: Golden Oak Development, Inc. 1115 Hastings Court Antioch, CA 94509 File: 1056891tr r- 100' N T-TURN 75' 20' L20J ZD N SHUNT 4 20 -I-R45' CIRCLE NOTES: 1) No Parking allowed within required dimensions. 2)Cross slope within turnaround shall not exceed 8%grade. 3)Turnaround dimensions apply to all residential and commercial.** 4) Surface shall be all-weather and capable of supporting a 37 ton vehicle.** 29 ** When approved by the Fire District, access roads accessible solely by Engine Company response may utilize Engine Company Only Turnarounds. FIRE DISTRICT TURNAROUNDS ?ROVED BY: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE DATE: 3/25/05 � - PROTECTION DISTRICT SCALE: NONE 2010 GEARY ROAD,PLEASANT HILL,CA,94623 (925)941-3300 DWG NO.: FPS-001-D1 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ICP Community Contra Dennis it Barry, pme � 9 li ..�--. Community Development Director Development , _ r_ Department Costa De p County County Administration Building SE L F 651 Pine Street R��,� °� I JUS j 't ' ''j 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone: (925) 335-12101 13; `1 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CountyFile #RZ053172 County File # SD059004 County File # DP053101 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: Golden Oak Development(Applicant& Owners), This project consists of three applications: A. County File #RZ053172 —A request for approval to rezone the property from Single Family Residential, R-7 to Planned Unit District, P-1,for eleven homes. B. County File #SD059004 — A request for approval of a vesting tentative map to subdivide a 2.59-acre property into eleven single-family residential lots. The average lot size is approximately 8500 square feet. C. County File#DP053101 —A request for approval of a final development plan to establish 1 1- single family residences (2200-2400 square feet in size); additionally the applicant requests approval for a variance to the minimum area to establish a Planned Unit District (2.59 acres requested, 5-acres required). The subject site is located at 150 Hillside Lane in the Martinez area. (Zoning: Planned Unit District, P-1) (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 159-190-007). The initial study for the proposed development identified potentially significant impacts in the following environmental areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities/Service Systems, and Mandatory Findings of Significance. Environmental analysis determined that measures are available to mitigate potential adverse impacts to insignificant levels. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)(2), 21064.5 and Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines. Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15071), the MND describes the proposed project; identifies, analyzes and evaluates the potential significant environmental impacts that may result from the proposed project; and identifies measures to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts. With the inclusion of the mitigation measures the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The applicant has agreed to all of the required mitigation measures. A copy of the negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department and Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building, North Wing, Second Floor, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, during normal business hours. Public Comment Period - The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extends to 5:00 P.M., Thursday, July 13, 2006. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,North Wing, 2"d Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Ryan Hernandez It is anticipated that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting of the County Planning Commission on July 25, 2006. It is anticipated that the hearing will be held at the McBrien Administration Building, Room 107, Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez. Sincerely, l Ryan Hernandez Senior Planner 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SUMMARY INFORMATION 1. Project Title: "Hillside Estates" CountyFiles 4RZ053172, SD059004, DP05101 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County, Community Development Department Administrative Building 651 Pine Street 4"'Floor—North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-1295 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Ryan Hernandez, Senior Planner Community Development Department Administrative Building 651 Pine Street 2nd Floor—North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-1295 Phone(925)335-1206 4. Project Location: The project site is located within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, northwest of the City of Concord and east of the City of Martinez, in the neighborhood also referred to as Martinez, approximately 1/2-mile northwest of State Route 4 and Interstate 680 freeway interchange. APN: 159-190-007 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Golden Oak Development 1116 Hastings Court Antioch, CA 94509 6. General Plan Designation: Single-Family High Density, SH (5.0-7.2 units per net acre) 7. Zoning: Single Family Residential, R-7, (1 dwelling unit per 7,000 square-feet) 8. Description of Project: Existing Conditions and Setting The project is generally located on the northeastern side of a hilltop with steep, north-facing slopes extending from the crown of the hill. The property is 2.59 acres in size and nearly 70 percent of the site has a slope of 26 percent. Elevations on the project site range from 71 to 178 above mean sea level. The project is the shape of a skewed rectangle, with the western property line is approximately double the length of the eastern property line. 2 The existing project site is vacant and undeveloped,excepting the one, single-family residence fronting Blum Road, and is comprised of native and non-native grasses(e.g., wild oats, black mustard, creeping wild rye, narrow-leaf milkweed) and trees (i.e., Almond and Black Walnut)ranging is size from six- inches to 2-feet in trunk diameter. Access is provided via a private road (Hillside Lane) extending west from Blum Road which intersects with Pacheco Boulevard approximately '/3-mile to the south. To the west and south is an approved subdivision consisting of 27 new lots, 23 of which would be developed with new, detached, single-family residences. One of the new parcels is currently developed with a single-family residence, fronting Blum Road, and would remain as such when the 23 new units are constructed. Two of the remaining lots would be dedicated as open space, and the final lot would be a remainder lot that could be developed with similar single-family units in the future. To the east is the Contra Costa County Public Works Maintenance and Corporation Yard. Further north, at the northern terminus of Blum Road, is a paved trailer park. To the southeast east is the Seasons Cemetery. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Treatment Facility is located approximately '/4-mile southeast of the project site, and Buchanan Field Airport is located approximately 3/<-mile to the southeast. The northwestern portion of the project site is traversed by an existing 16-foot fuel line easement. The . fuel line under laying the easement, referred to as the Ozul fuel pipeline; is owned by the United States Air Force.' The 8-inch pipeline was used to transport petroleum from a Concord pump station to a petroleum storage facility in Martinez for approximately 40 years.' In 1999,petroleum operations were terminated and the pipeline was drained, cleaned, and pressure tested to assess if leaks were present, of which, none were identified.3 To control internal erosion,the pipeline is filled with nitrogen gas. To control external erosion,a cathodic protection system is operated. The Defense Logistic Agency(DLA) manages the pipeline, and is responsible for any monitoring and cleanup activities related to the pipelines The General Plan designation for the site is Single-Family Residential High (SH), which allows 5.0 to 7.2 dwelling units per net acre,and the site is zoned R-7(Single-Family Residential with 6.2 units/acre). The proposed project would develop the site with single-family lots ranging from 3,580 square feet(net)to 13,123 square feet(net)for an average lot size of approximately 8,500 square feet, or 5.120 units per net acre, consistent with the General Plan designation for the site. Proposed Project The following section describes the proposed residential project, its associated site improvements and preparation,construction and phasing, and requested entitlement approvals. a. Residential Development. The proposed project consists of 11 new, detached, single-family residences on individual lots. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is being requested by the applicant to subdivide one existing parcel,totaling 2.59 acres, into 1 1 new lots,with an average lot size of 8,500 square feet. Individual parcels would vary from 3,580 to 13,123 square feet,resulting in a net residential density of 5.12 units per acre. 'AEI Consultants,2005. Phase 11 Subsui face Investigation Report for 24-Acre Vacant Parcel,APN 159-230-004, Martine California, 94553,August 25. ''Ibid. ' Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 3 A Final Development Plan is also requested to establish building footprints, setbacks, lot coverage/floor area ratio, site improvements, and building design, architecture and detailing. The residential lots would be located on the south side of the new roadway intended to service the development. The applicant has proposed four plans that would be interspersed throughout the I 1 new residential lots, each providing three-story houses with a maximum height of 35-feet. Each floor plan, ranging from 2200 to 2400 square feet(not including garage), would provide 4 bedrooms, a two car garage, 2.5 bathrooms. b. 15 trees, existing Almond and Black Walnut trees located on the site would be removed as a part of the approval of the Final Development Plan, in accordance with the Tree Protection &Preservation Ordinance. A conceptual landscape plan for the residential development is on file with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. All front yards and slope areas would be landscaped at the time of initial construction. Similar landscaping would be planted at the entries to each residence, street trees would be planted along Hillside Lane, and other groundcovers, accent plants, shade trees, and screening trees would be planted on the site. "Good neighbor"fences(finished both sides)would be built along side and rear lot lines, and Versaloc retaining walls would be integrated throughout the site, but would generally be located behind and between units, thereby hidden from public view. Where visible, retaining walls would be of decorative design with a"versa-loc" style. C. Transportation and Circulation. The project would be designed such that an existing private road, entitled Hillside Lane, would extend and provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the new houses, extending westward from Blum Road and terminating at turn around in the northwestern portion of the site. The new road would be located along the northern edge of the developed portion of the project site, and would be improved to provide a sidewalk on one side (i.e., southern edge), as well as curbs and gutters to facilitate stormwater drainage. Hillside Lane would be designed to accommodate one vehicular lane, curbs and gutters, and a sidewalk on the south side. The overall right-of-way would be 30-feet wide, with a curb to curb width of 20 feet wide. Each residence would have covered parking within a two-car garage, as well as driveway width and length large enough to accommodate two, uncovered parked vehicles. Infrastructural utilities (i.e., sanitary sewer, potable water, gas, and electricity) would be extended from Blum Road via underground conduits in Hillside Lane to each of the new residences. d. Site Preparation. Site preparation would include removal of 15 trees, and extensive hillside grading and slope stabilization to develop the 11 new residential pads and roadway alignment. The project has been designed to minimize grading qualities and depth to the greatest extent possible given the greater than 26 percent northeastern facing slopes of the site since the residences are proposed closer to the base of the hill. d. Construction and Phasing. Details of the construction and phasing are not known at this time, but are anticipated to take approximately 15 to 18 months once construction of the units commences. e. Approvals. County approvals necessary for the proposed project include: • Rezoning of site to Planned Unit District(P-1) • Final Development Plan • Vesting Tentative Map Approval • Variance to the Minimum Size for Establishing a Planned Unit District(P-1) 4 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed project is surrounded by large and small lot, single-family rural and suburban development to the north, northeast, and south. Interstate 680(1-680) is located west of the site. • North. To the north of the project site, in the area adjacent to Blum Road, is an existing, rural single- family neighborhood. Northwest of the project site is an additional 9.08-acre vacant parcel located at the terminus of Emshee Lane that is also designated for future single-family development. Further north, beyond the large-lot rural single-family development is a trailer storage park that is bound on its northwestern edge by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad. • East. Across Blum Road, to the east, is the Contra Costa County Public Works Maintenance and Corporation Yard (County Yard). Southeast of the project site, and south of the County Yard, is Seasons Cemetery. Northeast of the project site, and north of the County Yard, is additional single- family development. • South. Immediately south and west of the project site, is an approved 11.56 acres 27 lot subdivision (Tract 8784). • West. Beyond Tract 8784 lies the Contra Costa Canal, which is bound further west by I-680. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Other agencies whose approval may be necessary for the proposed project include: • Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG) • Contra Costa County Public Works 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. ■ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ■ Air Quality i Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Geology/Soils ■ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ■ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ® Transportation/Traffic ■ Utilities/Service Systems ■ Mandatory Findings of Significance 5 Determination. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be pre- pared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or"potentially signifi- cant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Lvov ( �� • 06 Sign re Date Ryan Hernandez, Senior Planner Community Development Department, Contra Costa County 6 Checklist Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ❑ ❑ ❑ limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The Contra Costa County 2005 General Plan identifies scenic resources, routes, and corridors as areas that are aesthetically pleasurable and geologically or historically important, such as major ridges, waterways, rock outcroppings, isolated hilltops, strands of trees, and other natural features. The project area consists of a steeply sloped, undeveloped hillside. The proposed project is a residential development with 10, three-story detached single-family residences and one two story single family residence that are located around the lower elevations of the parcels and hillside. The project site is not in the vicinity of a scenic resource nor is it a designated scenic resource in the General Plan. Open Space Element policy 9-14 requires high quality engineering of slopes to minimize damage to the site's visual quality, and that slopes of 26 percent or more, such as that on the project site, are not desirable for conventional cut-and-fill pad development. The proposed project has been designed, however, such that the overall natural grade of the site would be retained, and visual impacts from creating building pads and the new roadway would be minimized. As a result, impacts to scenic vistas from the proposed project would be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? The project site does not include any portions of a State scenic highway and is not located in the vicinity of a State scenic highway. 6 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The existing visual character of the project site is represented by an undeveloped, steeply sloping hillside covered with native and non-native grasses and trees. The proposed project would develop the site with 1 1 new, detached, single-family residences and would include the grading of the lower half of the project site. The character of the site would change from hillside open space to a hillside, suburban 6 California Department of Transportation,California Scenic Highway Program -- http://www.dot,ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwv i.html neighborhood. The existing visual character of the surrounding area is comprised of both small and large- lot rural/suburban neighborhoods, and the proposed project would be similar in character. This proposed change to the project site's character is consistent with the existing General Plan designation and zoning for the site, and would not degrade the character of the site. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposed project would create a new source of light and glare in the area. Preliminary landscape plans for the project site include additional exterior lighting associated with the new residences and landscaping. The following mitigation measure would reduce this potential light and glare impact to less than significant levels: Mitigation Measure Aesthetics-1: Outdoor lighting associated with the proposed development shall be designed and located to minimize ambient light levels for any given application, consis- tent with public safety standards. Lighting shall be placed in areas of pedestrian activity and at building entrances, and shall be minimized elsewhere. Ornamental, pedestrian scale lighting fix- tures shall be utilized to the degree possible. Lighting fixtures shall be designed to minimize glare, direct light downward onto the project site, and shall be shielded to prevent overspill of light onto other properties. No lighting shall blink, flash or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 11. 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 agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑ of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ❑ ❑ ❑ due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Prograin of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? 8 While the project site may have originally been settled for agricultural use, including grazing and orchards, the site is not currently used for agricultural uses, and based on the condition of the land and barns, it has not been for many years. The project site is classified as"Urban and Built-Up Land" by the State Department of Conservation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The project site is not zoned for agricultural uses and is not operated under a Williamson Act contract. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the extension of infrastructure into an unde- veloped area, the development of urban uses on a greenfield site, or other physical changes that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. There are remnants of a former orchard on the property but the trees are not maintained or under agricultural production at the present time. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Ill. AIR.QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district maybe relied upon to make the fal- lowing determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ -to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concen- ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ trations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ of people? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a nonattainment area. The main purpose of an air quality plan is to bring the area into com- pliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality standards. To bring the San Francisco Bay Area region into attainment, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has developed the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2000 Clean Air Plan (CAP). 9 The air quality plans use the assumptions and projections of local planning agencies to determine control strategies for regional compliance status. Since the plans are based on local General Plans, projects that are deemed consistent with the applicable General Plan are usually found to be consistent with the air quality plans. Development of the proposed project would not significantly change the overall buildout scenario for Contra Costa County envisioned in the County's General Plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would occur over the short term in associa- tion with construction activities such as grading and vehicle/equipment use. Long-term emissions would result from vehicle trips associated with use of the project site. The following discussion describes potential air quality violations that could occur as a result of., construction equipment exhaust emissions; fugitive dust; long-term vehicular emissions; and local carbon monoxide hot spots. Construction Equipment Exhaust Emissions. Construction period emissions would result from implementation of the project. Construction activities are a source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in adhesives, non-waterbase paints,thinners, some insulating materials and caulking materials would evap- orate into the atmosphere and would participate in the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in paving is also a source of organic gases for a short time after its application. During construction various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment would be in use. In 1998, the Cali- fornia Air Resources Board(ARB) identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant(TAC). ARB has completed a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities using diesel-fueled engines.' High volume freeways, stationary diesel engines and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic(e.g., distribution centers and truck,stops) were identified as having the highest associated risk. Health risks from toxic air contaminants are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure. Unlike the above types of sources, construction diesel emissions are temporary, affecting an area for a period of days or perhaps weeks. Additionally, construction-related sources are mobile and transient in nature, and the bulk of the emission occurs within the project site at a substantial distance from nearby receptors. Because of its short duration, health risks from construction emissions of diesel particulate would be a less-than-significant impact. Construction Dust. Construction dust would affect local air quality at various times during construction of the proposed project. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for dust generation when and if underlying soils are exposed. Clearing, grading and earthmoving activities have a high potential to generate dust whenever soil moisture is low and particularly when the wind is blowing. The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of particu- lates downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the potential to create a nuisance at nearby properties or at previously completed portions of the proposed project. In addition to nuisance effects, excess dustfall can increase maintenance and cleaning requirements and could adversely affect sensitive electronic devices. California Air Resources Board,Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles,October 2000. 10 Emissions of particulate matter or visible emissions are regulated by the BAAQMD under Regulation 6 "Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions." Specifically, visible particulate emissions are prohibited where the particulates are deposited on real property other than that of the person responsible for the emissions and cause annoyance. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce fugitive dust-related air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure AIR-l: Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD,the following measures shall be required of construction contracts and specifications for the project and implemented at all construction sites: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers)all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily(preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. • Hydroseed or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. • Enclose, cover,water twice daily or apply (non-toxic)soil binders to exposed stockpiles(dirt, 11 sand, etc.). • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Long-Term Emissions. The proposed project would develop 1 I new, single-family homes on a predominately vacant site with one, existing single-family home located adjacent to Blum Road. Based on ITE Trip Generation average rates,the project would generate approximately 110 daily trips and 1 1 peak hour trips to the local roadways. The increase in long-term vehicular emissions generated by the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the BAAQMD's operations threshold and would have a less- than-significant impact on local and regional air quality. Local CO Hot Spots. The primary mobile source pollutant of local concern is carbon monoxide (CO), which is a direct function of vehicle idling time caused by traffic flow conditions. While CO transport is limited, it does disperse over time with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations proximate to a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthy levels affecting local sensitive receptors(e.g., residents, school children, the elderly, and hospital patients). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with road- ways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. The distance of 1-680 from the project site is far enough, however,that CO hot spots on the freeway would disperse to less than significant levels before reaching the homes at the project site. Intefsections in the project area are operating at acceptable levels of service,and the minimal increase in traffic as a result of the proposed project is not expected to change those levels. Potential impacts related to CO emissions would be less than significant. 11 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable 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)? As described above in Section III.b, the proposed project would result in temporary increases or minimal long-term increases in air pollutants, these increases would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any air pollutants. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Construction of the proposed project may expose surrounding land uses to airborne particulates and fugi- tive dust, as well as a small quantity of pollutants associated with the use of construction equipment(e.g., diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, described above, would reduce construction-related emissions to a less-than-significant level. As discussed in Section lll.b, the proposed project will not result in any long-term air quality impacts. Therefore, nearby sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Some objectionable odors may be generated from the operation of diesel-powered construction equipment and/or asphalt paving during the project construction period. However, these odors would be short term in nature and would not result in permanent impacts to surrounding land uses, including sensitive recep- tors in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors would result from the proposed project. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candi- date, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Depart- ment of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ ❑ other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ ❑ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Through direct removal, filling, hydrological interrup- tion,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ❑ ❑ ❑ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with estab- lished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 12 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ O O biological resources, such as a tree,preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conserva- tion plan? a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Wood Biological Consulting completed a Biological Assessment for project site in October 2004, and a Botanical Survey in April 2005. These studies are available for public review at Contra Costa County Community Development Department. The following discussion is excerpted from these studies. While the project site itself is not studied these biological assessment was conducted on the south an west adjacent property. It is fair to assume that the findings on the adjacent property would pertain to this project site. The study area is bisected by the Contra Costa Canal, which is bounded on either side by a fence, and flows north along the west side of the hillside's ridge at an elevation of approximately 78 feet above mean sea level. The parcel located above and to the east of the canal is dominated by non-native grassland on a north-south running ridge, extending from Blum Road to the railroad, and rising more than 170 feet at two locations and dipping to 80 feet at is mid-point. The second parcel consists of a smaller hillside also dominated by non-native grassland, and bounded by a fence, a row of walnut trees, and a dirt road. The third parcel studied (which is not a part of the proposed project) includes the land west of the canal, including the low slopes of the ridge and a low lying area adjacent to 1-680. This low-lying land drains to the north and includes a culvert positioned to carry seasonal precipitation off site, and is comprised of a mixture of native and non-native grasslands and several wetland habitats presumed to be of artificial origin, since they originate directly below the canal. This low-lying parcel, below the canal, would be preserved under the proposed project. Impacts to Special-status Plants. The project site has been subjected to fairly intense human disturbance and alteration, both recently and historically. As a result,the upper portion of the site where the proposed development would occur is not considered to be significantly constrained by the presence of regulated biological resources. No special-status plant or animal species have been detected on site. Additionally, the botanical survey completed in April 2005 confirmed that no special-status plant species were detected on the project site, and none are considered to have any potential to occur on the site. The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse effects upon special-status plant species, and no further surveys or mitigation measures relevant to plant species are warranted. Impacts to Special-status Animals. Based on the existing conditions and available suitable habitat, nesting birds, including raptors, passerines, and burrowing owls, may occur within or adjacent to the project site. A total of seven special-status animal species are considered to have some potential to occur within the project area. With respect to these species, three potential impacts resulting from future development of the site have been identified. 13 Nesting Raptors. Several large trees and dense grassland located within or adjacent to the project site provide suitable habitat for raptors. Grading, tree removal, or pruning could result in direct or indirect impacts to raptors by causing destruction or abandonment of occupied nests. Impacts to nesting raptors would be reduced to less than significant levels by implementing the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure BIO-l: If land-clearing activities are to commence between February 1 and August 15,a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The purpose of the preconstruction survey would be to determine if occupied nests are present within the zone of influence of the project. If land-clearing activities are performed outside of the nesting season, that is, between August 16 and January 31, no preconstruction surveys for nesting raptors are warranted. The survey area should include all large trees, grassland, and scrub habitat within 250 feet of the limits of work. If any occupied raptor nests are found within the zone of influence, grading and construction shall be prohibited within an adequate setback(generally 250-feet), as approved by a qualified biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. Work within the setback would have to be delayed until after the young have fledged, as determined during surveys by a qualified biologist, or until after the nesting season, as described above. Nesting passerine. The proposed project could result in the removal of potential passerine nesting bird habitat in the trees, shrubs, and grasslands on the site. Disturbance during the nesting season could result in the potential nest abandonment and mortality of young. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to passerine nesting habitat to less than a significant level: Mitigation Measure BIO-2: If land-clearing activities are to commence between February 1 and August 15, a pre-construction survey for nesting passerines shall be conducted prior to the destruction of any suitable nesting habitat. The survey area should include all trees, bushes, grassland and structures within 100 feet of the limits of work. If land-clearing activities can be performed outside the nesting season,that is, between August 16 and January 31,no surveys for nesting passerines would be warranted. If any occupied passerine nests are found within the zone of influence, grading and construction shall be prohibited within an adequate setback(generally, 75 to 100 feet), as approved by a qualified biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. Work within the setback would have to be delayed until after the young have fledged, as determined during surveys by a qualified biologist, or until after the nesting season, as described above. Burrowing owls. The project site is within the range of burrowing owls and supports suitable habitat for the species. Although none were detected during the biological assessment of the site in October 2004, the species could move onto the site prior to the initiation of grading. If this were to occur, disturbance during either the wintering or nesting seasons could result in the take of adult burrowing owls, nest abandonment,and mortality of young. To further evaluate presence or absence of burrowing owls, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Prior to the initiation of any grading, a survey for suitable ground burrows shall be preformed by a qualified biologist. Survey protocol calls for walking transects over the property affording 100 percent visual cover of the site, if no suitable ground burrows are observed, grading may proceed. If suitable ground burrows are present, a qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction nesting burrowing owl survey following California Department of Fish and Game protocols, which call for the performance of four crepuscular(early morning or late evening) surveys. Any active nests must not be disturbed until the young have fledged. 14 Compensation of habitat loss, at a mitigation ratio to be determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game, would be required. Areas of bare ground or with grasses less than six inches in height may attract burrowing owls during the winter season. If construction resumes after a period of construction inactivity following clearing, a habitat evaluation of the site should be conducted prior to ground disturbance the following season to determine burrowing owl occupancy. All burrows containing active nests shall be identified by flagging, and shall be protected by a no-disturbance buffer zone of 250 feet. