HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11142006 - D.3 'i
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS'
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP
Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ..
•
County
i OST-1C'�UN�
DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2006
SUBJECT: HEARING ON A REZONING TO ESTABLISH A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN,
SUPERSEDING ONE THAT HAS EXPIRED, FOR 89 HOMES WITHIN AN EXISTING
PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (P-1)AND A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE SITE IS
LOCATED AT 4755 AND 4781 PACHECO BOULEVARD IN THE MARTINEZ AREA,
COUNTY FILES #RZ053158 &#DP053027, LOVING & CAMPOS ARCHITECTS INC.
(APPLICANT) FIELD BROTHERS & RANDAL BODHAINE (OWNERS). (SUPERVISORIAL
DISTRICT IL)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR REIfCOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDATIONS j
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 is;ladequate for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act. {'
�»t
Alhk
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ji, X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE i' OTHER
1
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON A0 ,TCvivhe r- I 2oU APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED 'C OT_ R
�i
V E OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT J:�7! ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: .f ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: it SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
i
Contact: Ryan Hernandez(925)335'-1206 ATTESTEDG o
JOHN CULL OF T
, CLERK HE BOARD OF
Orig: Community Development Department SUPERVIS RS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: Loving &Campos Architects Inc (Applicant)
Field Brothers(Owner)
Randal Bodhaine (Owner) .i BY EPUTY
Public Works Department
File
• Ii
r
I
II;
November 14, 2006
Board of Supervisors
• File#RZ053158 & DP053027
Page 3
I
A. Environmental Review
Mitigations were proposed and agreed to by the applicant that would reduce all potential impacts
to a less than significant level. In other respects, staff determined the project would not result in
any significant envilronmental impacts and proposed adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration determination for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act.
A mitigation-monitoring program has also been proposed and accepted by the applicant.
l
B. County Planning Commission Hearing
I
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 granting of the applications, including
conditional approval of the subdivision. Approval of the subdivision is contingent on the approval
of the proposed rezoning by the Board of Supervisors.
The County Planningl Commission heard the applicant's rezoning, subdivision, and development
plan request on June 13, 2006. A letter from an adjacent neighbor expressing concerns was
received on the day of the hearing; staff distributed the letter to the Commission. After
• evaluating the prop sal 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.
II
Following the Commission action, no appeals were filed. The only matter before the Board is
ii
action on the proposed rezoning and final development plan. Staff recommends that the Board
of Supervisors approve the proposed rezoning and final development plan.
C. Implication of Califor Iia Air Resources Board Report
In April of 2005, the California Air Resources Board issued the "Air Quality and Land Use
Handbook.- A Community Health Perspective." In its report, the Air Resources Board (CARB)
states that recent air 1pollution studies have shown an association between respiratory and other
non-cancer health effects and proximity to high traffic roadways. The purpose of the report is to
highlight these issues so that they are considered in the planning process. The report
recognizes that land use agencies must balance other considerations, including housing and
transportation needs,;economic development priorities and other quality of life issues.
The proposed project is located adjacent to Interstate 680, with the edge of residential lots
placed approximately 50 feet from the edge of the highway pavement. At the Board's initial
hearing, Supervisor Uilkema requested that the item be continued to allow for a further analysis
of this issue.
The Department utilized LSA Associates in the preparation of an air quality/health assessment.
The methodology utilized for a point source emitter (e.g. a refinery) is fairly well established and
utilizes a threshold of,an increase in cancer risk of 10 in one million. There is no similar standard
methodology for analyzing this issue related to a new residential area.
i
i'
November 14, 2006
Board of Supervisors
File#RZ053158 & DP053027
• Page 5
D. Adding a .Condition'I of Approval that Requires Recourse in the Event of Two Confirmed
Violations of Permitted Times for Construction Activity
The Board has recently expressed concern about patterns of violation of restrictions on permitted
11
times for construction activity for projects in this general area. This project was approved by the
Commission prior to the Board expressing this concern. To that end, the applicant has agreed to
the following condition" that is to be incorporated into the final development plan approval.
98. Upon a fi 11ding 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
11
ensure that work hours and other restrictions are adhered to. This may
ii
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 Improve me nt/Construction Plan Notes — Prior
to clearance of improvement plans (including subdivision, grading,
building), Ithe notes for the plans shall include the above time limits on
construction activity.
V. Consequence of Inaction'l or Denial of Proposed Rezoning by the Board
I
The County Planning Commission approved the vesting tentative map for 89 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.
�i
i
i
r;
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 21-2006
• RESOLUTION NO. 21-2006
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 PRELIMINARY/FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY
LOVING & CAMPOS ARCHITECTS INC. (APPLICANT) FIELD BROTHERS AND
RANDAL BODHAINE (OWNERS), IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION
PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING, FOR THE MARTINEZ AREA OF SAID
COUNTY. (COUNTY FILES #DP053027 & RZ053158)
WHEREAS, a request by Loving & Campos Architects Inc. (Applicant) Field Brothers
and Randal Bodhaine (Owners) to rezone 9.3 acres to establish a preliminary and final
development plan for 89 homes, superseding the permits that have expired, within an existing
Planned Unit District (P-1) for which an application was received by the Community
Development Department on April 4, 2005, County Files RZ053158 and DP053027; 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 March 14, 2006 and
April 13, 2006; and
• WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled
before the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, June 13, 2006, where all persons interested
therein might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 the County Planning Commission 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 (P-1) is consistent with
the General Plan including the Multiple Family Low Density Land Use Designation;
3. FINDS that the proposed preliminary and final development plans are 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 and
the proposed preliminary and final development plan for 89 homes, superseding ones
• that have expired.
Page 2
5. APPROVES the proposed tentative subdivision map for 89 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,
1. Required Finding: The change proposed substantially complies with the
General Plan.
Project Finding: The property is zoned Planned Unit District, P-1, and the
rezoning is to establish a preliminary and final development plan superseding
permits for each property that have expired. The proposed Planned Unit
District complies with the density range outlined in the General Plan and is also
consistent with the specific polices for the Pacheco area. Furthermore, the
mitigation measures and conditions of approval incorporated into the project's
approval will ensure compliance with the General Plan.
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.
Proiect Finding: Developing these properties into residential homes is •
compatible with the existing land use districts in the area since many of the uses
surrounding the project are residential. Though the project is adjacent to
Interstate 680, conditions require the applicant to install a sound wall to
mitigate this,impact and the site plan and landscaping plans provide buffering.
This proposal is consistent with the growth of residential development along
this part of Pacheco Boulevard.
3. Required Finding: The Community need has been demonstrated for the use
proposed.
Project Finding: Contra Costa County demonstrates a need for housing of all
types. Infill housing developments are needed to lessen the pressure to expand
housing development into previously undeveloped parts of the County. The
rezoning of the property to establish a development plan superseding ones that
have expired'allows the County to fulfill this need.
B. 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. •
Page 3
• 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.
Prosect Finding: The General Plan designation for the project site is Multiple-
Family Residential Low Density. The Final Development Plan describes a
development of 89 single-family units that meets the General Plan density
requirements.
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 Pacheco Boulevard is characterized primarily by
residential development and large areas of underutilized lands. The proposed
development will be of a quality that matches the recently approved 128-unit
development directly east (across Pacheco Boulevard) of the property.
The desirability of the project lies in its aesthetic quality and its lot configuration.
• The project provides for a density level consistent with the General Plan that also
produces single-family residences. The single-family residences provide for
adequate guest parking and private yard areas. The addition of the landscaping
plan will increase the visual and aesthetic characteristic of the project and with
the addition of the tot lot, provides a community area for children to play. This
use of an underutilized property helps fulfill the policies of the County Housing
Element within the General Plan.
C. Growth Management Element Performance Standards Findings
1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated 89 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. Though a "Measure C" traffic
study was not required a traffic study by Abrams Associates was conducted in
January 2006. Four mitigation measures were included with the project.
2. Drainage and Flood Control: The applicant is required to collect and convey all
stormwaters entering or. originating within the project to an adequate natural or
manmade water course including improvements to Drainage Area 57. The Final
Map may not be filed until the collect and convey requirements and
improvements have been met.
Page 4
Only the northwestern-most corner of the Field Parcel (proposed lot 2) is sited •
within the Flood Hazard Area, and no housing is proposed for this portion of the
project site.
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.
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 considered 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.
AYES: Snyder, Battaglia, Clark, Gaddis, Murray, Terrell and Wong
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Donald Snyder,
Chair of the County Planning Commission
County of Contra Costa, State of California
ATTEST:
DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary
County Planning Commission,
County of Contra Costa,
State of California
FINDINGS MAP
ORDINANCE 2006-29
i'
Findings rvbp
A-2 l R-7
-7
SITE
R-7
P-1 R-7
e-,V,
&
Pari
.12
M" P Martinez Area
Rezone Fro -1 To P-1
1, bon Snyder Chair of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission, State of California,do hereby certify that this is atrue and
correct copy of brig G-13 of the County's
I - 1
2005 zolninq map.
indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission
in the matter of, Lovinq & Compos Archite-ctr
R70931-58
AT=,.
Secretaryof t-ke,Contra Costa County
Planning Commission,State of Calif.
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-29
'(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. 2006-29) is
amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto
and incorporated herein.(see also Community Development Department File No. RZ053158 .)
FROM: Land Use District P-1 ( Planned Unit District )
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.
A-2 1 R-7
-7
-2er Vl
Clipp
-1
SITE
R-7
P-1
.o R-7
Pc0ea
• a
-12
: 0
c�
NN\
Q
SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after
passage, and within 1,5 days of passage shall be published once with the names of
supervisors voting for and against it in the �' ' r� ea.Yim `T;`m�, a
newspaper published in this County.
PASSED on ,1h v-e61 C 1q ata A by the following vote:
SUPERVISOR AYE NO ABSENT ABSTAIN
1. J. Gioia V ( ) ( ) ( )
2. G. B. Uilkema ( ( ) ( ) ( )
3. M. N. Piepho
4. M. DeSaulnier ( ) ( ) ( )
5. F. D. Glover (Xf ( ) ( ) ( )
ATTEST. Jo Cullen, County Administrator
• " I
and Clerk the Board of Supervisors
Chairman of the Board
By Dep. (SEAL)
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-29
RZ053158 Lvino&Campos Architects
i
V
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
i
1�
June 13, 2006
I'
{
i
i
I'
P
Agenda Item#
• Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2006—7:00 PM
Pacheco Boulevard Courtyard Homes II
I. INTRODUCTION
Loving& Campos Architects Inc. (Applicant)Field Brothers &Randal Bodhaine(Owners) This
project consists of three applications:
A. County File #RZ053158 — A request for approval to establish a preliminary
development plan, superseding one that has expired, for 89-homes within an existing
Planned Unit District(P-1).
B. County File #SD058967 — A request for a vesting tentative map approval to
subdivide 9.3-acres into 89-lots. The average lot size is approximately 2700-square
feet.
C. County File #DP053027 — A request for approval of a final development plan to
establish 89-single family residences (1620-1770 square feet in size) on 9.3-acres of
property. Approval to remove all trees(46)on site is also requested.
• The subject site is located at 4755 and 4781 Pacheco Boulevard in the Martinez area. (Zoning:
Planned Unit District,P-1) (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 159-230-002 and 159-230-003).
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 materials 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:
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.
Pacheco Boulevard Courtyard Homes
2. Adopt the findings and approve the proposed rezoning to the Planned Unit (P-1) •
District.
3. Adopt the findings a d 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 Preliminary and Final development
applications.
I1I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Surrounding Land Use and Settings. The proposed project is surrounded by suburban portions
of the City of Martinez and unincorporated Contra Costa County, and includes the following: The
parcels immediately to the north include three single-family homes and storage yards for
construction companies. Further to the north are offices and storage yards for a landscape
maintenance company, vacant land and the BNSF railroad tracks. Interstate 680 is immediately to
the east. Immediately to the south are properties within the City of Martinez which include
several single-family homes; some of which are being utilized for home occupations. Across
Pacheco Blvd to the west are the approved Belmont Terrace (128 units) and Fassler project (20
units). In addition there are four existing single-family homes.
Drainage Area 57 (DA57) is a County formed drainage area that encompasses the east area of
Martinez and extends east from the project site and east of 1-680 in the vicinity of Pacheco Creek.