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community was identified on the project site. Special status natural communities including patches of seasonal wetland, ruderal seasonal wetland, freshwater marsh, and Central Coast riparian scrub were, however, identified in the low-lying area located in the area located between (south of)the canal and 1-680. The proposed project, however, does not include this low-lying area(on the other side of the canal)and,therefore, would not result in or have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive community located there c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? As described in Section IV.b, above, the proposed project does not include any wetland area. The low- lying area located on the other side of the canal contains seasonal wetlands, ruderal seasonal wetlands, freshwater marsh, and Central riparian scrub would not be impacted from the proposed project because it .is not a part of the proposed project and it is physically separated from the site by the canal and the fencing erected on both sides of the canal. As such, the proposed project would not result in the direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means of alteration to any federally-protected wetlands. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No wildlife corridors would be adversely affected by the proposed project. No native resident or migratory fish move through the project site as no streams or other bodies of water are present. Most wildlife movement in the area will likely continue within the parcels dedicated as open space(Lots 25 and 26) and the undeveloped hillside are north of the project site after project completion. With implementation of Mitigation Measures Biological-1 through Biological-3,the project will not substantially interfere with the movement of wildlife or the function of a nursery site. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? A tree inventory/assessment was completed for the project site by Patrick Stewart, ISA Certified Arborist (#3322) in October 2004, and is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. The project site is subject to the County Tree Protection and Preservation 15 Ordinance, County Code Section 816-6.6. The Arborist surveyed 17 trees on the project site, including 16 Black Walnut trees and one Almond tree. The proposed project would require the removal of all trees on the site and the applicant is required to replace these trees via conditions of approval associated with the Final Development Plan. f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No such plans are in place for the site. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a I] O O historical resource as defined in 315064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of L • O O an archaeological resource pursuant to 315064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological Ll e O O resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred out- O O Ll side of formal cemeteries? a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 315064.5? There are no known significant historic resources or events associated with this site. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 315064.5? There are no known archaeological resources on the project site, and the project site has been identified as being largely urban on the County General Plan Archeological Sensitivity Map(General Plan Figure 9-2). However, it is possible that unique archaeological resources, as defined by CEQA Section 21083.2(g), could be encountered during construction activities. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during project construction activities,all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist shall be contracted to evaluate the discoveries and make recommendations regarding their potential significance and extent throughout the site. If such deposits cannot be avoided,they shall be evaluated for their California and National Register eligibility. If the deposits are not eligible, additional mitigation is not necessary. If the 16 deposits are eligible,they shall be avoided or adverse project effects shall be mitigated. Upon completion of the archaeologist's evaluation, a report shall be prepared documenting the methods and results of the research, and recommendations for additional mitigation. The report should be submitted to the County of Contra Costa and the Northwest Information Center(KWIC)at Sonoma State University. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? There are no known paleontological resources, or unique geologic feature or sites on the project site, or within the immediate vicinity. However, should paleontological resources be uncovered during grading or other on-site excavation(s),the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to these resources to less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-2: If paleontological resources are encountered during subsurface construction activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist can evaluate the finds and make recommendations. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant,they shall be avoided by project construction activities and recovered by a qualified paleontologist. Upon completion of the recovery, a paleontological assessment shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further monitoring for paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include: 1)the results of any geotechnical investigation prepared for the project site; 2) specific details of the construction plans for the project site; 3)background research; and 4) limited subsurface investigation within the project site. If a high potential to encounter paleontological resources is confirmed, a monitoring plan of further project subsurface construction shall be prepared in conjunction with this assessment. After project subsurface construction has ended, a report documenting monitoring, methods, findings, and further recommendations regarding paleontological resources shall be prepared and submitted to the County Community Development Department. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The project is proposed in a location that has already been disturbed from historic agricultural uses. Therefore, the probability of finding human remains is minimal. Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery,there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner's authority. Consistent with Section 7050.5, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to human remains to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-3: If human remains are encountered at any point during project construction, work shall halt and the Contra Costa County Coroner shall be notified immediately. In addition,the archaeological monitor shall be contacted to examine the situation. If human remains are of Native American origin,the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98,the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. 17 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ iv)Landslides? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ would become unstable as a result of the project, and poten- tially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, sub- sidence,liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of sep- ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ tic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the 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 Pub- lication 42; ii)Strong seismic ground shaking; iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including lique- faction; iv)Landslides? i) Fault Rupture. The nearest fault considered active by the California Division of Mines & Geology is the Concord fault. The Concord fault A-P Zone passes approximately 4,000 feet northeast of the site. ii) Groundshaking. According to the Safety Element(p. 10-13)the site is in an area rated"lowest damage susceptibility". The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the building codes and County Grading Ordinance. The UBC requires use of seismic parameters which allow the structural engineering analysis for buildings to be based on soil profile types(see UBC, 1997, Volume 2, Div. 5, page 2-23). Compliance with building and grading regulations can be expected to keep risks within generally accepted limits. iii) Ground Failure and Liquefaction. According to the Safety Element (p. 10-15), the site is rated "generally low" liquefaction potential. This preliminary finding is supported by the subsurface data presented in the report of Diablo Engineers, Inc. 18 iv) Landslides. A. With regard to slope stability, no landslides are shown on the site on a maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey (Nilsen, 1975), California Geological Survey (Haydon, 1995). The Soil Survey of Contra Costa County (1977, pg. 22) indicates that the erosion hazard is "moderate". The preliminary report of DEi indicates the site is suitable for residential use, provided the project design is consistent with the geotechnical recommendations. However, additional subsurface data, laboratory testing and engineering analysis is needed to confirm/refine/modify this preliminary finding. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? A SWPPP and Erosion Control Plan are a routine requirement of projects requiring grading permits. The S WPPP identifies the "best management practices"that are most appropriate for the site, and the"Erosion Control Plan," which is required for the grading permit, provides tile details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the site and maintained throughout the winter rainy season. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, lique- faction or collapse? Our review of the existing geologic data indicates that the project is feasible. Four test pits penetrated sandstone bedrock at relatively shallow depths. The dominant topographic feature on the site is a broad swale (area of Lots #5-8). DEI interprets this swale as an erosional feature, partially filled with colluvium. However, the DEI report provides limited data on this feature(i.e. is it a result of ground water seepage? Is any slide debris present within the swale? Is orientation controlled by geologic structure?) It should also be noted that data on bedrock stratigraphy and structure is sketchy, based on four test pits. The DEi report provides preliminary standards and criteria for site grading, drainage and foundation design, but does not address the specifics of placing engineered fill in this area. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table I8-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? According to the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County (1977)the soils on the site are the Dibble silty clay loam. These soils are considered moderately to highly expansive and soils in the vicinity are considered highly expansive. Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture changes that can cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements and structures founded on shallow foundations. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soils can be reduced by placing slabs on select, granular fill or over-excavation to create uniform subgrade conditions; and by use of rigid mat or post- tensioned slabs. General foundation design criteria are provided by the DEI report. it should be recognized that expansive soils are an engineering issue, and not a land use or feasibility issue. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The project is expected to be served by public sewers. Environmental Analysis 1. Slope Stability and Corrective Grading 19 Impact. The site is an upland property that is within the outcrop belt of Martinez Formation of Early Tertiary age. Based on reconnaissance level data (chiefly geologic interpretation of vertical angle aerial photographs), the U.S. Geological Survey (Nilsen, 1975), the site is not mantled by slide debris and this conclusion is supported by a report issued by the California Geological Survey (Haydon, 1995). Another publication of the USGS (Ellen and Wentworth, 1995) concludes that the soil mantle and clayey bedrock can be expansive and possess adverse engineering characteristics. The property may be sensitive to grading, especially if the grading steepens the lower portion of the slope. The primary conclusion of the Geotechnical Investigation performed by DEI is that the project is feasible. This opinion is based on limited subsurface data. Figure 3 of their report provides an Original Geologic Map of the site, DEI recommends that they be provided the opportunity to review plans prior to issuance of construction permits to ensure consistency with the intent of geotechnical recommendations; and that the geotechnical engineer observe grading and perform testing to provide documentation of the as-built condition; and to make supplemental recommendations if exposed conditions require changes to the approved grading plans. The peer review geologist of the County considers the geologic and geotechnical data sufficient to define the potential impacts and to identify detailed mitigation measures, but additional study is recommended prior to filing the final map to confirm/refine DEI's preliminary interpretation. Mitigation Measures A. Prior to recordation of the VTM, all grading and drainage plans are subject to review of the County Geologist and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. All graded slopes shall be contour rounded to mimic natural terrain features, and the project shall have an efficient drainage system. The plans shall be prepared by appropriately licensed professionals. B. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, provide a grading remediation plan and report for the review of the County Geologist, and review and approval of the Building Inspection Department ("BID'). The report shall evaluate hillsides whose performance could affect planned improvements. Specifically, the drainage swale on proposed Lots 5-8 shall be subject to this requirement. The analysis shall include additional borings and laboratory test data. The slope stability analysis shall be performed for both static and dynamic conditions using an appropriate pseudo-static horizontal ground acceleration coefficient for earthquakes on the Concord and Hayward./oults in accordance with standard practice as outlined in DMG Special Pub. 117, 1997. C. All measures identified in the approved geotechnical reports to provide for slope stability shall be incorporated into the final grading plans. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project geotechnical engineer shall review the plans to verify that these measures are incorporated and that there is no unacceptable hazard from unstable slopes or post-development differential settlement. . D. Concurrently with recordation of the VTM, record a statement to rum with deeds to the property acknowledging the geotechnical study by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to conclusions, including the long-term maintenance requirements, and noting that the report is available to prospective buyers from seller of the parcel. E. Grading, improvement, erosion control and building plans shall employ, as appropriate, the following surface drainage measures in construction: concrete-lined ditches to carry runoff- both cut slopes in bedrock and fill slopes in excess of 8 feel high shall be graded to 2.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter; cut slopes in colluvium or soils shall be graded to 3:1 (maxinumr; positive grading of building pads for removal of surface water frons foundation areas; individual pad drainage; avoidance of sprinkler systems (as opposed to drip irrigation systems) in the immediate 20 vicinity of foundations; grading of slopes to eliminate over-the-bank runoff; and re-vegetation of permanent slopes. Interim protective measures for runoff shall be followed during the construction phases when slopes are most susceptible to erosion. The final design shall incorporate subsurface drainage measures, including the installation of subsurface drains within major new fills and landslide repair area. F. During grading, the geotechnical engineer shall observe and approve all keyway excavations, removal of compressible colluvium materials down to stable bedrock or in-place material, and installation of all subdrains including their connections. All fill slope construction shall be observed and tested by the project geotechnical engineer, and the density test results and reports submitted to the County to be kept on file. Cut slopes and keyways shall be periodically observed and mapped by the project geotechnical engineers who will provide any required slope modification reconiniendations based on the actual geologic conditions encountered during grading. Written approval from the Contra Costa County BID shall be obtained prior to any modification. G. During stripping operations, topsoil shall be salvaged for future use as a dressing on final graded slopes that are within the deed restricted open space. Specifically, approximately 6 inches of topsoil shall be track-walked on the final graded slopes that are within the deed-restricted open space. K During grading, unstable colluvial soils and landslide deposits within developed portions of the properties shall be re-graded to effectively remove the potential for seismically induced landslides in these materials, as recommended in the approved geotechnical reports. I Prior to issuance of building permits for residences within this subdivision, submit an as-graded report of the engineering geologist and the geotechnical engineer with a map prepared by a civil engineer showing engineering geology/lithology details of cut pads and keyways, final plans and grades for any buttress fill with its keyway, subsurface drainage, subdrain cleanouts, disposal and pickup points, and any other soil improvements installed during grading, as surveyed by the project survey or civil engineer, and in accordance with requirements of the geotechnical engineer. J. All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season (April 15 through October 15) only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15, only erosion control work shall be allowed by the grading permit. Any modification to the above schedule shall be subject to review by the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 2. Expansive and Corrosive Soils Impact: The potential building sites and roadways are inferred to be underlain, at least locally, by expansive soils that are subject to soil creep and some soils in the vicinity are known to be corrosive. The Diablo Engineers Inc. report has provided recommendations for foundations, but further evaluation of foundations is warranted to address differential fill thickness, total and differential settlement within building pads, and measures to control moisture around foundations. Mitigation Measures A. Prior to issuance of the building permits, submit a final geotechnical report providing design and construction measures, where appropriate, to minimize expansive soil effects on dwellings (e.g.,pad 21 overcutting to provide uniform swell potential; and soil subgrade moisture treatment). The required report shall also provide design criteria for differential fill thickness lots and differential settlement, and shall include provisions for geotechnical monitoring to verify compliance with foundation recommendations. B. Prior to issuance of building permits chemical testing of representative building pad soils shall be submitted to determine the level of corrosion protection required for steel and concrete materials used for construction. The following measures shall be implemented where appropriate to protect against corrosion: use of sulfate-resistant concrete and use of protective linings to encase steel piping buried in native soils. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V11. HAZARDS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of haz- ardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazard- ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a signifi- cant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private air- ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ strip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacua- tion plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where resi- dences are intermixed with wildlands? 22 a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of 11 new residences,a new road, and associated landscaping improvements. Although small quantities of commercially-available hazardous materials could be used within the new residences consistent with residential uses, and potentially for landscape maintenance within the project site,these materials would not be used in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to human or environmental health. While gas and diesel fuel would typically be used by the construction vehicles, Best Management Practices(BMPs) would be utilized to ensure that no construction-related fuel hazards occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. As part of the building permit process, all plans are reviewed for compliance with applicable Building and Fire Department requirements, pursuant to the Uniform Building and Fire Codes, and all other related County requirements. No additional measures would be required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? A Phase i Environmental Site Assessment and a Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment have been com- pleted for the proposed residential project by AEI Consultants in July and August 2005, respectively' for the approved project adjacent to the site. These Assessments are available for public review at Contra Costa County Community Development Department. The discussions summarize the findings of these assessments. The proposed project site was historically used for agricultural purposes. There is a potential that pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers were used onsite. However, because the property has not been used for agricultural purposes for approximately 40 years, it is likely that potential concentrations of these chemicals have degraded over time. No pesticide mixing areas were observed in historic aerial photographs. Based on the length of time that has passed since active agricultural cultivation, this former use is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern. The northern portion of the project site is traversed in an east-to-west direction by an existing i 6-foot fuel line easement. The fuel line under laying the easement, referred to as the Ozul fuel pipeline, is owned by the United States Air Force. The 8-inch pipeline was used to transport petroleum from a Concord pump station to a petroleum storage facility in Martinez for approximately 40 years.2 In 1999, petroleum operations were terminated and the pipeline was drained, cleaned, and pressure tested to test for leaks, of which, none were identified.' To control internal erosion, the pipeline is filled with nitrogen gas. To control external erosion, a cathodic protection system is operated.' The Defense Logistic Agency (DLA) manages the pipeline, and is responsible for any monitoring and cleanup activities.s Since the easement and pipeline will be covered with the proposed private road it 1 AEi Consultants,2005. Phase 11 Subsurface Investigation Report for 24-Acre i%acant Parcel,APN I59-230-004, Martinez, California, 94553,August 25. Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. ` Ibid. 23 Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall complete a detailed survey that identifies the exact location of the 16-foot pipeline easement and the location of the 8-icnh pipeline within the easement. The boundaries of the easement area shall be clearly marked during construction activities to ensure that the construction personnel know when they are working within or close to the easement so that they may use proper precautions. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: To alert potential buyers to the existence of the pipeline and associated hazards, deed notification shall be filed for every residential parcel. The notification shall clearly indicate that the pipeline, though currently not in use, has explosive potential and that an accident involving the pipeline could cause extensive damage to private property as well as serious person injury or death. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? There are no existing schools within '/4 mile of the project site. No new schools are proposed within '/4 mile of the project site. As described in Section VII.a, the proposed project includes the construction of residential units and would not result in the routine use, transport, or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the pub- lic or the environment? The project site is not located on the list of hazardous materials sites prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would not pose a significant health hazard to the public or environment. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is located within the boundary of the adopted Land Use Compatibility Plan for Buchanan Field Airport, located approximately'/4-mile southeast of the project site. Chapter 3 of the County's Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) provides policies to ensure for land use compatibility in regards to noise, safety, and airspace protection for all uses and new development within the Buchanan Field Airport Influence Area(AIA), which generally includes all parcels within a 14,000 foot radius from the both ends of each runway. The project site is located approximately 4,500 feet northwest of the north end of Runways 14L and 14R and is within the AiA. The proposed project is consistent with the ALUCP's noise, safety and airspace compatibility policies in the following ways: Noise Compatibility. The ALUCP established that acceptable noise levels for single-family residential uses are up to 55 dB CNEL. The proposed project is located approximately 1,200 feet outside the established 55 dB CNEL contour for Buchanan Field as depicted in Figure 3B of the County's ALUCP and, therefore, would not be exposed to excessive aircraft or airport-related noise levels. Safety Compatibility. Buchanan Field Safety Zones are delineated in Figure 3C of the County's ALUCP. The safety zones are designated l through 4, with Safety Zone 1 being the most restrictive in regard to allowable land use and Safety Zone 4 being the least restrictive. The project site is not located within an 24 established Buchanan Field Safety Zone. The nearest safety zone to the project site is Safety Zone 4 for Runway 14R, which terminates approximately 1,200 feet northeast of the project site. Airspace Protection. Airspace protection zones are delineated in the Airport Land Use Plan. The pro- ject site is in an area where no structure is allowed above 173 feet mean sea level. The highest proposed finished pad (Lot 11) would be 106 feet. The maximum zoning height is 35 feet; the most conservative estimate for a top of structure elevation would be 141 feet,well below the 173-foot limit. fi For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? See Section VII.e above. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The proposed project would develop a new, I 1 unit single family project with a new roadway. The new roadway has been designed to County standards,thereby would be of an adequate width and grade to accommodate emergency vehicles, as well as emergency evacuation. The proposed development on the project site was anticipated by the County's 2005 General Plan and, as such, has been considered in the County's adopted emergency plan and evacuation plan. As a result,the proposed project would not impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The project site is in a suburban area and development of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to an increased risk of wildland fires. In addition, as part of the building permit process, all plans are reviewed for compliance with applicable Building and Fire Department requirements, pursuant to the Uniform Building and Fire Codes, and all other related County requirements. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Vlll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere sub- stantially 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)? zs Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substan- tial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flood- ing on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage sys- tems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ E ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and Best Management Practices (BMP's) for the project would be prepared by the project civil engineer and reviewed and approved by the County Public Works Department as part of the Grading and Improvement Plans. County inspection during site preparation and construction would confirm the implementation and on-going maintenance of the SWPPP and BMP's and other pertinent County requirements related to water quality standards and waste dis- charge requirements. The project would not result in significant impacts on water quality. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The project would not result in direct additions or withdrawals to existing groundwater, the project would utilize the public water system, would result in minimal amount of new imperious surface area, and would still allow for percolation across large portion of its surface area. 26 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The project site currently slopes down towards the proposed extension of Hillside Lane, and includes extensive grading on the site to create 1 1 residential building pads and new roadway. However, development of the project would not change the direction of drainage on the site. The construction standards and permit requirements described in Section VIILa would mitigate potential impacts related to erosion or siltation to a less than significant level. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? The existing project site is undeveloped, vacant land. The proposed project would develop the site with 11 residences, a new roadway, associated driveways, and landscaping. As a result, the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface and,therefore, would increase the amount of surface runoff from the site. The following Mitigation Measure would reduce potential impacts associated with the increase in surface water runoff and flooding to less than significant levels: Mitif4ation Measure Hydrology-]: The applicant shall construct stone facilities, both on-and, if necessary, off-site in accordance with the drainage requirements of the County Subdivision Ordinance(Title 9)to collect and convey storm water run off from the project site to an adequate watercourse. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm- water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? See Section Vlll.d regarding the capacity of storm water drainage systems. Grading and Drainage plans would be prepared for the proposed project, and as described in Mitigation Measure Geology-1, all grading and drainage plans are subject to review of the County Geologist and to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Mitigation Measures included in Section Vl, as well as the construction standards and permit requirements described in Section VllLa would ensure potential impacts related to additional sources of polluted runoff would be less than significant. fJ Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? The construction standards and permit requirements described in Section VIILa, above, would ensure potential impacts related to water quality would be less than significant. g) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Bound- ary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area and,therefore, would not result in the placement of housing in a flood hazard area. h) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 27 As described in Section VIII.g., above,the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. As a result, development of the site would not result in the placement of structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, includ- ing flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Any flooding on the site would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles from Suisun Bay at an elevation of 71-to 178-feet above mean sea level. The potential for the project site to be inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow is therefore nearly non-existent. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regula- ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ tion of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (includ- ing, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the pur- pose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ natural community conservation plan? a) Physically divide an established community? The proposed project site is surrounded by primarily suburban residential uses. The proposed project can be characterized as infill and would not divide an established community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The General Plan designation for the site is Single-Family Residential High Density (SH), which allows 5.0 to 7.2 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed project consists of 1 i new, detached, single-family residences on individual lots. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is being requested by the applicant to subdivide one existing parcel, totaling 2.59 acres, into i 1 new lots, with an average lot size of 8,500 square feet. Individual parcels would vary from 3,580 to 13,123 square feet, resulting in a net residential density of 5.12 units per acre. The proposed project includes the rezoning of the site to P-1, which would accommodate the proposed single-family use and associated property development standards, including appropriate setbacks and parking. 28 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The project site is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important min- ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ eral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The County's 2005 General Plan does not identify the project site as containing or being underlain by a locally-important mineral source. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not result in the loss of a locally-important mineral source recovery site. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X1. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground. ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 29 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a pub- lic airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? An Environmental Noise Study was completed for this site by Charles M. Salter and Associates, Inc. in May 17, 2006. This study is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. The discussion below summarizes the findings of the study. To quantify the existing noise environment at the project site, Charles M. Salter and Associates conducted three continuous long-term 48 hour noise measurement and two 15-minute short-term between 12 and 13 May 2006. The measurements were taken at various locations to determine how noise levels vary at different lots throughout the project site. Based on the measurements,the dominant noise source in the area is vehicular traffic along interstate 680(I-680). To a lesser extent, noise from aircraft flyovers and Blum Road also contribute to the existing noise environment. In summary,noise levels are within the"Nonnally Acceptable"range and not mitigation is needed to meet the County standards for interior noise. Exterior noise levels at outdoor-use areas are also within the County's goals and therefore no mitigation is needed. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Construction of the proposed project would require minor excavation and earthwork activities. Although these activities could result in infrequent periods of high noise,this noise would not be sustained and would occur only during the temporary construction period. No pile driving or other construction activity that would generate very high noise levels or ground borne vibration would occur within the project site. Therefore,this impact is considered less-than-significant. 30 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The long-term use of the project site in the County's 2005 General Plan is residential. This land use would not generate high ambient noise levels. Conservative estimates for the increases in noise on the project site are one to two decibels as a result of the expected increase in background traffic levels. No substantial long-tern increase in ambient noise levels is expected as a result of project implementation. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could temporarily increase ambient noise levels. However,these noise levels would occur in association with minor excavation and earthwork activities, would be intermittent and short term, and would not be considered significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in theprojectarea to excessive noise levels? The Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan' includes noise contours from aircraft operations at Buchanan Field. The project site is located approximately 1,200 feet outside the 55 decibel contour line for projected future noise levels. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. .fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ directly (for example, by proposing new homes and busi- nesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing else- where? Contra Costa county Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan,Contra Costa County,California, December 2000. 31 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastruc- ture)? The project site is located within the County's established Urban Limit Line, and single-family development was anticipated for the site in the County's 2005 General Plan. The proposed project would construct 11 new, single family residences on an existing undeveloped site. Applying Contra Costa County's average household population of 2.72 persons to the proposed II houses,the project would yield an increase of approximately 30 persons to the County's household population. The additional 30 residents represent less than 1/10 of one percent of the County's 2000 population of 948,816 persons, according to the US Census. The proposed project would not induce any population growth beyond that anticipated for the area. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project would develop 1 1 new, single-family homes on an existing, undeveloped site. Since the location of the new units is currently undeveloped, implementation of the project would not displace a substantial number of housing units or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing else- where? As described in Section Xll.b, above, the proposed project would not result in the displacement of people and, as a result, would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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: 32 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 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: Fire protection,police protection, schools,parks, other public facilities? The proposed project will be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by public service systems. The proposed project would result in I 1 new, residences on the project site. The level of public services required for the site would be slightly greater than the level currently demanded. As part of the building permit review process, all departments and agencies responsible for providing services are consulted to determine their ability to provide services to, proposed development projects. Such services within the project area may include, but are not limited to fire and police protection, emergency services, schools, maintenance of public facilities including roads, and other governmental services as anticipated by the County's 2005 General Plan. Where required,the payment of in-lieu fees would further reduce potential impacts related to the provision of public services. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, need, or construc- tion of government facilities. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recrea- tional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accel- erated? 33 As discussed in Section XII.a, Population and Housing, the proposed project would include I I new single-family detached residences, and increase the population on the site by approximately 30 persons. The proposed residences would include rear yards, and the project would include landscaped, sloped, open space areas. The increase in use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of the proposed project would not be such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Where required,the payment of in-lieu fees would further reduce potential impacts related to the provision of parks. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recrea- tional facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project does not include recreational facilities and would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Also see Section XIV.a, above. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ standard established by the county congestion management agency on designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ - ❑ ❑ ■ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ g) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? In the vicinity of the project site, Blum Road flows smoothly and without delay. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour(MPH) and the road is two lanes, with one lane in each direction. There are no reports of special or unusual accident patterns along this stretch of Pacheco Boulevard over the last five years. 34 There site is currently vacant, and the proposed project would construct 1 1 new residences. The increase of 11 single-family homes is not expected to create a substantial increase in traffic on Blum Road or Pacheco Boulevard, which intercepts Blum Road approximately '/2-mile south of the project site. The 11 single-family homes would add approximately 110 daily trips, and 11 peak hour trips to the local roadways. The net increase in traffic is not expected to impact the level of service at the signalized intersections in the project area at Pacheco Boulevard and Blum Road, or the Blum Road/Highway 4 off-ramp. The signalized intersections at.Blum Road and Pacheco Boulevard currently operate at Level of Service C or better in both the AM and PM peak hours. Further,residential development on the proposed project site was anticipated by and consistent with the County's 2005 General Plan. As a result, long-term,traffic load and capacity impacts for anticipated development, such as that on the proposed project site, have been incorporated into the County's 20-year capital improvement program. The proposed project would contribute to the funding of the identified long term roadway improvement by paying the appropriate Area of Benefit transportation impact fees prior to issuance of a building permit. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency or designated roads or highways? Implementation of the proposed project would add approximately 1 1 peak hour trips to the local road- ways. This increase is not expected to exceed a level of service standard established by the Contra Costa County Congestion Management Agency. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The project site is located approximately 2/3-miles northwest of the Buchanan Field Airport. Imple- mentation of the proposed residential project would not result in a change to air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersec- tions)or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? An extension of a private road off of Blum Road, Hillside Lane, would provide access to the site, and would be would be oriented 90 degrees to Blum Road for approximately 300 feet and then an additional 30 degrees north for the length of Hillside Lane. Currently, sidewalk is proposed on the south side of Hillside Lane for approximately 540 feet. However,there is a gap with no sidewalk for approximately 280-feet to Blum Road. Since the proposed private road is a 20-foot single traffic lane(within a 30-foot easement) it would force pedestrian traffic into the street. This creates an unsafe environment for future residents of the subdivision and is a potentially signification impact. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level,the applicant will be required to construct sidewalk improvements from the Hillside Lane sidewalk to Blum Road. Mitigation Measure Transportation-1: The applicant shall construct sidewalk to completely fill the gap created by the subdivision f oni the Hillside Lane sidewalk to Blum Road. The sidewalk shall be located on the either side of Hillside Lane determined by the existing field conditions. The sidewalk shall extend between the most eastern sections of the subdivision sidewalk to Blum Road and shall be designed in accordance with the Public Works Department standards and shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and Public Works Department. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 35 Emergency vehicles would access the site from Blum Road via Pacheco Boulevard to the South. Turn- around areas have been developed to accommodate emergency vehicles. The proposed project would have adequate emergency access. J) Result in inadequate parking capacity? The proposed project would supply parking consistent with the County Zoning Ordinance. The project would include two covered parking spaces per dwelling unit within enclosed garages,two uncovered driveway parking spaces per unit, as well as 10 on-street parking along Hillside Lane. g) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposed project would be required to comply with the County's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (03-02), which ensures that the project applicant coordinates with County Connection. If determined necessary by County Connection, the project applicant would provide a bus turnout and shelter, or contribute moines for planed County Connection alternative transportation improvements on Blum Road in the future. As a result, the proposed project would comply with the County's Transportation Demand Management ordinance and, therefore, would be consistent with adopted polices,plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste- ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ- mental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ- mental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment pro- ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ vider which serves or may serve the project that it has ade- quate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 36 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and re.ula- ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ tions related to solid waste? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by public service systems and would extend public utilities from Blum Road along the new Hillside Lane to the 11 individual residential buildings. The level of public services required for the site has been anticipated by the County in the 2005 General Plan. As a result,the proposed project would not result in wastewater treatment requirements exceeding applicable Regional Water Quality Control Construction requirements or the construction of new facilities related to the provision of these utilities. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? As described in Section XVI.a, above,the proposed use on the project site was anticipated by the County's 2005 General Plan. As a result,the proposed project would not necessitate the construction of new stone water drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities beyond that anticipated by the 2005 General Plan. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface on the project site,thereby requiring the construction of new storm water drainage facilities, as described in Section XVI, above. The following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measure Utilities-1: Implementation of Mitigation Measures Biological 1, 2, and 3 would reduce potential impacts to the special-status animals to less than significant levels. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project f om existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by public service systems. The level of public services required for the 11, new single family residences has been, anticipated and planned for by the County's 2005 General Plan. As part of the building permit review process,the project site's water supplier would be responsible for providing services would be consulted to determine their ability to provide water to the proposed development project. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the pro- ject that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the pro- vider's existing commitments? 