Existing Site Description. The residential project site consists of two parcels of 5.85 and 3.39
acres. The properties were previously approved in the early 1990's (Subdivisions 7324 (Field) & •
7325 (Bodhaine)) for 27 and 16 single-family homes, respectively. The site slopes up
approximately 10 percent from Pacheco Boulevard. There are two existing homes and 46
ornamental trees on the site. Access is provided from Pacheco Boulevard. An existing church
with parking lots and an occupied residence is located on the south central portion of the site and
will remain. This area is surrounded by the project site and is not part of the project. An
additional residence with associated sheds and farming equipment is located in the central
northern portion of the project site, within the Bodhaine property. These structures would be
removed as part of the project.
General Plan. Multiple-Family Residential Low-Density (ML). Allowed density is 7.3 to 11.9
dwelling units/net.acre.
Existing Zoning: Planned Unit District(P-1).
Adjacent Residential Project. The adjacent property to the west (across Pacheco Boulevard) is
approved for a residential project that consists of 128 single-family homes and associated
landscaping, private roadway and parking areas. The average lot size is approximately 2700
square feet.
Re ug_latory Programs:
1. Flood Zone: According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (ESRI 2005), the project
site is within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area.' However, only the northwestern-most
' ESRI and FEMA website:http://www.esri.com/hazards/makemap.html.October 11,2005.
S-2
Files#RZ053158,DP053027,SD058967
County Planning Commission
Tuesday,June 13,2006
corner of the Field Parcel (proposed lot 2) is sited within the Flood Hazard Area, and
• no housing is proposed for this portion of the project site. The lowest finished floor
elevation within the proposed development would be 19.5 feet above mean sea-level.
The proposed project would not result in the placement of housing in a flood hazard
area.
2. 60 dba Noise Control: Due to the close proximity between the proposed project and
the Interstate-680 corridor, a sound wall will be constructed along the eastern
boundary of the development, measuring 850 linear feet and with an average height
of 8.2 feet. The sound wall will significantly reduce the audible noise, as a result of
traffic flow, for future property owners within this residential development to an
outside level of 60 dba consistent with the Noise Element in the Contra Costa County
General Plan. Noise levels within the proposed homes will be 45dba as required by
the California Building Code. (SUB COA#6 and Mitigation Measure Noise-1)
IV. PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project is a residential development that consists of 89 homes and associated
landscaping, roadways and parking areas. Improvements to DA57 are as also part of the proposed
project.
Residential Development. The project consists of 89 single-family homes on individual lots.
Gross residential density would be less than 10 units per acre. A Rezoning, Development Plan,
and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map are being requested by the Applicant. The development
would consist of thirteen courtyard clusters, three to eight residences clustered around a parking
• court. Ten homes will be located directly off of the private street, not in clusters. Three different
single-family, detached, housing types would be developed; each courtyard would contain a mix
of the housing types. The houses would be 1,620 to 1,770 square feet on an average lot size of
approximately 2,700 square feet. The houses would be two stories (maximum height of 35 feet),
have three bedrooms, and a two-car garage. The proposed project would include the creation of a
homeowners,association.
Landscaping and Open Space. The courtyards are terraced east across the property. There are
landscaped modular key-stone block terraces and slopes between courtyard clusters. These open
space areas would be planted with trees and shrubs. Modular key-stone block walls would be
constructed fronting Pacheco Boulevard, and planted with flowering shrubs, groundcover, and
accent planting. Similar landscaping would be planted at the entries to each residence, street trees
would be planted along the Private Road, and other groundcovers, accent plants, shade trees, and
screening trees would be planted on the site. All front yards and slope areas fronting Pacheco
Boulevard would be landscaped with initial construction. "Good neighbor" fences (finished both
sides) would be built along lot lines. Dry swales will be constructed and landscaped along the
lower edges of the property to meet the County's C.3 Clean Water requirements. Retaining walls
would be utilized, but would be generally hidden behind and between units. Where visible,
retaining walls would be of decorative design. The homeowners association would maintain the
private road and landscaped areas.
Transportation, Circulation and Parking. A private road off of Pacheco Boulevard would
provide access to the site. The roadway would loop through the project and provide two means of
ingress, egress and fire department access. The project has been designed to accommodate the
• realignment of Pacheco Boulevard as planned by County Public Works. The private road would
S-3
Pacheco Boulevard Courtyard Homes
be up to 36 feet wide (curb to curb); this would allow parking on both sides of the road. A total of
120 (60 on-street and 60 extra driveway)parking spaces would be provided. •
Drainage Area 57 Improvements (DA57). Drainage from the project site would be captured in
DA57, and improvements to accommodate this flow would be made to DA57 as part of the
proposed project. Improvements would be made to the existing stormwater conveyance system,
within an existing County drainage RW to the north of the site,between the two commercial uses
and then under the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF)Railroad line. The improvements to
DA57 would include the construction of approximately 250 linear-feet of 72-inch concrete pipe, 3
headwalls, one junction box structure, and 170 linear-feet of channel grading. A portion of this
work would take place within a wetland area.
Wetland Areas. A small portion of the Field, Bodhaine, and DA57 properties contain
jurisdictional wetlands. All.wetland areas within the Field and DA57 sites have been delineated
and verified by the USACE and mitigation plans for the impacts to wetlands within these
properties have been prepared and certified. by the USACE and the RWQCB. A wetland
delineation and preliminary jurisdictional determination was completed for the Bodhaine Property
in June 2005 and has been verified from USACE.
Site Preparation. Site preparation would include the demolition of all existing structures,utilities
and landscaping. The project has been designed to minimize grading qualities and depth by
terracing clusters of courtyard homes to accommodate the gentle slope of the property. The
project grading includes import of 42,000 cubic yards of excess dirt available from the Belmont
Terrace project, immediately across Pacheco Boulevard. This dirt would be moved to the project
site in 2006 after issuance of project grading permit. •
Construction and Phasing. Details of the construction and phasing are not known at this time.
For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that construction would take 15 to 18 months.
V. AGENCY COMMENTS
A. 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 restriction 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.
B. Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District: In a memorandum dated August
24, 2005 the District outlines their standards. The applicant is responsible for complying with
all Fire Protection District requirements.
C. Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council (MAC): The Pacheco MAC is concerned with the
projects impact on existing roads, utilities and whether or not the existing infrastructure is able
to handle the increased demand without providing improvements or upgrade.
Staff Response: The applicant is providing frontage improvements, drainage improvements,
and a fair share contribution for a traffic signal at the corner of Pacheco & Arnold. Please
refer to the Growth Management Performance Standards for additional details. •
S-4
Files#RZ053158,DP053027,SD058967
County Planning Commission
Tuesday,June 13,2006
• D. Other Public Agencies: Comments were also received from the Historical Resources, Mt. View
Sanitary, and the Martinez Unified School District. None of the above listed agencies indicate
any problem in providing service to this project. No comments were received from Building
Inspection Department, Environmental Health, Contra Costa Water District, or City of
Martinez.
VI. STAFF ANALYSIS &DISCUSSION
A. Consistency with General Plan Policies
• Land Use Element—General
The General Plan density requirement for the parcel is 7.3 — 11.9 units/net acre, which
equates to an allowed density of up to 110 units for this parcel. The 89-unit proposal is
consistent with this range with the density calculated at 11.9-units/net acre.
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 45 dB within the residence.
The applicant shall show compliance by including needed noise insulation
features included in the design.
B. Proposed Zoning (P-1): The final development plan proposes a lot layout that incorporates a
"cluster" design that allows for a high density while still providing for a single-family product
type. This would not be feasible with the strict setback requirements of other zoning districts.
• The flexibility of the lot layout allows the applicant to produce a cohesive design that provides
for guest parking,tree lined streets,useable yard area, and a tot lot.
S-5
Pacheco Boulevard Courtyard Homes
C. Trees: All trees on the property are proposed to be removed as part of the subdivision •
improvements. A final landscape plan,required by Condition of Approval #18, will require the
replanting of trees, shrubs, groundcovers that shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning
Administrator. (SUBCOA#18)
D. Child Care Needs Assessment: A childcare needs assessment was conducted by the Contra
Costa Child Care Council on September 22, 2005. The needs assessment concluded there is an
additional need for 22 children which require licensed childcare. The applicant shall be
required to pay the in lieu fee of 400.00 dollars per unit. (SUB COA#43)
E. 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 Negative Declaration was
posted March 14, 2006 with the comment period ending April 13, 2006. The Initial Study and
the Mitigation Monitoring Program are attached for detailed review.
Public Comments on the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Determination
Staff received written comments (attached) from the following agencies: State of California
Public Utilities Commission, Contra Costa County Public Works Department, and the State of
California Department of Transportation.
Comment 1 -Engineering Services Division,Contra Costa County Public Works
Department The Public Works Department has identified mitigation measures that the
applicant should be required to implement as part of the Subdivision Application; SD 05-8967.
1)The Applicant should contribute their fair share toward installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Pacheco Boulevard and Arnold Drive. 2)The Applicant should include
measures including restriping the widened roadway to include a minimum 3-lane roadway for
Pacheco Boulevard and design and construct standard transitions to accommodate the wider
roadway configuration(from a 2 lane road to a 3 lane road and back to a 2 lane road).
Response to Comment 1
1) As the Public Works Department of Contra Costa County is one of the agencies involved in
the implementation of the mitigation measures for this project, their recommendations were
encouraged and welcomed. Mitigation Measure Trans-1, which was already contained within
the circulated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the Applicant intends to
pay their share of this cost. The recommendations can now be found in the IS/MND document
under the Transportation/Traffic -heading as Mitigation Measure Trans-1 and Mitigation
Measure Trans-3.
2) Pacheco Boulevard is currently a 2-lane road. The applicant will be required to restripe the
widened roadway to include a minimum 3-lane (2 through lanes and a two-way left turn lane,
or approved equivalent) facility for Pacheco Boulevard through the project limits. Any
additional pavement widening, right of way acquisition, or permitting necessary to
accommodate the transitions on Pacheco Boulevard shall be the applicant's responsibility. Any
plans prepared to meet this condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the
County's Public Works Department and the City of Martinez.
Comment 2 - Public'Utilities Commission, State of California. The IS/MND for the Field
Bodhame Courtyard Homes Project should be planned with the safety of the nearby rail
S-6
Files#RZ053158,DP053027,SD058967
County Planning Commission
Tuesday,June 13,2006
• corridor in mind. Safety considerations to be included, but not limited to, are the planning for
grade separations for major thoroughfares, improvements to existing at-grade highway-rail
crossings due to,increase in traffic volumes and appropriate fencing to limit the access of
trespassers onto the railroad right-of-way.
Response to Comment 2. The Traffic and Circulation Study performed for this Project by
Abrams and Associates investigated the effect the Field Bodhaine Courtyard Homes Project
would have on traffic and circulation patterns within the local study area. Included in this study
area were areas where the BNSF railroad ran adjacent to or above the studied roadways. While
there is a potential for increased use of the rail system upon completion of the project, the
significance of the increase is likely to be minimal, given that traffic patterns within the area
will see a small,but not significant increase. In addition,the Project Applicant does not propose
any activities that would negatively effect grade separations for major thoroughfares. The
proposed project site is not adjacent to the BNSF railroad right-of-way, therefore fencing of the
right-of-way is not practicable. The Project Applicant is aware of the proposed changes to
Pacheco Boulevard under "Measure C," and the development of this project is not expected to
coincide with the construction phases of"Measure C" nor is it expected to adversely effect the
improvements to be made as a result of"Measure C."
Comment 3 - Department of Transportation, State of California. The Department of
Transportation requested they be sent a copy of the Abrams and Associates Traffic Engineering
traffic impact assessment for the Field Bodhaine Courtyard Homes Project or any traffic study
for this project. They further request that because the project encroaches on the State of
California Right of Way, an encroachment permit from the Department of Transportation be
• sought.
Response to Comment 3. .A copy of the Abrams Associates Traffic Study will be sent to the
Department of Transportation as part of the encroachment permit application. Detailed plans,
including identification of the encroachment, the IS/MND and all supporting environmental
studies will be submitted with the encroachment permit application.
VII. SUBDIVISION,ROAD AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
Traffic and Circulation. The County established a"Precise Alignment" for Pacheco Boulevard in
1968 (drawing PA 3951-68 on file with the Public Works Department), establishing plans for a 64-
foot road within an ultimate 84-foot right of way. The County has since revised the planned
alignment of Pacheco Boulevard. The applicant shall construct roadway and frontage improvements
based on the most recent Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project, as required in these Conditions
of Approval.
Applicant shall construct concrete curb, six-foot wide concrete sidewalk,necessary longitudinal and
transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening and transitions along the project frontage of
Pacheco Boulevard, including the Batchelor property frontage (APN# 159-230-006). The applicant
shall construct said improvements per the current Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project, as
shown on the revised vesting tentative map. The applicant shall construct face of curb 10 feet from
the ultimate right of way line,per the current Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project. Any right of
way acquisition or permitting necessary to accommodate the pavement transitions on Pacheco
Boulevard shall be the applicant's responsibility. Any plans prepared to meet this requirement shall
be subject to the review and approval of the County's Public Works Department and the City of
• Martinez.
S-7
Pacheco Boulevard Courtyard Homes
The applicant shall install safety related improvements on all streets, including traffic signs and •
striping and pedestrian ramps at all curb returns, as approved by Public Works. The applicant shall
install striping along the widened roadway to include a minimum 3-lane(2 through lanes and a two-
way left-turn lane, or approved equivalent) facility for Pacheco Boulevard through the project
limits. Signing and striping on Pacheco Boulevard shall also be placed to ensure safe transitions
between the widened portions and the existing two-lane unimproved sections.
The applicant shall convey to the County,by Offer of Dedication,the right of way necessary for the
planned Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project along the frontage of Pacheco Boulevard, as
shown on the revised vesting tentative map. Right of way dedication and improvements shall
conform to the current Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project (on file with the Public Works
Department), subject to the review and approval of Public Works.
The applicant shall contribute a fair share amount toward the installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Pacheco Boulevard and Arnold Drive. The applicant's fair share shall be based on
the ratio of trips added to this intersection by the project compared to the cumulative total of new
trips forecasted to use this intersection, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works
Department.
The applicant shall construct an on-site roadway system (including all private streets and private
courts) that meets current County private road standards, subject to the review of the Fire District.
The on-site roadway system shall be constructed based on the typical sections shown on the revised
vesting tentative map. All private streets shall have no less than a 22-foot traveled way width within
a minimum 25-foot access easement, with a minimum 3:5-foot public utilities easement on each
side of the street, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map. The applicant shall construct curb,
minimum 4.5-foot sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and street lighting
along the on-site roadway system. All areas designated as private courts shall be constructed to
have a minimum 20-foot traveled way width within a minimum 20-foot access and utility easement.
The applicant shall construct proposed Private Street B to intersect Pacheco Boulevard at a standard
90-degree angle. The applicant shall construct proposed Private Street A to align with proposed
Private Street C of SD 8984 across the street on Pacheco Boulevard. These measures shall be
required to optimize safety with regard to turning movements and adequate circulation for vehicles
entering and exiting the proposed project.
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 a definable bed and banks, or to
an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate
natural watercourse.
The property is located within Drainage Area 57, which is known to have inadequate drainage
facilities, particularly those downstream of the proposed subdivision. The applicant must verify the
adequacy of the downstream storm drain system(s), and, if necessary, construct any improvements
to make this system(s) adequate. All off-site storm drain improvements shall be constructed in
conformance with the adopted Drainage Area 57 plan. The applicant shall obtain permanent
drainage easements and temporary construction permits for the construction of all Drainage Area 57
(Line B) facilities. Access roads for maintenance purposes shall be constructed, as necessary,
within appropriate easements for new storm drain improvements.
S-8
Files#RZ053158,DP053027,SD058967
County Planning Commission
Tuesday,June 13,2006
• Stormwater Management. This project is required to be in full compliance with the County's
Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, the Stormwater "C.3" Guidebook
(available at www.cccleanwater.or ) and the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. A Stormwater Control Plan received on February 9, 2006 by the Public Works Department
was reviewed and determined to be preliminarily complete. Although the Stormwater Control Plan
has been determined to be preliminarily complete, it remains subject to revision based on changes
made during the preparation of improvement plans, as necessary, to better address compliance with
C.3 stormwater requirements.
VIII. CONCLUSION
With the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the whole of the project does not
adversely affect the environment. Though the density is maximized it is done in a fashion that
promotes single-family detached residences through the "clustering" of homes that provides for a
sense of area, community and sustainability. These houses share a common driveway and smaller
front yard setback but also provide individual private rear yard areas.. Overall the project is in
compliance with the goals and policies of the General Plan. 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 to enliven the appearance of the
area.
•
•
S-9
• FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAP COUNTY
FILE #SD058967, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN COUNTY FILE #DP053027, and REZONE TO
PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT COUNTY FILE #RZ053158:
A. Growth Management Performance Standards
1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated 89 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. Though a "Measure C" traffic study was not required a traffic study by Abrams
Associates was conducted in January 2006. Four mitigations measures were included with the
prof ect.
2. Drainage and Flood Control: The applicant is required to collect and convey all stormwaters
entering or originating within the project to an adequate natural or manmade water course
including improvements to Drainage Area 57. The Final Map may not be filed until the collect
and convey requirements and improvements have been met.
Only the northwestern-most corner of the Field Parcel (proposed lot 2) is sited within the Flood
Hazard Area,and no housing is proposed for this portion of the project site.
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.
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 considered 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 property is zoned Planned Unit District, P-1, and the rezoning is to
establish a preliminary development plan superseding one that has expired. The proposed
Planned Unit District complies with the density range outlined in the General Plan and is
also consistent with the specific polices for the Pacheco area. Furthermore, the mitigation
measures and conditions of approval incorporated into the projects approval will ensure
• compliance with the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed rezoning is in compliance with
the General Plan.
2
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.
Prosect Finding.- Developing these properties into residential homes is compatible with the
existing land use districts in the area since many of the uses surrounding the project are
residential. Though the project is adjacent to Interstate 680, conditions require the
applicant to install a sound wall mitigates this impact. This proposal is consistent with the
growth of residential development along this part of Pacheco Boulevard.
3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this
does not require demonstration of future financial success.
Project Finding: Contra Costa County demonstrates a need for housing of all types. Infill
housing developments are needed to lessen the pressure to expand housing development into
previously undeveloped parts of the County. The rezoning of the property to establish a
preliminary development plan superseding one that has expired allows the County to fulfill
this need.
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.
Prosect 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 Multiple-Family
Residential Low Density. The Final Development Plan describes a development of 89 single-
family units that meets the general plan density requirements.
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 Pacheco Boulevard is characterized primarily by residential
development and large areas of underutilized lands. The proposed development will be of a
quality that shall match the recently approved 128-unit development directly east (across
Pacheco Boulevard) of the property.
The desirability of the project lies in its aesthetic quality and its lot configuration. The
project provides for a density level consistent with the general plan that also produces
single-family residences. The single-family residences provide for adequate guest parking
and private yard areas. The addition of the landscaping plan will increase the visual and •
aesthetic characteristic of the project and with the addition of the tot lot provides an area for
3
• children to play. This use of an underutilized property helps fulfill the policies of County
Housing Element within General Plan.
D. Approval of Tentative Map
• Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map 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.
Proiect Finding: The project is consistent with all the Elements of the General Plan. The land
use designation is ML, which allows for single-family high-density development. The tentative
map provides for 89 residential lots on a 9.3-acre parcel, which complies with the density
requirement. The project is consistent with the policies for the Pacheco area.
• 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(s) and improvements to Drainage Area 57. Buildings must comply with the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code, which includes provisions for special interior
noise reduction, which is made necessary by proximity to Interstate 680 and Pacheco
Boulevard.
• CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General
1. This approval is based upon the exhibits received by the Community Development
Department listed as follows:
Approved Per Plans as Generally Shown on the Tentative Map and Development
Plans:
A. Sheets 1 through 9 dated April 11, 2006 and received on April 14, 2006 by the
Community Development Department. Included in these sheets are the
following plans:
Sheet Number Description
1 Vesting Tentative Map Site Development Plan
2 Layout Plan
3 Grading Plan
4 Utility Plan
5 Grading Cross Sections
6 Typical Courtyard Details
7 Existing Conditions
8 County Storm Drainage Improvement
B. Sheets A-1 through A-7 received by the Community Development Department
on October 12, 2005.
i
j 4
i
Sheet Number Description •
A-1 Cover Sheet
A-2 Typical Courtyard Plans
A-3 Typical Courtyard Elevations
A-4 Unit Type 1A& IB
A-5 Unit Type 2A&2B
j A-6 Unit Type 3A& 3B
A-7 Unit Type 3C
C. Sound Wall Exhibit received by the Community Development Department
dated December 19,2005.
The approval is also based upon the following reports:
I
D. Archaeological Assessment of a 3.39 acre Parcel(APN 159-230-003),Located
at 47,81 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared
by William Self and Associates. April 20,2005.
E. Archaeological Assessment of a 6.16 acre Parcel (APN 159-230-002), Located
at 4755 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared
by William Self and Associates.December 10,2004.
I
F. Biological Assessment for the Field Property, 4755 Pacheco Boulevard,
Contra Costa County California. Prepared by Wood Biological. November 22,
2004.
I
G. Biological Assessment for the Bodhaine Property, 478.1 Pacheco Boulevard,
Contra Costa County California. Prepared by Wood Biological. April 20,
2005.
I
H. Biological Assessment for the Proposed Drainage Area 57, Improvements.
Contra Costa County California. Prepared by Wood Biological. August 3,
2004'
I. Botanical Survey, Bodhaine Property, 4781 Pacheco Blvd., Contra Costa
County. Prepared by Wood Biological.May 23, 2005.
J. Botanical Survey, Field Property, Contra Costa County. Prepared by Wood
Biological. August 9, 2005.
K. Botanical Survey, Drainage Area 57, Contra Costa County. Prepared by Wood
Biological. April 15, 2005.
L. CDFG Letter regarding Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification Review
to Norm Dyer.February 4, 2005.
M. Environmental Noise Assessment for Pacheco Boulevard Field Courtyard
Homes, City of Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by Shen, •
Milsom&Wilke. July 22,2005.
i
5
• N. Environmental Noise Assessment — Sound Wall Letter for the Pacheco
Boulevard Field Courtyard Homes, City of Martinez, Contra Costa County,
California.Prepared by Shen,Milsom&Wilke. September 6, 2005.
O. Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Pacheco Courtyard Homes East, 4755
& 4781 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez, California. Terraseach, Inc. May 27,
2005.
P. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development
4781 Pacheco Boulevard,Martinez, California. Prepared by Terrasearch. April
9, 2005.
Q. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development
4755 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez, California. Prepared by Terrasearch.
November 22, 2004.
R. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential
Development 4781 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez, California. Prepared by
Terrasearch. May 2,2005.
S. Surficial Soil Phase II Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed
Residential Development Field Property 4755 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez,
California.Prepared by Terrasearch.December 2004.
• T. Tree Inventory/Assessment for 4755 Pacheco Blvd. Prepared by Maureen
Hamb-WCISA Certified Arborist #2280 Professional Consulting Services.
December 2004.
U. Tree Inventory/Assessment for 4781 Pacheco Blvd. Prepared by Maureen
Hamb-WCISA Certified Arborist #2280 Professional Consulting Services.
April 22, 2005.
V. USACE letter regarding Verification for the Wetland Delineation and
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the DA57 Drainage Site, Contra
Costa County, California.November 16, 2004.
W. USACE letter regarding Wetland Delineation, Field Property, 4755 Pacheco
Boulevard. December 15, 2004. Verified by USACE February 9, 2005.
X. Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the
DA57 Drainage Site, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by Wood
Biological Consulting, July 16,2004.Verified November 16, 2004.
Y. Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the
,Bodhaine Property, 4781 Pacheco Boulevard, Contra Costa County,
California.Prepared by Wood Biological Consulting. June 7, 2005.
l
6
Z. Wetland Delineation, Field Property, 4755 Pacheco Boulevard. Prepared by •
Wood Biological Consulting. December 15, 2004. Verified by USACE
February 9, 2005.
2. Approval its 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 # RZ053158 to establish a preliminary
development plan, superseding one that has expired, for 89-homes within an
existing Planned Unit District (P-1). Any inconsistencies between the Final
Developmlent Plan and the tentative map application will require modification of the
tentative map approval prior to any development being authorized.
I
3. Applicant Indemnification of County — Pursuant to Government Code Section
66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the
Agency(the County)or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside,void,or
annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which
action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The
County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
and cooperate fully in the defense.
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.