37 As described in Section XVI.d, above,the proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by public service systems. The level of public services required for the 11, new single family residences has been anticipated and planned for by the County's 2005 General Plan. As part of the building permit review process, the project site's wastewater treatment provider responsible for providing services would be consulted to determine their ability to provide wastewater collection and treatment services to proposed project. fi Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? As described in Section XVIA, above, the proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by public service systems. The level of public services required for the 11, new single family residences has been anticipated and planned for by the County's 2005 General Plan. As part of the building permit review process, the project site's waste management provider responsible for providing services would be consulted to determine their ability to provide services to proposed project. g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Recycling receptacles would be provided within the project site, in accordance with all County regu- lations related to solid waste. Potentialhv Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate impor- tant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively consider- able"means that the incremental effects of a project are con- siderable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sus- taining 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 per- iods of California history or prehistory? 38 As described in Section IV, implementation of the proposed project could adversely affect special status animals. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures Biological-1 through 3 would ensure that impacts to these species are reduced to less-than-significant levels. As described in Section V., Cultural Resources, there are no identified cultural resources within the site, and it is unlikely that resources will be uncovered during the construction period. Implementation of the proposed project would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; 3) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; 4)threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6)eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (`Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would result in the development of 1 1 new residential units in suburban Contra Costa County. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indi- rect adverse effects on human beings. BIBLIOGRAPHY California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Program -- http://Nv«ryv.dot.ca.Liov/ hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy 1.htm Contra Costa, County of. 1996. Contra Costa County General Plan 1995-2010. Diablo Engineers, Inc., 2005. Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Hillside Lane Subdivision 9004. June 29. Darwin Myers Associates, 2006. Geologic Peer Review and CEQA Section, Hillside Estates. March 30. Charles M. Salter Associates, 2006. Hillside Estates, Environmental Noise Study. May 17. State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection,2004. Important Farmland Map. 0 m � EH oa o c oma^ 6--o u d G T W p m O O o U V u w � C V Vy L+ ~T• � G j f�3. L a. A vY � d' w0�I tO U y tr y fl N G U �.c •'�' .0 i- b V i id U •^O w d � on y en, � G �y! 7 C '✓ c4 G z b ecd @ w @ 4 m ty, Q m G � U r U A 'T� U �O'yd N✓ M 'U N c@ U w O � Yr C U G {�'• d y U y4 ca G 6 G y @ @ N L U N U co v �.-� of). to @ ` N N O Yj -Up .. N 6 N U OTi-45@ d Y 7 O N N N @ cid N 51 O > 6 ON � i N O O U 7 7 N O• 4 J mat G .O"" L N N U D J q U@ V O N a 0,0 td a v @ w O U c> p N •O .9 iO Yn @ .^' — '%U @ia. N N U �' L �" G O @ W v '✓ u N G L O A N J K' 'O J N ^CS N b� O �• 7@ J y@ O y U G GL✓ 'O G ? J "' A d N@ L N W1'O W U O O ,'-� v v� N O@ ons �— �° 04Z5 @4 v U @ U1 N 'O J aN N y c* C N a@ 3 N �o U✓ N`� 4 " 7 U J N ? J O N ' V cid G Oy G « N ✓ U t ti N o•��" ✓ G O O „w. �@ 7, ✓ i. '.'" G C U p. C2 U N 00 U o @ @ u Q -a on 4 e ° ° C o a m n onN 43 0 4g; a> O O . 7 N yV N G v � o G w a7 7+ '' wt� p 0 i3S CJ CS G7 _._ d pD 00 O in O 6 CY L ti G Y bGp T G }, > pCL o a Tu AcG x � °pO H@ga `a� 3t 0 ya. y R 0 @ QaJ' N y N U ti U yin 'L6 .PG N U AA,G 13 .O 4i vi y oz Cyr A �"' S' a y ° ,G C a N G 0 v a U U G tl. y > laO E C N V O. U U N 'O v aA.O > a o O LU a p, � •6 —�•, O Lm �'= P C G +�. n. y C1 a O ,G.O o 'n ca: 0 -0CL GO 0 .— O ,iC N �" v^ Nl 7 i- N 0 U 3 N Vi' ti to.0 0 N oA api b ro U C �? •.- ,y m N "° O O O 'n c*0 b Fy ° N O .° 3 bb w h y w w E ao-c n > tl c o 3 o u 9 m C N i y G ° .N+ C G M'i ro U -p U bo O U w O U P G W , � ° ca °� "acs Y ow ob w ACL to.'.� baA U Y <y C N O O v� P G ctloA N in G �i m G P y Ow-, O wcG4i y -° y O tz .OD y0 d c 0 4 is U m .o ° a o V U �. Zwe �s 0 o ' G v pty� V ° .y cVC J y° Y 7 6• N r C -Gai Y ° ° d UQQ v � O � ti A• N .N� C Q GO •� U Q fY p g ^ ^a C L C„ L.+ y G Y w u N O P aV. y0 n0 ` O N N ''' 'C �.+ a• m �' N NO .P. .� G ° -p � v iV-• v G'. C3,.° G �:a p Y.`'� G.O t 4i E N C �1 G G'• N �, v 'n 'O G `L G A N P N C 0O G N cd O OO G N by P- _cmi p Y pncd R m R b a' o ,°Y, ° w C ;4: $ L a. .... L vbn c m N c c v O v v .� m '; b�m v OL+ VN � C� 'Ni UG' �a1 ^ ,m. GGG �.N'C NOF '° Or A .° V N O 'm 7 N Q .ry 4 ,° ''�' ti cNe m •.. 0 ° CO °: UCI F y v S> > t ... s,. v " d O '�v,L✓ 6 °J ..1 `b w `° r.. 48 Gm � roy ° Na � � � oKz � r m � N C w U. O v s v 'o p•'j 'in �.°-, '' p y'd ,N, d N ai G Rw w N O t7 =1 wO v L O-. N CGS U r U G C, ° V cmi 0.r0 e0 Glz� N N 'n v G i4 ° p O A 'O N v ,y v O y fl.A N d bo :n m ✓� m ✓vi G U () N.+ G � Y.d'" � � � � .n N .N'a�1 °'O b'� m A4+by � � � V 00• ^VO., „°� � `N' � p� V Fc: r-L O r6 N O N y G ,P 3 G .Q i° v vo t,^_ P <Na on'@ N M r N Ua mov000 � ? LN =� ° � awo � £ at° ou oc ° oo � d p 'N-' F tT an d y p.,no aGi 0 3 j y b a ro 0 m ° v N E d y G ctlO:� O vi Y� ^P �' wp N 'L '..0 '' y y . aC � - •.> � c�ta O J N O O O O � I O w A i wo O w. pp � D• �' U ✓ O � pp ° O �@ N J S �f1 N O, O✓ i S N L J O G N O @ E' NO oD� .a G' � � ✓ �Gp m vM vM°bUU w �� `G CQ r O �o U' yi fl• d CCI -.. N G✓V '� p. o m i p // ✓. O N G @ y� �•� G. U N m d G N ON'y p y G d`� o ✓U�' Y GA o o W ° oa O �' ✓@ O V y �'qp Y e w i N � � � �R '}N fl,� A °v+ r . cn'yv '� yGr9 W '� 4•N"� yItYNN �'� ✓G ,C y L p d G 9 A A .G T �" � G o ✓v� � o- ° 7� cGa �' O y C7 l3a v '' ✓ i O N 7:5 !. ,{� G A N N •O UO N G O p' G 9 .p 4 v N °✓N.S� 'OA .:. 3 IS y'd G ,'Ay O A 70 di R✓� O v `° S A r a NN O C5 G V V 6 u''@ i ✓ @ �' -d M G A 7 N N .- J@ G °'. ¢ G U T ✓ N O N E „O G A 't7 Y O . .G G` G �. r ✓ V @ '✓ N G v A G 3 �+ by U N ✓ G.y ¢. C bA ✓ '� O "@ y i ✓ 4 G �' G v O ✓ x 'O Yi O A d @ � G � d� �may' � �' A v U % G � O4-Y y 4 w y i J O @ U y 0> � t%W A ? U N A .`• v p Y N i N O D U 0 °n > @ d Dy. v G G ',s w, y v rp0 o snD'9 p `'�^C. V N m v r •Np ,4 m'4 9 N N@ v G A'O Y t V G V 'y,N "'✓ E A i q .p r Uv G�, A Y 'p @ t, O m p. O C y u+ U ✓G .y; � � G " N .p N w d1 N G V AD@ N G@ G ✓ ti N ." E N N O N V@ .r r d @ O J 9 N d G n n ✓ N v'o J Y 'd .G u A °°Ya N � ✓ 6 '� @ L �• d .d y o t w S � Y N o w 6 GD a N o > y °�y w 7 O E N ✓@ v O P ✓@ '�' "" 7' J G G N O � p'w�i ✓ �' p, rn y4 Op G p U.� �`^ G9 30 �tG U ° %d ��R q �' d@ N J�'O D@ A A w"m O ° G .% OY G K 7 ✓.7 L O 3W ✓ V i .`%. @ O d '!.'Q G• ^.' N CY y I .Y O .`✓ ✓ ✓U, N U N N .) A O-y w C I U G N q,G G SY+ G N ° 6J o,@3N° ,.] ✓o °q $ $NG � �� ycU �pG YE lR�1'Na C fun 4>^ O @ pg N N GO m 07- R O �° v 0 o pdo J a 6 0 v °� p6 G•j ��i N ° Gj N G��y % 3 N Ufl N � A W aj ° ¢'� � G 3 .}'.✓ N p I N .^ G y. d CS m i`•, dy d G oGii v `" G-o ". NN ° wF''� O o 050, CDJ90 p op A@ N q G V 7 w O U 0 C, y r O G �� N C7 7 d A o � ° 7 0 R w Y R.0 V V o 9 A J A A ✓ I G Y IP N A Y Y N T I G ..- � G 'V i A � -o U i `n � G O -6 v ° V V ? r GO ✓ w a t. W'�n N ✓ A @ A 6 U Y N �J J 7 G ' @ N W 'A '7 r 'f� N ✓ J � "p .N.o w � J, � 3 p, v on G',o °% N V � ..a G G a ✓ � " U C m @ ;n o G 9 O J G 7 C,J O p r G .. @ . �,,• A G@ p u J W i w 7`.,A@ �O� �.U N K N L' �S U �n N ✓'S ? 7"'' 'vi O � O O U R 7 N N .� N O s. cAi G A ✓O u U U N G O Nc.y g y p �,v.' '�@ @ vN "o '01 � 3U�^GN •Vd NL'GA � 4OO . � ° Gon V@✓@ � y� .p �, 90O P ° N� Ry,, s✓�G� O, G A G'90 00 '✓8 � ;v �. .r✓ p. Y� °P w ✓G � i 4{� J � � � Y � @ 7@ A G O 'rA 'iA � cs ro W w w w w w o ° ° o 0 0 � .- E c � c •. � c � � � c � ° E n. O w y p O J c E E o eco.E E c E o o o ro c b ro a v ro a ro b ° ro ° m aac nn E > a as - an d pp � C J a E � c ro cro cro c c ro � c aJ O U O U O U O O V a 0 ,c O G N m bp '� '� bb O 0 O a` U O Y C G G U CO ° E p v $ = v > y o 500 o E .ro v > ro o m c . T on E v p = 3 a s U c o ,m o 3roo 'o 5 °c° o `' ` '� 3 p ° bo :D v ro we b on o T b y U ° ro rn C Y O L d � U � G 4. C t�C � d G ` y 'C F F" '.L.• T Q y° bn N G ` °U a.0 p > w v o, b . rot '- N o c ro « own 'ons 'C v c axi >,= ro '� v ,c o m v h ro U •° b 'O s p .+ �. 7 O W C ro ro C .s.+ U w y Y p ro C w =_ ❑ '° Y O psi � 3 on c ' E otn° m = Ec v c 3 `= '`' a°i v •° .y o c C y On y 0 ,C O T y C y ro v = y C bn C v ` y Oqt n•. a' �, v g E on M oto 5'n N ro o on Y v ° w r 'C c o� .j .� `` C° ` 0 o 3 Q a n` ocn z o a o ¢ s c a o ao n ° o <„ o. ,� c c o n r, 0 3 T o ro E o 3 E 0 _,oo o E ;^ 2 ' y ,o b °O v w y T p v ps v0 0 - N ° i c�`tl ctl O C ,`D m 0 � O � U E U Q u 'O 7 `" d0 r'Ci� �- y h �• U v s U v 'O CO i tCC On �- 'U �y-+ b ti R ro C O` 7 T ri U �'D tC0 ro G a dJ d 9 > p G O n G ro U i G ro ro v yr7 rri CO C '° ro C �. 'D c0 ❑ Q' C C C a E G 7 ro C O O W O U O Y - vUi ¢ p •- ^_ .N r v ._ m � .: E ro � c � ,- '_ "' � o .- > � °' o .y � v '- .5 ,,; - 'i aEi ° o " .. Uro a> b _ 3T ``° ,oc .. ncac YO3s - " Eon via °_' 0 Gwo w _ o v rl C E cl ro Q = o o bo 5 a` a` to L bb 0 O d C_ p.E p ULC] u � C C C Cd bo Y U O O L U w U y - tC w ` a` UU c is U y d OJ N p� C C O h w ro -o F T M s y o o `t ci U vi G U w t y b ro O Y T Op cui 3 c E co u c Np.L 'm yV0 ❑ L Q O rC P T,a U 4 o ro y i o G U s U 7 N w Ci.-p L T Y un .t. L aLi '- °' zz NOTIFICATION LIST 159150052 159164001 159180001 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SERVISS JENNIFER E WRIGHT ROBERT J & MARCIA L TRE 255 GLACIER DR 4715 BLUM RD 112 CLIPPER LN MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 159180003 159180004 159180005 PETRILLO RICHARD TRE PETRILLO RICHARD HENDERSON ROBERT H &SHERRY 118 CLIPPER LN 118 CLIPPER LN L MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 120 CLIPPER LN MARTINEZ CA 94553 159180007 159180008 159180015 LARSON KURT A& SHIRLEY L GABRIEL ROBERT G & MARY R TRE FORD PHYLLIS A 155 ARKINLANDER LN 133 ARKINLANDER LN 149 ARKINLANDER LN MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 159180016 159180024 159180027 RODRIGUEZ JAVIER & NORMA E CONNORS LISA M RIES GARY & LESLIE TRE 141 ARKINLANDER LN 4650 BLUM RD 21 PYRMONT CT MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 159180028 159180029 159190002 RIES GARY L & LESLIE TRE SPERL MYRNA L MAHAFFEY DENNIS L &MARY 21 PYRMONT CT 4654 BLUM RD 145 HILLSIDE LN MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 159190003 159190004 159190005 HUGHES CLAUDIA J EINEVOLL OBERT& KAYE E TRE THOMPSON DANIEL & LESLIE A TRE 155 HILLSIDE LN 4592 EL MONTE CT 20 WREN CT MARTINEZ CA 94553 OAKLEY CA 94561 CONCORD CA 94519 159190006 159190007 159190008 EINEVOLL OBERT & KAYE E TRE GOLDEN OAK DEVELOPMENT INC CULLISON PAMELA ADAIR 4592 EL MONTE CT 1116 HASTINGS CT 160 HILLSIDE LN OAKLEY CA 94561 ANTIOCH CA 94509 MARTINEZ CA 94553 159190009 159190010 159190011 CULLISON PAMELA ADAIR PENE SHAWN M VERDIN JOSE 160 HILLSIDE LN 180 HILLSIDE LN 4730 BLUM RD MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 159190012 159190014 159190015 CHALK TYLER GRESHAM MARGARET TRE KRUMMEN THOMAS M & JANICE M 1333 SAN PABLO AVE 1967 WOODPECKER CT 4736 BLUM RD PINOLE CA 94564 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 MARTINEZ CA 94553 159190017 159190018 159190020 NEVELS RONALD S LANGSTON KENNETH TRE GRESHAM MARGARET TRE 4758 BLUM RD 762 CONDOR DR 1967 WOODPECKER CT MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 159190024 159190029 159190030 STEPHENS ROBERT KNOPF CHARLES ARENZ RICHARD M 11 957 STOW LN 115 HILLSIDE LN 4750 BLUM RD LAFAYETTE CA 94549 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 159190031 159200002 159200027 JANIN ASSOCIATES ALENCASTRE KAYO NISHIZAWA FAMILY TRUST 957 STOW LN 35 RUTHERFORD LN 88 RUTHERFORD LN LAFAYETTE CA 94549 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 159230004 JANIN ASSOCIATES INC 957 STOW LN LAFAYETTE CA 94549 MT. VIEW SANITARY DISTRICT CONTRA COSTA WATER DIST. CITY OF MARTINEZ P.O. BOX 2757 P.O. BOX H2O 525 HENRIETTA STREET MARTINEZ, CA 94553 CONCORD, CA 94524 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 MARTINEZ UNIFIED SCHOOL VINEHILL IMPROVEMENT ASSOC. BUILDING INSPECTION DISTRICT 4361 CABRILHO DRIVE Gradin Division 921 SUSANNA STREET 9 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 ***Interoffice*** ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PUBLIC WORKS CC FIRE DISTRICT ***Interoffice*** ENGINEERING SERVICES 'Interoffice' Interoffice*** SHERIFF OFFICE ADMIN & COMM SERVICES ***Interoffice***