I
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 i otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate
compliance with the condition of this report prior to filing the final map.
i
Residential Design
5a. 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 of the
houses proposed. 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: •
I
7
• A. Stories Maximum of two stories
B. Primary Structure Height Maximum of 30-feet
C. Primary Structure Setbacks As generally Shown on Sheet 2& 7
of the Final Development Plan
D. Accessory Structure:
Size 300-square feet(maximum)
Height . Maximum 12-feet
Rear and Side
Yard Setback Minimum of 3-feet
5b. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit, for the review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator, enhanced architectural features (e.g.
Cornices, shutters, balconies, dormers, trellises) that provides scale and variety and
that avoids long or tall unbroken wall planes for the elevations that front along
Pacheco Boulevard and Interstate 680. Enhanced architectural features are required
for all lots listed:
Pacheco Boulevard Lots: 1, 2, 59, 62-65, 67, 69, 74-77, and 87-89;
Interstate 680 Lots: 15-19, 31-36, 39,40, and 4-49.
5c. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a streetscape
plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, the streetscape
elevation shall include the elevations of the houses-and all proposed landscaping
and fencing/walls that front along Pacheco Boulevard and Interstate 680.
Sound Wall(s) and Retaining Wall(s)
6a. Prior to approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever
occurs first, the applicant shall submit a sound wall(s)plan for review of the Public
Works Department and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that
includes all the following:
A. The sound wall(s) shown on the submitted plan dated December 19, 2005 shall
be placed entirely outside of the pubic right of way and maintenance of the
sound wall(s) shall be the sole responsibility of the created home owners
association. The applicant shall provide a maintenance plan for the sound
wall(s)in perpetuity within the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.
B. The sound wall(s) shall be bonded through the Public Works Department as a
subdivision improvement prior to approval of the Final Map evidence of this
shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator.
C. The applicant shall obtain building permits for the sound wall(s).
D. Prior to issuance of building permits for the sound wall, the applicant shall
submit a materials sample and colors for the sound wall(s) for review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator.
E. The sound wall(s) shall be built according to the Environmental Noise
Assessment by Shen, Milsom & Wilke dated July 22, 2005 and the two
8
subsequent letters dated September 6, 2005 and January 4, 2006. These letters
detail ithe minimum heights allowed for the sound wall(s). •
F. Prior to occupancy of the first residence, evidence shall be presented be for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, that the sound wall(s) have
been built and finaled by the Building Inspection Department.
(Mitigation Measure—Noise 1)
I
6b. Prior to approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever
occurs first, the applicant shall submit a retaining wall(s) plan for review of the
Public Works Department and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator
that includes all the following:
G. The retaining wall(s) plan shall be reviewed and incorporate all comments
deemed necessary by the County Geologist.
H. The applicant shall obtain building permits for the retaining wall(s).
I. Prior to issuance of building permits for the retaining wall(s),the applicant shall
submit a materials sample and colors for the wall(s) for review and approval of
the Zoi ning Administrator.
Tot Lot Design
7. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a design for the
tot lot, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator,which shall
incorporate play equipment. The tot lot shall be constructed prior to the
occupancy of the 30"'residence.
I
Creation of Homeowners Association and CC&R's
8. Creation of a Home Owners Association and CC&R's—Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator
prior to filing the Final Map. This document shall provide for the creation of a
homeowners association that is responsible for maintenance of the private streets,
sidewalks,'drainage, and common areas. Common areas include the community
driveways, Private Roads, Sidewalks, Sound Wall(s), common retaining wall(s),
Tot Lot, Common Landscaped Areas, and Pacheco Boulevard Frontage.
I
Alternative Street Names
i
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.
II •
i
I
9
• Sight 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 transit provider,
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 restriction is required to be recorded and
submitted to the Community Development Department with the following
language:
"Notice of Airport in the Vicinity"
The property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known
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.
10
Payment of Any Supplemental Application Fees that are Due •
14. 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
15. Election for Establishment of a Police Services District to Augment 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 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
16. 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
"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 least in part so as to allow a
plan consistency determination associated with the approval of the Pacheco
Boulevard Courtyard Homes subdivision."
Restrictions on Development of Sales Model Units
17. 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 required to comply with the improvement standards and reporting
requirements of the Water Conservation in New Developments Ordinance.
11
• Lot Layout with Setback Dimension
18. Prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall submit a master fit plan that
identifies and labels dimensions for all setbacks (front, sides,rear) for proposed lots
1 through 89 for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
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 Administrator and shall
be incompliance with the County Water Conservation Landscape Ordinance 82-26
and shall be installed prior to approval of the first residential final for building
permit'. The plan shall include landscape/irrigation plans that are fullsized 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.
Debris Recovery
20. Prior to the issuance of building permits,the developer shall submit a"Debris
Recovery Plan" demonstrating how they intend to recycle,reuse, or salvage
building materials and other debris generated from the demolition of existing
buildings and/or the construction of new buildings. Contact Lorna Brown,
• Resource Recovery Specialist 925-335-1231 or go to http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depardcd/recycle/c-n-d/packet.pdf for further information.
21. Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit,the developer shall submit a
completed"Debris Recovery Project"documenting actual debris recovery efforts
(including quantities of recovered and land filled materials)that occurred
throughout the project's duration.
Air Quality
22. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or building permits and ongoing throughout
the project the applicant shall provide that the "Basic Measures" and "Enhanced
Measures" listed below be incorporated into the construction plans and implemented
for the proposed project. The "Optional Measures" listed (also listed below) shall be
incorporated if further emission reductions are deemed necessary by the County. To
ensure compliance with this mitigation measure, the Applicant shall submit the
construction plans for the review and approval of the zoning administrator prior to
issuance of grading or building permits:
Basic Measures:
• 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.
•
12
• 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.
Enhanced Measures:
• 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.
Optional Measures:
• Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment
leaving the site.
• Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 25 mph.
• Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at
any one time.
(Mitigation Measure—Air Quality 1)
Biology
23. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit or any site disturbance the applicant shall
submit a nesting bird survey by a qualified biologist, unless otherwise stated in this
condition of approval, surveys are to be conducted within 14 days prior to the
removal or disturbance of a potential nesting structure, trees, emergent aquatic
vegetation, or shrubs, or the initiation of other construction activities during the early
part of the breeding season (late December through April) and no more than 30 days
prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season
(May through August).
The removal of any buildings, trees, emergent aquatic vegetation, or shrubs shall
occur from September 1 through December 15, outside of the avian nesting season,
if feasible.
If removal of buildings, trees, emergent aquatic vegetation, or shrubs occurs, or
construction occurs between February 1 and August 31 (nesting season for passerine
or non-passerine land birds) or December 15 and August 31 (nesting season for
raptors), a nesting bird survey shall be performed by a qualified ornithologist within
14 days prior to the removal or disturbance of a potential nesting structure, trees,
emergent aquatic vegetation,or shrubs, or the initiation of other construction activities
during the early part of the breeding season (late December through April) and no
more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of
the breeding season (May through August).
During this survey, a qualified biologist shall inspect all potential nesting habitat
(trees, shrubs, structures, grasslands, pastures, emergent aquatic vegetation, etc.) in
13
• and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. All vegetation and structures
with active nests shall be flagged and an appropriate non-disturbance buffer zone
shall be established around the nest site. The size of the buffer zone shall be
determined by the project biologist in consultation with the California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG) and will depend on the species involved, site conditions, and
type of work to be conducted in the area.
A qualified biologist shall monitor active nests to determine when the young have
fledged and are feeding on their own. The project biologist and CDFG shall be
consulted for clearance before construction activities resume in the vicinity.
(Mitigation Measure Bio-1.1: Avoid removal of nesting structures.)
24. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit or any site disturbance the applicant shall
submit a roosting bats survey by a qualified biologist, unless otherwise stated in this
condition of approval. The qualified biologist shall perform a pre-construction
survey for roosting bats within 30 days prior to any removal of trees or structure in
areas of construction activities. If no active roosts were present, then no further
action would be warranted. If either a maternity roost or hibernacula (structures
used by bats for hibernation) is present, the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
• If active maternity roost or hibemacul14 are found in trees or structures which
would be removed as part of project construction,the project shall be redesigned
to avoid the loss of the tree or structure occupied by the roost to the extent
feasible as determined by the County. if an active maternity roost is located and
the project cannot be redesigned to iavoid removal of the occupied tree or
structure, demolition can commence before maternity colonies form(i.e., prior to
March 1) or after young are volant (flying) (i.e., after July 31). Disturbance-free
buffer zones as determined by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFG shall
be observed during the maternity roost season(March 1—July 31).
• If a non-breeding bat hibernacula is found in a tree or structure scheduled for
removal, the individuals shall be safely, evicted, under the direction of a qualified
biologist (as determined by a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFG), by
opening the roosting area to allow airflow through the cavity. Demolition can
then follow at least one night after initial disturbance for airflow. This action
should allow bats to leave during darkness, thus increasing their chance of
finding new roosts with a minimum of,potential predation during daylight. Trees
or structures with roosts that need to be removed shall first be disturbed at dusk,
just prior to removal that same evening, to allow bats to escape during the darker
hours.
(Mitigation Measure Bio-1.2: Conduct pre-construction surveys for roosting
bats. If the project would require removal of buildings, mature trees, or snags,
conduct surveys for roosting bats.)
i
25. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, pre-construction surveys of all potential
burrowing owl habitat shall be conducted iby a qualified biologist within the project
• area and within 250 feet of the proposed area of disturbance, to the extent feasible
based on access. Pre-construction surveys must be completed no more than 30 days
I
14
before construction activities. Presence or sign of burrowing owl and all potentially •
occupied burrows shall be recorded and monitored according to CDFG and
California Burrowing Owl Consortium guidelines (CBOC, 1993, 1994). A
monitoring report shall be submitted to CDFG no later tan two weeks before
initiation of grading. Construction activities shall proceed only as follows:
A pre-construction survey within 30 days prior to any removal of trees or structures
on the site. Disturbance-free buffer zones as determined by a qualified biologist in
coordination with CDFG shall be observed during the maternity roost season (March
1 —July 31).
• If burrowing owls are not detected, by either sign or direct observation,
construction may proceed. Pre-construction surveys must be reinitiated if more
than 30 days lapse between surveys dates and construction activities.
• If potentially nesting burrowing owl are present during pre-construction surveys
conducted between February 1 and August 31, grading shall not be allowed
within 250 feet of any nest burrow during the nesting season(February-August),
unless approved by the CDFG or consistent with an approved Habitat
Conservation Plan(HCP).
• If burrowing owl are detected during pre-construction surveys outside the
nesting season (September 1—January 31), passive relocation and monitoring
may be undertaken by a qualified biologist following CDFG and California
Burrowing Owl Consortium guidelines, which involve the placement of one- •
way exclusion doors on occupied and potentially occupied burrowing owl
burrows. Owls shall be excluded from all suitable burrows within the project
area and within a 160-foot buffer zone of the impact area. A minimum of one (1)
week shall be allowed to accomplish this task and allow for owls to acclimate to
alternate burrows. These mitigation actions shall be carried out prior to the
burrowing owl breeding season(February 1—August 31) and a qualified biologist
shall monitor the site weekly until construction begins to ensure that burrowing
owls do not re-inhabit the site.
(Mitigation Measure Bio-1.4a: Conduct pre-construction surveys for western
burrowing owl.)
26. Prior to any construction activities the applicant shall provide evidence that all
construction personnel shall receive training. The training shall include photos of
burrowing owls for identification purposes, habitat description, limits of
construction activities in the project area, and guidance regarding general measures
being implemented to conserve burrowing owl as they relate to the project.
(Mitigation Measure Bio-1.4b: Train Construction personnel on burrowing
owl avoidance.)
27. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or any site disturbance the applicant shall
provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that a monitoring report of all
activities associated with pre-construction surveys, avoidance measures, and
i
15
i
passive relocation of burrowing owls shall be submitted to California Department
• of Fish and Game, CDFG no later than two weeks before initiation of
construction.
(Mitigation Measure Bio-1.4c: File pre-construction report with CDFG.)
28. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall provide a tree survey,
prepared by a qualified biologist/licensed arborist, that identifies willow and
cottonwood trees and that determines whether the pruning of branches to
accommodate construction equipment instead of tree removal is appropriate. Any
removal of trees shall be offset by planting of trees of the same species at an
appropriate ratio, determined in consultation with the regulating agencies.
i
(Mitigation Measure Bio-2a: Removal of willow and cottonwood trees on the
DA57 site shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.)
29. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a site plan prepared
by a certified biologist, that is to accompany all grading plans, that identifies
creeping rye grass areas. To facilitate equipment access over the grassland, trench
plates shall be installed on the ground to avoid turning over the soil and destroying
plant rhizomes. For unavoidable temporary impacts, rhizome cuttings shall be
collected from undisturbed areas and re-planted in the disturbance area. For
unavoidable permanent impacts,rhizome cuttings shall be collected from the site and
planted in cleared prepared ground in a suitable on-site location. On-site grassland
• habitat shall be created at a 2:1 replacement ratio (square feet created: square feet
destroyed). j
(Mitigation Measure Bio-2b: Grading within the creeping ryegrass grassland on
the DA57 site shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.)
30. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall submit a site plan
prepared by a qualified biologist, that its to accompany all grading plans, that
identifies all jurisdictional wetland areas and the areas located outside of the
immediate grading footprint shall be avoided during construction and no fill is
allowed within these areas. Exclusion fencing shall be erected at the boundary of the
wetlands and the active project area to limit access of heavy equipment and
expansion of the construction area.
I
(Mitigation Measure Bio-3a: Impacts io wetlands shall be minimized to the
greatest extent feasible.)
31. To compensate for the unavoidable, permanent loss of jurisdictional wetlands on the
DA57 and Field Properties, a new wetland shall be created within the DA57 area, at
a 2:1 replacement ratio, as approved by USACE and RWQCB.
(Mitigation Measure Bio-3b: Wetlands will be replaced.)
32. To compensate for the unavoidable, permanent loss of jurisdictional wetlands on the
• Bodhame property, the County approved stream restoration project shall be
completed,pending approval by USACE and the RWQCB.
16
(Mitigation Measure Bio-3c: Stream restoration project shall be completed.) •
Cultural
33. Ongoing throughout construction activities; in the event that previously unknown
archeological resources are discovered during any land alterations,the construction
crew shall cease work immediately in the discovery area (i.e., within 100 feet). If
prehistoric Native American remains are discovered, the State Native American
Heritage Commission and affected Native American groups shall be notified
according to state regulations.
(Mitigation Measure Cul-1: If cultural resources are found, construction will
cease, and archeological evaluations will be made.)
Geology
34. Prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall submit an updated Geotechnical
Investigation for review and approval of the County Geologist that address the
specific of the final grading and final drainage plans. The updated report shall
include an original geologic map of the site presenting the consultants interpretation
of the site conditions and that map shall show the location of all subsurface data that
was considered in the evaluations including bore holes and test pits .of previous
consultants.
(Mitigation Measure Geo-1) •
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
35. Prior to demolition of a building, known or suspected of construction prior to
1980, the project developer shall have a lead-based paint and asbestos-containing
materials survey conducted by a certified professional that shall be submitted for
the review and approval by the Building Inspection Department; a copy of the
approval shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. Identified loose and
peeling lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials should be abated in
accordance with applicable regulations. Federal and state construction worker
safety regulations should be followed during demolition activities where lead
and/or asbestos are known or suspected to be present.
(Mitigation Measure Haz-1)
Hydrology and Water Quality
36. Prior to filing the Final Map, for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator and the Public Works Department, the applicant shall provide
evidence that the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan contains appropriate Best
Management Practices to reduce erosion and water quality impacts. Erosion control
measures shall also be reflected in the grading plans and construction documents for
the project. The Best Management Practices should include,but not be limited to the
following measures:
17
. • . Protect stormwater inlets by using a double row of straw bales to absorb
sediment and pollutants. Protect the stromwater inlets from vehicular damage;
• Install sediment traps in catch basins and drain inlets, or create an overflow
drain by raising the inlet so hat sediments will settle before reaching the drain;
• Prevent spills and leaks from construction vehicles and equipment;
• Clean up spills immediately when they happen, using dry cleanup methods
whenever possible, and if water must be used,use just enough to keep the dust
down;
• Store materials under cover;
• Cover and maintain dumpsters;
• Clean up paints and solvents, adhesives, and cleaning solutions properly;
• Keep fresh concrete and cement mortars out of gutters, storm drains, and
streams;
• Service and maintain portable toilets;
• Dispose of cleared vegetation properly;
• Make sure all demolition waste is properly disposed of,
• Plan pavement construction to avoid stormwater pollution including: Apply
asphalt and seal coat during dry weather; cover catch basins and manholes
when applying seal coat; and always park pavers over drip pans or absorbent
material.
(Mitigation Measure Hydro-1: A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the General Permit for
Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity.)
• 37. Prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall submit the Stormwater Controal
Plan for the review and approval of the Public Works Department and Zoning
Administrator. The Applicant shall comply with the County's C.3 Clean Water
Program.
(Mitigation Measure Hydro-2: A Stormwater Control Plan shall be prepared
prior to approval of the tentative map.)
38. Prior to filing of the Final Map or installation of impervious surface, the applicant
shall construct Line B improvements for Drainage Area 57. Costs associated with
these improvements shall be eligible for Drainage Area Fee credits and
reimbursement per Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation
District (CCCF&WCD) policy, if fee credits do not cover the total cost. The
CCCF&WCD shall acquire right-of-way, if necessary, at the Applicant's request. If
procurement of right-of-way or construction timing delays these improvements, the
CCCF&WCD shall work with the Applicant to develop interim solutions.
(Mitigation Measure Hydro-3: The Applicant shall construct Line B
improvements for Drainage Area 57 as required to handle additional project
runoff in accordance with CCCF&WCD requirements.)
Noise
• 39. Prior to issuance of a building permits, the Environmental Noise Study by Shen,
Milsom and Wilke dated July 22, 2005 and plans for the project must be submitted
18
to the County's Building Inspection Department and the Zoning Administrator for •
review and confirmation that the proposed development fully complies with the
CBC, HUD and Contra Costa County Noise Standards, including the construction of
the Sound Wall(s) referred to in Condition of Approval No. 6a, and/or Regulations.
All recommendations set forth in the Environmental Noise Studies and or the County
shall be followed.
(Mitigation Measure Noise-1)
40. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the applicant shall ensure that operations under
the permit that are within five hundred feet (152.4 meters) of residential or
commercial occupancies, except as otherwise provided by conditions of approval for
the project, shall be limited to weekdays and to the hours,between seven-thirty a.m.
and five-thirty p.m., except that maintenance and service work on equipment may be
performed at any time. (Ords. 99-46 § 15: 69-59 § 1, 1969).
(Mitigation Measure Noise-2)
Recreation
41. An assessment district for the maintenance of new public park facilities in the project
area shall be created if required by the Public Works Department.
(Mitigation Measure Rec-1)
Child Care •
42. 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
43. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay a park dedication fee in
the amount of$2,000 per residential unit.
Construction
44. Construction Period Development Activity Restrictions—Contractor and/or developer
shall comply with the following construction noise, dust, litter, and traffic control
requirements:
A. 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)
19
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)
For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur,please visit
the following websites:
Federal Holidays hllp://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp
California Holidays hllp://www.6dd.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.
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.
G. Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of a grading permit, the
• applicant shall provide a letter to the Community Development Department
20
indicating that he/she has fully disclosed these requirements to all contractors
and subcontractors within this project.
i
21
PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
SUBDIVISION 05-8967
Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9, and Title 10 of the County
Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these conditions of approval. Conditions of
Approval are based on the Revised Vesting Tentative Map received by the Community Development
Department on April 14,2006.
COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO
RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP.
General Requirements:
45. 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
improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works
Department and are based on the Revised Vesting Tentative Map received by the Community
Development Department on April 14, 2006.
46. 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 County Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this
Subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review
by the Transportation Engineering Division.
•
Frontage Improvements(Pacheco Boulevard):
47. Applicant shall construct concrete curb, six-foot wide concrete sidewalk, necessary longitudinal
and transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening and transitions along the project
frontage of Pacheco Boulevard, including the Batchelor property frontage (APN # 159-230-006).
The applicant shall construct said improvements per the current Pacheco Boulevard Realignment
Project, as shown on the revised vesting tentative map. The applicant shall construct face of curb
10 feet from the ultimate right of way line,per the current Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project.
Any right of way acquisition or permitting necessary to accommodate the pavement transitions on
Pacheco Boulevard, shall be the applicant's responsibility. Any plans prepared to meet this
requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the County's Public Works Department
and the City of Martinez.
48. If the conditions of approval for SD 8984 requiring pavement widening on the southwesterly side
of Pacheco Boulevard are not satisfied, the applicant shall construct pavement widening and
transitions on Pacheco Boulevard to provide a minimum two-lane facility with adequate shoulders
consistent with the existing road section for Pacheco Boulevard, subject to the review of the Public
Works Department.
49. Applicant shall install safety related improvements on all streets, including traffic signs and
striping and pedestrian ramps at all curb returns, as approved by Public Works. The applicant shall
install striping along the widened roadway to include a minimum 3-lane (2 through lanes and a
two-way left-turn lane, or approved equivalent) facility for Pacheco Boulevard through the project
• limits. Signing and striping on Pacheco Boulevard shall also be placed to ensure safe transitions
22
between the widened portions and the existing two-lane unimproved sections. (Mitigation
Measure Trans-4)
50. Applicant shall construct a street-type connection with minimum 20-foot radii curb returns in lieu
of a standard driveway depression at the proposed intersection of Private Street A and Pacheco
Boulevard and the proposed intersection of Private Street B and Pacheco Boulevard.
51. Applicant shall contact Central'Contra Costa Transit Authority to determine if a bus turnout is
required along the project frontage of Pacheco Boulevard. If required, the applicant shall submit a
preliminary sketch plan showing any additional right of way dedication and pavement widening
required to provide an adequately sized bus turnout. The preliminary sketch plan shall be to scale,
show horizontal alignments, transitions, lane striping, any proposed retaining walls, and cross-
sections and shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and Public
Works Department. Once the sketch plan has been deemed adequate, the applicant shall construct
the bus turnout along the frontage of Pacheco Boulevard. (Mitigation Measure Trans-3)
52. Applicant shall install street lights on Pacheco Boulevard. The final number and location of the
lights will be determined by Public Works.
53. Due to the construction impacts caused by the installation of utilities, storm drains, frontage
improvements, and other facilities related to the proposed project, the applicant shall provide
appropriate surface treatment(s) on Pacheco Boulevard to restore the pavement, within project
limits,-to pre-project conditions.
Private Roads (On-Site): •
54. Applicant shall construct an on-site roadway system (including all private streets and private
courts) that meets current County private road standards, subject to the review of the Fire District.
The on-site roadway system shall be constructed based on the typical sections shown on the revised
vesting tentative map. The applicant shall construct all private streets with a minimum 22-foot
traveled way width within a minimum 25-foot access easement, and an additional minimum 3.5-
foot public utilities easement on each side of the street, as shown on the revised vesting tentative
map. The applicant shall construct curb, minimum 4.5-foot sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and
transverse drainage, and street lighting along the on-site roadway system, as shown on the revised
vesting tentative map. All roads designated as private courts shall be constructed with minimum
20-foot traveled way widths within minimum 20-foot access and utility easements, as shown on the
revised vesting tentative map.
55. Applicant shall construct an adequate turnaround at the terminus of proposed Court P that will
accommodate passenger vehicles and delivery trucks, subject to the review and approval of Public
Works.
56. Applicant shall construct proposed Private Street B to intersect Pacheco Boulevard at a standard
90-degree angle to optimize safety with regard to turning movements and adequate circulation for
vehicles entering and exiting the proposed project.
57. Applicant shall construct proposed Private Street A to align with proposed Private Street C of SD
8984 across the street on Pacheco Boulevard to optimize safety with regard to turning movements
and adequate circulation for vehicles entering and exiting the proposed project.
58. All on-site sidewalks shall be constructed to meet minimum County standards. •
23
Roadway Improvements(Off-Site):
59. Applicant shall contribute a fair share amount toward the installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Pacheco Boulevard and Arnold Drive. The applicant's fair share shall be based on
the ratio of trips added to this intersection by the project compared to the cumulative total of new
trips forecasted to use this intersection, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works
Department. (Mitigation Measure Trans-1)
60. Prior to filing of the Final Map, the applicant shall pay a fair-share contribution to a road
Improvement Fee Trust (Fund No. 0682-9752) designated specifically for pedestrian facilities
along Pacheco Boulevard, from the project site north to the Arthur Road intersection. (Mitigation
Measure Trans-2)
Access to Adjoining Property:
Proof of Access
61. Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way,
rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent,
public and private road and drainage improvements.
Encroachment Permit
• 62. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the County's Application and Permit Center
for construction of I driveways or other improvements within the right of way of Pacheco
Boulevard.
Site Access
63. Applicant shall relinquish abutter's rights of access along the project frontage of Pacheco
Boulevard, with the, exception of the private road intersections shown on the revised vesting
tentative map.
Road Dedications:
64. Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right of way necessary for the
planned Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project along the frontage of Pacheco Boulevard, as
shown on the revised vesting tentative map. Right of way dedication and improvements shall
conform to the current Pacheco Boulevard Realignment Project (on file with the Public Works
Department), subject to the review and approval of Public Works.
65. Any right of way acquisitions or permitting necessary to accommodate pavement transitions on
Pacheco Boulevard shall be secured by the applicant. Any plans prepared to meet this condition
shall be subject to the review of the County's Public Works Department and the City of Martinez.
Sight Distance:
66. Applicant shall provide adequate sight distance at the private road intersections with Pacheco
• Boulevard for a through traffic design speed of 45 miles per hour. Landscaping, walls, fences,
24
signs, or any other obstructions must.be placed to maintain adequate sight distance at these •
intersections.
67. Applicant shall provide adequate sight distance at all on-site roadway intersections for a through
traffic design speed of 15 miles per hour. Landscaping, walls, fences, signs, or other obstructions
must be placed to maintain adequate sight distance.
Parking:
68. Parking shall be prohibited on one side of any on-site private street where the curb-to-curb width is
less than 36 feet and both sides of any on-site private street where the curb-to-curb width is less
than 28 feet. Parking shall also be prohibited along horizontal curves. "No Parking" signs and
pavement markings shall be installed along these portions of the on-site roadway system, subject
to the review and approval of Public Works.
Maintenance of Facilities:
69. A Homeowner's Association (HOA) or other acceptable entity other than the County shall be
formed to insure maintenance of all common areas and open space, the on-site private roadway
system, private street lights, the tot lot, public and private landscaped areas, private drainage
facilities,retaining walls, fences, etc.The County-will not accept these facilities for maintenance.
70. Applicant shall develop and enter into a maintenance and plan of operation agreement that will
insure that all common areas and open space, the on-site private roadway system, private street
lights, the tot lot, public and private landscaped areas, private drainage facilities, retaining walls,
and fences throughout the site will be maintained, for the review and approval of the Public Works
and Community Development Departments.
71. Applicant shall record a Statement of Obligation, in the form of a deed notification, to inform all
future property owners of their legal obligation and specific responsibilities to maintain all
common areas and open space, the on-site private roadway system, private street lights, the tot lot,
public and private landscaped areas, private drainage facilities, retaining walls, and fences
throughout the site.
72. Applicant shall apply to Public Works for annexation to the County Landscaping District AD
1979-3 (LL-2) for the future maintenance of public landscaping and automatic irrigation facilities
prior to filing of the Final Map.
Pedestrian Facilities:
73. Curb ramps shall be designed and constructed in accordance with current County standards. A
detectable warning surface (e.g. truncated domes) shall be installed on all curb ramps. Adequate
right of way shall be dedicated at the curb returns to accommodate the returns and curb ramps.
74. The applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Title 24
(Handicap Access)and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks,paths,
driveway depressions, and curb ramps.
Underground Utilities:
75. All new and existing utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground.
25
• Drainage Improvements:
Collect and Convey
76. Applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating on this property
without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to an adequate natural
watercourse having a definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage
system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with
Division 914 of the Ordinance Code.
77. Applicant shall construct all off-site storm drain improvements required by the adopted Drainage
Area 57 plan (Line B) to the satisfaction of the Flood Control District. All off-site storm drain
improvements shall be constructed in conformance with the adopted Drainage Area 57 plan. This
includes,but is not limited to, storm drains,right of way, and access.
78. Applicant shall obtain permanent drainage easements and temporary construction easements for the
construction of off-site storm drain improvements required by the adopted Drainage Area 57 plan
(Line B).
79. Applicant shall obtain access easements from Pacheco Boulevard to the upstream end of the
railroad culvert. The drainage easements for Line B may also serve as access easements provided
that the width of the drainage easements is at least 16 feet (for areas where there is underground
pipe).
Provision"C.3" of the NPDES Permit:
80. This project shall fully comply with the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control
Ordinance, the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, and the requirements of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. As part of these requirements, the applicant shall incorporate Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable into the design of this project, implement
them and provide for perpetual operation and maintenance for all treatment BMPs.
81. A Stormwater Control Plan received on February 9, 2006 by the Public Works Department was
reviewed and determined to be preliminarily complete. Although the Stormwater Control Plan has
been determined to be preliminarily complete, it is subject to revision during the preparation of
improvement plans, as necessary to bring it into full compliance with C.3 stormwater requirements.
The applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department a final approved Stormwater Control
Plan that has been certified and stamped by a licensed, professional Civil Engineer, Architect, or
Landscape Architect.
82. All construction plans (including but not limited to: site, improvement, structural, mechanical,
architectural, building, grading and landscaping plans) shall comply with the preliminarily
approved Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) or any subsequently revised SWCP, the County's
Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, the "C.3 Guidebook" and the
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. All construction plans shall include
details and specifications necessary to implement all measures of the SWCP, subject to the review
and approval of the''County. To insure conformance with the SWCP, the applicant shall submit a
completed "Construction Plan C.3 Checklist" indicating the location on the construction plans of
all elements of the SWCP as described in the "C.3 Guidebook".
26
83. All non-self-retaining pervious/landscaped areas within the project shall be factored into Table 2 of •
the Treatment BMP Sizing Worksheet, based on the appropriate runoff factor, to determine the
required size of each treatment BMP/IMP.
84. All water quality features shall be located within public road rights of way or public utility
easements to allow County access for any future inspection and/or maintenance purposes.
85. Any water quality features that are designed to retain water for longer then 72 hours shall be
subject to the review of the Contra Costa Mosquito&Vector Control District.
86. Prior to building permit final and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall
provide an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) plan and execute any agreements identified in the
SWCP, which pertain.to the transfer of ownership and/or long-term maintenance of storm water
treatment or hydrograph modification BMPs.
87. Applicant shall provide cost estimates for the complete financing and perpetual maintenance of the
water quality features proposed with this application for the review and approval of the Public
Works Department. This estimate shall include all long term costs associated with these water
quality features including, but not limited to, Operation and Maintenance, financing, inflation
indexing, and replacement costs.
88. Applicant shall cooperate fully in the formation of financing mechanisms(e.g. Benefit Assessment
District) to insure that all costs associated with the perpetual Operation & Maintenance,
administration and reporting of these water quality features (including costs associated with all
required County administration and reporting) are paid for by the property owners that are or will •
be benefiting from this development.
89. All treatment BMPs/IMPs constructed within each Phase of the proposed subdivision shall be sized
per C.3 requirements to treat, at a minimum, all storm water runoff generated by each Phase.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan:
90. Prior to ground disturbance, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) to mitigate construction related impacts and submit it to the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. The SWPPP shall be kept on-site at all times and shall be amended whenever there
is a change in construction or operations which may affect the discharge of significant quantities of
pollutants to surface waters, ground waters, or a municipal separate storm sewer system.
Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements:
91. Applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the Ordinance
Code and Public Works Design Standards.
92. Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a
concentrated manner.
93. Applicant shall dedicate a public drainage easement over the drainage system that conveys storm
water run-off from public streets. The applicant shall obtain off-site offers of dedication to the
County for any conduits, outfall structures and appurtenant access to said facilities-that convey
public road drainage beyond the subdivision boundary.
27
94. Any surface or subsurface storm drain facility proposed 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. Any proposed width reduction below this minimum width
requirement for storm drain easements shall only be permitted if the Public Works Department has
reviewed and approved such a proposal.
Drainage Area Reimbursements:
95. Certain improvements required by the Conditions of Approval for this development or the County
Subdivision Ordinance Code may be eligible for credit or reimbursement against the drainage area
fee. The developer should contact the Flood Control District to personally determine the extent of
any credit or reimbursement for which he might be eligible. Any credit or reimbursements shall be
determined prior to filing the final map, as approved by the Flood Control District.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES):
96. 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 shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMP's) for the
reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate, wherever
feasible, 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 and storm drains.
- Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing runoff to
landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter.
- Shared trash bins shall be sealed to prevent leakage, OR, shall be located within.a covered
enclosure.
- Prohibit or discourage direct connection of roof and area drains to storm drain systems or
through-curb drains.
- Shallow roadside and on-site grassy swales.
- Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to buyers.
- Other alternatives, equivalent to the above, as approved by the Public Works Department.
i
28
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. Although the Stormwater Control Plan has been determined to be preliminarily complete, it
remains subject to future revision, as necessary, during preparation of improvement plans in order
to bring it into full compliance with C.3 stormwater requirements. Failure to update the SWCP to
match any revisions made in the improvement plans may result in a substantial change to the
County approval, and the project may be subject to additional public hearings. Revisions to
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents may also be required. This may
significantly increase the time and applicant's costs associated with approval of the application.
C. 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 Il).
D. 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.
E. 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.
F. Comply 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 a
building permit.
G. 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.
29
H. 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.
I. Comply with the requirements of the Mt.View Sanitary District.
J. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Water District.
K. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District.
L. Comply with the requirements of the County Office of the Sheriff.
M. 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.
N. 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.
O. Vesting Tentative Map Rights—The approval of this vesting tentative map confers a vested right to
r
proceed with development in substantial compliance with ordinances, policies, and standards in
effect as of April 14 2006, 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.
rah 5/11/06
G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\SD058967_COA.doc
�R�ID�Ij�� i ���••'I i'
Fpsir'IM161
Yi�' OWN
ror
Nor
.;
JL
� +�
Miff Y
cc .."11.
tra
rye � �
�o
�4��:#.�} ' ,IFS` '•I �..r�.
f
• 1 , It! AMU
Iliti
V sit
}8 ` '
N
O
M
O
00
Vt
O
re
00
4 A
m a
> w
on
G. N
�:
Ry U
f! �
Ts
;� w
� N
t 00
M
;
Q:
00
4 1.
Vi
d
r
® w
I
2 is
w
r :
I�
IA
•. ,'} tar t n t
�'��,"" .*�`j :• �--•tet f!? r'? ,L i�'•° �t��`�`�} , r .mss ,Ih:
In
i '�4�f h� �sw.,f �•�- '� ."4 ,x r' r �t �-�'t Jj�� � �
I KIP
"NV
T F+ 7 Y �(.. }� Lf`4h� {i"tt�»"s� C:, '*•c-��"'� � } �y^i C J' •
7 L � 13;. f'r"r� f-�� �,.`;rr�l`" I:- ` �.'(, t" �"tf� " }>i' �+. '� �-+ ;`k •
1 , � r (( t •
'' 1�M&,'.�,
S9�
F `Y
,? - ,• �,.t'... ._'Y �t,}''_' ss f �I f-f•q; f y ��r t� �M rro��kf���../}'i x`Y+�}4��'«5,., ..
4 rk�i�
"`�-t�� Lt` r.• i a�i '.f 'orf i �t k .:�� ':�'�:a
t i f y �� .I" i" ,� •` $ri € r,,. �` ty e ff _. t r K •itti�-.
�t � c� a R.r•y\ �'t•,� 1 n��s rr �?� r- .o� 1� '�•._.—'..�"
`�ftp`ti'�n 'f^J:.��� Y+''e+,•yt� ;�
STATE OF CALIFORNIA=BUSINESS.TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
•111 GRAND AVENUE
P. O. BOX 23660 A
OAKLAND,CA 94623-0660 r r f R°` 0.1
Flex your power.
PHONE(510)286-5505 Be energy efficient!
FAX(510)286-5559
TTY(800)735-2929
April 13, 2006
CC680533
CC-680-22.43
SCH2O06032074
Mr. Ryan Hernandez
Community Development.Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, North Wing, 2"d Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Hernandez:
Field Bodhaine Courtyard Homes — Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the
early stages of the environmental review process for the Field Bodhaine Courtyard Homes
Project. We have reviewed the Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
and have the following comments to offer:
We would like to request the Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering traffic impact
assessment for the Field Bodhaine Courtyard Homes Project or any traffic study for this
project.
Encroachment Permit
Work that encroaches onto the State Right of Way requires an encroachment permit that is issued
by the Department. Traffic-related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction
plans during the encroachment permit process. See the following website link for more
information: http://www.dot.ca.Lyov/hq/traffops/developsery/permits/
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
Mr.Ryan Hernandez
April 13,2006
Page 2
To apply for an encroachment permit, submit a completed encroachment permit application,
environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans (in metric units) which clearly indicate
State Right of Way to:
Department of Transportation
Office of Permits
Attn: Sean Nozzari
111 Grand Avenue, 6`h Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call
Christian Bushong of my staff at (510) 286-5606.
Sincerely,
t7l�
'S' ABLEOT
District Branch Chief
IGR/CEQA •
c: State Clearinghouse
"Caltrans improves mobility across"California"
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE 4
SAN FRANCISCO,CA 941023298
April 3, 2006
Ryan Hernandez
Contra Costa County
651 Pine St., 2nd Floor-North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Deur -Mi-. Hc-:rnandez:
Re: SCH 2006032074; Field Bodhaine Courtyard Homes
As the state agency responsible for rail safety within California, we recommend that any
development projects planned adjacent to or near the rail corridor in the County be planned with
the safety of the rail corridor in mind. New developments may increase traffic volumes not only on
streets and at intersections,but also at at-grade highway-rail crossings. This includes considering
pedestrian circulation patterns/destinations with respect to railroad right-of-way.
Safety factors to consider include,but are not limited to, the planning for grade separations for
• major thoroughfares,improvements to existing at-grade highway-rail crossings due to increase in
traffic volumes and appropriate fencing to limit the access of trespassers onto the railroad right-of-
way.
The above-mentioned safety improvements should be considered when approval is sought for the
new development. Working with Commission staff early in the conceptual design phase will help
improve the safety to motorists and pedestrians in the County.
If you have any questions in this matter, please call me at(415) 703-2795.
Very truly yours,
Kevin Boles
Utilities Engineer
Rail Crossings Engineering Section
Consumer Protection and Safety Division
cc: Stacy Crakes, BNSF
i
}y Dennis M. Barry, AICP
Contra Community Development Director
and Use Costa
Commission County
•/o Community Development Department
County Administration Building FE_•L.
651 Pine Street '
4th Floor, North Wing ' F=
Martinez,California 94553-0095p
y\ yt
c,_ ...
Phone: (925) 335-1229
July 1, 2004
Ryan Hernandez, Project Planner
Contra Costa County Community Development
2°d Flr, NW, Martinez, Ca. 94533
RE: County File#SD048818/RZO43140/DPO43004 for Pacheco Boulevard Courtyard Homes
in the unincorporated Pacheco area
Dear Mr. Hernandez:
• This site is within the Buchanan Airfield Airport Influence Area and the Airspace Protection
Contours.
The Airport Influence Area encompasses locations commonly over flown by aircraft as they
approach and depart the airport or fly within the traffic pattern. As a result of this location the ALUC
staff recommends incorporating a condition of approval requiring a deed restriction for each
prospective homebuyer.
1) Prior to the recordation of the parcel map a deed restriction is required to be recorded and
submitted to the Community Development Department with the following language:
"Notice of Airport in the Vicinity"
This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an
airport influence area. For that reason,the property maybe 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. "
The Airspace Protection Surfaces, limits height of objects in the vicinity of Buchanan
Airfield. The project is compatible with this criterion with the height maximum of 35-feet.
Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Office. is closed the is , 3rd i 5th Fridays of each month
•
However, fixture proposals to include accessory objects such as radio antennas and equipment
within the subdivision may require a review by the Airport Land Use Comrnissioh for
compatibility with the ALUCP. A disclosure is recommended to include these limits and
possible process.
If you have any questions regarding this matter you may contact the ALUC staff at 925-335-1229
Sincerely, G
Lashun C. Cross
ALUC Planner
cc: ALUC File
SD048818,DP043004/RZ043140 •
Paul Dellarosa
6310 Edna Road
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Loving and Campos Architects, Inc
245 Ygnacio Valley Road
Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596
Contra Costa County °"°te"'' Fire Protection District
• � Q' rE.-- 1;;�'' �' rya
NTY
Fire Chief
KEITH RICHTER
August 24, 2005
Mr. Ryan Hernandez
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Subject: SD 05-8967, RZ 05-3158, and DP 05-3027
4755 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez
CCCFPD Project No. 104367 Revision
Dear Mr. Hernandez:
We have reviewed the development plan, rezone and tentative map application to establish an
88 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. Approved access roads and hydrants shall be installed, in service, and inspected by the
Fire District prior to construction or combustible storage on site. Call (925) 941-3323 to
schedule an inspection, minimum two working days advanced notice is required.
(8704.1) CFC
2. 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.
9_0 27) CFS 2)25n011 CC%/C.
Notes: Access roads of less than 28 feet unobstructed width shall have "NO
PARKING — FIRE LANE" signs posted and curbs painted red with.the words
"NO PARKING— FIRE LANE"clearly marked.
Access roads of 28 feet or greater but less than 36 feet unobstructed width
shall have "NO PARKING — FIRE LANE" signs posted, allowing for parking
on one side only, and curbs painted red with the words "NO PARKING— FIRE
LANE"clearly marked.
• Access roads 36 feet or greater of unobstructed width allow for parking on
both sides.
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
CCCFPD Project No. 104367 -2- August 24, 2005 •
3. The project as proposed shall require the installation of an approved Fire District
turnaround. 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.
(902.2.2.4) CFC
4. Access gates for Fire District apparatus shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Electrically
operated gates shall be equipped with a Knox Company key-operated switch. Manually
operated gates shall be equipped with a non-casehardened lock or approved Fire
District lock. Contact the Fire District for information on ordering the key-operated
switch. (902.2.4) CFC.
5. Approved premise identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall contrast with
their background and large enough to be readily visible from the street. (901.4.4) CFC
6. The developer shall provide fire hydrants of the East Bay type. Hydrant locations will be
determined by this office upon submittal of three (3) copies of complete utility plans.
(903.4.2) CFC
Note: Hydrants shall be spaced a maximum of 500 feet on center such that every
property frontage is within 250 feet from a hydrant. Hydrants located within the
bulb of a cul-de-sac shall be determined inaccessible.
7. The developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection
with a minimum fire flow of 2000 GPM. Required flow shall be delivered from not more
than two (2) hydrants flowing simultaneously for the duration of 120 minutes while
maintaining 20 pounds residual pressure in the main. (903.3) CFC
8. 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 submittal shall be used to locate the above required hydrants.
9. The developer shall submit a 300' scale map indicating all parcels and if previously
assigned the corresponding addresses for each parcel.
10. The developer shall submit a computer-aided design (CAD) digital file copy of the
subject project to the Fire District upon final approval of the site improvement plans or
subdivision map. CAD file shall be saved in an AutoCADO 2002 file format or DXF file
format. Contact this office for current acceptable AutoCADO version. (105.3) CFC
11. The homes.as proposed shall be protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler
system complying with NFPA 13 D. Submit two (2) sets of plans to this office for review
and approval prior to installation. (1003.1) CFC
12. 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
CCCFPD Project No. 104367 -3- August 24, 2005
•
14. 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 required that a copy of the conditions of approval for the subject project be forwarded to this
office when compiled by your office.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office.
Sincerely
1an Hardage
Fire Prevention Technician
IH/nlr
c: Luk and Associates
738 Alfred Noel Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
Loving and Campos
245 Ygnacio Valley Road
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
File: 104367.Itr
•
P.
Community Contra Dennis it Development
` Community Development Girecior
Development uosta
Department County
'County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor,North Wing .=
Martinez,California 94553-0095
!k 4
Phone: ( '5}335-1210 � J` Date t
cc
AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST 'S
We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under review.
DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows:
X Building Inspection
X HSD, Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner �.
HSD,Hazardous Materials 2 Z b $
X P/W -Flood Control (Full Size) County File —; STC) C)ES9 �J
7l.PIW-Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Number:
Date Forwarded Ca t3 r'-
_P/W Traffic(Reduced) Prior To: 42
_P/W Special Districts (Reduced)
Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs
_Redevelopment Agency apply to this application:
Historical Resources Information System r,,)
CA Native Amer. Her. Comm. 1_Redevelopment Area
_CA Fish & Game,Region
_US Fish & Wildlife Service Active.Fault Zone
Fire District S-6 t A&C eC
Sanitary District 'i 2L.; � GFlood Hazard Area,Panel#
-Water District 4!�6PYt kc. ,n
City Gtr' " ''\�Z 60 dBA Noise Control
�C School District MQwkJV�,X-> eJ
X Sheriff Office - Admin. & Comm. Svcs. f, CA .CPA Hazardous Waste Site
Alamo Improvement Association
EI Sobr"te Zoning
Committee Traffic Zone
INIAC �J
!DO1T -Dep. Director, Communications CEQA Exempt
tl %,;a%: is-jai A iamn ate`T ric—a. e ....
L gC. X 'nkit ,CCLiv^�
COEM u_z-}ity Organizations
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.
�C Our Comments are attached ---
Comments:
(►.lC�1L+u 7F" lJ �s�tir4
OT'tu7•te5'-e A&t Qa4E Sim ature
' Ft+Ar t;�tile: oyy M A,�—
i*JPQA9°QVCrLn_L w rf-1AC"r FaZr�✓��� �. Agen 1 /
S:current plannin_ItetnpiateVformsiacencc comment request Date
Office Hours Monday - Friday:8:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m.
Office is closed the 1st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month
Community Contra Dennis M. Barry,AICP
Community Development Director
Development Costa
Department Count)/
• County Administration Building Se L o
651 Pine Street ` f' 19_
20
4th Floor, North Wing - ' `�" `�
Martinez,California 94553-0095Ott
{-
y \ a, vti4�. ��
Phone: (925)335-1210 ,fir Date:
Sr'+ couN`�
AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST
We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under review.
DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows:
X Building Inspection
HSD,Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner
_HSD,Hazardous Materials Z C3 5
k P/W-Flood Control(Full Size) County File
X P/W-Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Number:4�_-=- D U''S9 0
Date Forwarded D?C'
P/W Traffic (Reduced) Prior To:
P/W Special Districts (Reduced)
Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs
_Redevelopment Agency apply to this application:
Historical Resources Information System 1
_CA Native Amer. Her. Comm. L Redevelopment Area
CA Fish & Game,Region
_US Fish & Wildlife'Servicep X Active Fault Zone
X Fire District (_D-n&b i (e�C.e\
• _2L Sanitary District �, 12w �� Flood Hazard Area,Panel#
X Water District well (1-1_'-tn'
X City 60 dBA Noise Control
X School Districtsy,i-k'I v"�_
X Sheriff Office-Ad"in. & Comm. Svcs. 1; CA.EPA Hazardous Waste Site
Alamo Improvement Association
El Sobr to PI . & Zoning Committee Traffic Zone
MAC (
1_DOIT-Dep. Director, Communications CEQA Exempt
I CA(—( I_ A A mmn 11 1 Ca iegor.c all E x w.p,*,0; '!)C!C 0
Commu 3,Organizations . .
ca I l r ar\S
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:
ignature
i
Agency
Avio
S:current planning/templates/Corms/agency comment request Date
Office Hours Monda`J - Friday:�V a.^l. - S:l1inP..'(1.
v
Office is closed the 1st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month
CALIFORNIA ALAMEDA MARIN SAN MATEO Northwest Information Center
COLUSA MENDOCINO SANTA CLARA Sonoma State University
HISTORICAL CONTRA COSTA MONTEREY SANTA CRUZ .
RESOURCES LAKE NAPA SOLANO 1303 Maurice Avenue
SAN FRAIT SONOMA
Rohnert Park, California 94928-3609
INFORMATION � � SAN FRAt�LGJSCQ_ YOLO Tei:707.664.0880• Fax:707.664.0890
((u '� L1; .14
E-mail:nwic@sonoma.edu
SYSTEM
August 23, 2005 ` <'<' File No.:05-CC-8
Revised
Ryan Hernandez,Project Planner
Contra Costa County
Community Development Dept.
4`h Floor,North Wing
651 Pine Street
Martinez,CA 94553-0095
re: SD05 8967,4755 Pacheco Blvd.,Loving&Compos Architects,Inc.
Dear
Records at this office'were reviewed to determine if this project could adversely affect historical resources. The review for
possible historic structures,however,was limited to references currently in our office. Please note that use of the term
historical resources includes both archaeological sites and historic structures.
The proposed project area contains,or is adjacent to the archaeological site(s) ( ). A study is
recommended prior to commencement of project activities.
The proposed project area contains a listed historic structure ( ). See recommendations in-the comments
section below.
XX Study#29585(Self,2004)identified one or more historical resources. Their report on page 5,states that"The existing
structures&features ..... do not appear to meet eligibility for inclusion in the Cal Register of Historic Resources. They
are not associated with persons or events important in history, .....and they will not yield information of importance to
local history."Further study for historical resources is not recommended.
Study# identified no historical resources. Further study for historical resources is not recommended.
Review for possible historic structures was limited to the Northwest Information Centers documents and should not be
considered comprehensive. Since the Office of Historic Preservation has determined that any building or structure 45
years or older maybe of historic value,therefore if the project area contains such properties it is recommended that they
be evaluated by an architectural historian prior to commencement of project activities.
We recommend you contact the local Native American tribe(s)regarding traditional, cultural,and religious values.
For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of the project,please contact the Native American Heritage Commission
at 916/653-4082.
Comments:
If archaeological resources are encountered during the project,work in the immediate vicinity of the finds should be halted
until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation. If you have any questions please give us a call(707)664-0880.
Sincerely,
Leigh Jordan
Loving & Campos, Architects, Inc. Coordinator
Y
3
hli IEW
V
August 4, 2005
SRNIiflfl4 �rt _.
Mr.Ryan Hernandez
MINI Project Planner
� ^
:i Contra Costa County
.'
Manine� Ca\is Founded 1971 g r Community Development Dept.
651 Pine Street,4`h Floor,North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
r� =BOHRp OF OtRECTORS - .','"�
i. Stanley R Caldwell Re: RZ053158/SDO58967/DPO53027
°w k . 'aDavldP Maggl .` Subdivision 8967
Gre o T` ka Field Courtyard Homes
Dorothy M Sakazakl -
Randell EWilliams
Dear Mr.Hernandez,
DavldR Contreras We have reviewed the Final Development Plan for Subdivision 8967,Field Courtyard Homes.
.DISTRICTMANAGER The District has no objections to this new development subject to the Engineer's conditions
Sheri L.Riddle ., set forth in our letter dated 5/3/05 for the Vesting Tentative Map application on this site.
:BOARD SECRBTARY Please note the following additional comment:
1. The Developer shall obtain an abandonment permit from the District prior to demolition
Daniel Adams' of the existing building to be removed and the existing lateral abandoned at.the sewer
LEGAL COUNSEL main. A credit for each abandoned dwelling unit will be applied against the connection
fees for the development.
Randolph W.Leptien
ENGINEER .
Please feeffree to contact the undersigned at 925 228 4218 voice, 925 228 4638 fax, or
randy.leptien@lcc-ine.com email, should there be any questions.
Very truly yours,
LCC,Inc "
Randolph W. Leptien
`'� District Engineer
Encl. Agency Comment Request Form
Engineer's Conditions (2)
Via facsimile no. 925 335 1222
Original will follow by mail
MT.VIEW SANITARY DISTRICT
Copy w encl: D. Contreras(D. Riddle)
3 8 o o A R T H U R R O A D N. Dyer,Loving&Campos Architects
•P . 0 . B o x 2 7 5 7
\\Clerical-1\clerical-1\Clerical 1\MVSMETI'ERS\1911_624 Hernandez Field Homes Engineers Conditions
M A R T I N E Z, CA 94553 (2).doc
925 228 5635
FAX: 925-228-7585
i n-..
t
H1,VIEW
SRNIiflR4 ��
May 3,2005
MINI
Mr. Ryan Hernandez
Ma inez,Califomia Founded 1923 Project Planner
Contra Costa County
` Community Development Dept.
651 Pine Street, 4'h FIoor, North Wing
BORHOOFDIRECTORS Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Stanley R.Caldwell
Arthur J.Castro
Re: DP053027/RZ053158/SD058967
David P.Maggi ` Subdivision 8967
Gregory T.pyla Field Courtyard Homes
'Dorothy K.Sakazaki
David R.Contreras. Dear Mr.Hernandez,
DISTRICT MANAGER
We have reviewed the Vesting Tentative Map for the referenced subdivision. The District has
Sheri L.riddle no objection to the development as proposed subject to the following:
BOARD SECRETARY
1. A standard sanitary sewer manhole shall be installed at the terminus of each Courtyard.
.Maurice E.Huguet,Jr. The Courtyard sewers may be six inches in diameter.
AT70RNEY 2 The easement sewer between Lots 37 and 3 8/3 9 should be installed in a steel casing.
Randolph W.Leptien 3. Existing engineering charges for the prior application on this site will be added to the plan
ENGINEER
review.fees for this project.
'
4. The property owner shall dedicate sanitary sewer easements for all new sewer mains per
District requirements.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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
MT.VIEW SANITARY DISTRICT foundations have been constructed.
0P3SOO ARTHUR RoAo 10. Fees shall be charged pursuant to the Ordinance in effect at the time that the permit is
. 0 . 8 o x 2 7 5 7 issued. Fees are subject to revision by the District Board without notice.
MARTINEZ, CA 94553
9 2 5 - 2 2 8 - 5 6 3 5 \\Clerical-1\clerical-1\Clerical 1\WSD\LETTERS\11624 Field Courtyard Homes Conditions.doc
FAX: 925-228-7585
- hli.UlEW
�� SANIiNN4
IS i M i Please feel free to contact the undersigned at 925 228 4218 voice, 925 228 4638 fax, or
randy.leptiennicc-inc.com email, should there be any questions.
i Martine,California Founded 1923 �
Very truly yours,
LCC,Inc
Randolph W. Leptien
District Engineer
Encl. Agency Comment Request Form
Via facsimile no. 925 335 1222
l Original will follow by mail
i #
Copy w/encl: D. Contreras (D. Riddle)
3
Luk&Assoc.
738 Alfred Nobel Drive
Hercules CA 94547
5 ;
}
i
9
1
N
t
\\Clerical-1\clerical-1\Clerical 1\MVSD\LETTERS\11624 Field Courtyard Homes Conditions.doc
Architecturer, LomGUAWOS
Planning • Interiors
L■J A R C H I T E C T S INC . Construction Management
March 14,2006
Ryan Hernandez, Senior Planner
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street,2nd Floor-North Wing
Martinez, CA 9455371295
Re: Field-Bodhaine Courtyard Homes
Contra Costa County,CA
APN 159-230-002 & -003
SDO5-8967&DPOS-3027
Dear Ryan:
Per your request we have reviewed and herby agree to the mitigations proposed in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared by Sycamore Associates and dated March
. 2006,for the above referenced project.
Best regards,
i'
Norm Dyer,Project Manager
Loving&Campos Architects Inc.
Z/wk/proj/nofffYW59/coir/Itr
r
245 Ygnacio Valley Road Walnut Creek, CA 94596-7029 925.944.1626 FAX 925.944.1666
F�lCOmmUnIt ;Dennis M.Bar0y,AI_ CP ,y Contra _'Comnmunity Development Director
Development
Costa -
Department
County k%AX 4 2006 --
County Administration Building 1
i
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing ':
Martinez California 94553-0095 �,,.,,�- .' ! �� �N
Phone: `�.,y r :�
(925) 335-1210 �sr'_�°°'� ` DATE: March 14, 2006
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
County File #RZ053158
County File # SD058967
County File # DP053027
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:
_Loving & Campos Architects Inc. (Applicant) Field Brothers & Randal Bodhaine (Owners), This project
consists of three applications:
A. County File #RZ053158 — A request for approval to establish a preliminary development
plan, superseding one that has expired, for 89-homes within an existing Planned Unit District
(P-1).
B. County File #SD058967 — A request for a vesting tentative map approval to subdivide 9.3-
acres into 89-lots. The average lot size is approximately 3500-square feet.
C. County File #DP053027—A request for approval of a final development plan to establish 89-
single family residences (1620-1770 square feet in size) on 9.3-acres of property. Approval
to remove all trees (46) on site is also requested.
The subject site is located at 4755 and 4781 Pacheco Boulevard in the Martinez area. (Zoning: Planned
Unit District, P-1) (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 159-230-002 and 159-230-003).
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, Land Use Planning, Noise, Public Services,
Recreation, 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 1 st, 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, April 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, 2nd 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 April 25, 2006. It is anticipated that the hearing will be
held at the McBrien Administration Building,Room 107,Pine and Escobar Streets,Martinez.
Sincerely,
Ryan Hernandez
Senior Planner
2
•
INITIAL STUDY FOR THE
BODHAINE—FIELD
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 335-1210
Prepared by:
Sycamore Associates LLC
2099 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 204
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(925) 279-0580
March 2006
•
The information provided in this document is intended solely for the use and benefit of
Contra Costa County.
No other person or entity shall be entitled to rely on the services, opinions,
recommendations,plans or specifications provided herein, without the express written
consent of Sycamore Associates LLC, 2099 Mt Diablo Blvd, Suite 204, Walnut Creek,
CA 94596.
•
C
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... l
PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY......................................:................................... l
DECISION TO PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION........................................................................2
PROJECTOVERVIEW.................................................................................................2
AGENCY OVERSIGHT AND PERMITS.....................................................................2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................3
SITE LOCATION AND ACCESS.................................................................................3
PROJECTFEATURES...................................................................................................6
RESPONSES TO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST...............................................23
I_ AESTHETICS..........................................................................................................23
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES...........................................................................24
III. AIR QUALITY..:....................................................................................................25
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES................................................................................31
. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES....................................................................................39
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.......................................................................................40
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS..................................................43
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY..........................................................46
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING..............................................................................52
X. MINERAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................54
XI. NOISE...................................................................................................................54
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ..........................................................................57
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES...........................................................................................57
XIV. RECREATION.....................................................................................................58
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC..........................................................................58
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.............................................................61
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.............................................62
REFERENCES,PERSONS CONTACTED AND REPORT PREPARERS....................65
•
Sycamore Associates LLC—Bodhaine-Field Residential Development Proiect Draft Initial Study
FIGURES
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS..................................................................................................3
FIGURE 1.PROJECT VICINITY.................................................................................................4
FIGURE 2. AERIAL OF PROJECT'
SITE ......................................................................................5
1
FIGURE,3.DEVELOPMENT PLAN............................................................................................8
FIGURE4.DA57 PLAN.....................................................:....................................................9
TABLES
TABLE 1. STATE AND FEDERAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS...................................26
TABLE 2.FEASIBLE CONTROL MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS OF PM10••••...•......29
TABLE 3.EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE DATA. .......................................................................41
APPENDICES
Pacheco Boulevard Residential Projects Traffic Impact Study. Prepared by Abrams Associates.
August 2005. Revised January 2006.
Svcamore Associates LLC—Bodhaine-Field Residential Development Project Draft Initial Studv fi
• INTRODUCTION
This section describes the purpose of an Initial Study(IS),the decision process to prepare a
Negative Declaration(ND) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND), a brief description and
objectives of the Bodhaine-Field Residential Development Project in Contra Costa County,
California, and a short discussion about other public agencies whose approval is required through
the permitting process or which have an interest in the project.
PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
This Initial Study has been prepared by Contra Costa County, which is also the Lead Agency
under CEQA for the project. The IS has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act(CEQA) for the Residential Development Project. CEQA lists seven purposes of an
IS [CEQA Guidelines 15063(c)]:
1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding
whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)or a Negative
Declaration(ND).
2. Enable a Lead Agency to modify a project; mitigating adverse impacts before an
EIR is prepared,thereby enabling the project to qualify for a ND.
3. Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project. -
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a ND that a project
• will not have a significant effect on the environment.
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs.
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
gvramnrP AccnrintPc T.T.0—RndbginP-Fielrl Rf-.6dentinl T)P.V?lnnm?nt Prniert T)rnft Tnitinl RhAv I
DECISION TO PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED •
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070,'a public agency shall prepare a proposed ND or
a Mitigated ND when:
1. The IS shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record
before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment, or
2. The IS identifies potentially significant effects, but:
Revisions in the project plans made before a proposed Mitigated ND and IS are
released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a
point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and there is no substantial
evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as
described may'have a significant effect on the environment.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Loving and Campos Architects (Applicant) are proposing to construct a single-family residential
development on approximately 9.3 acres in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County,
California(Assessor Parcel Numbers 159-230-002, and 159-230-003).
The project comprises the construction of 89 single-family units, associated courtyards,a tot lot,
an extensive bio swale system, and associated roadways and infrastructure.
AGENCY OVERSIGHT AND PERMITS
Contra Costa County is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Under CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15050, 1505 1)the Lead Agency is the public
agency with the primary responsibility for carrying out or approving the project and is
responsible for the preparation of the appropriate environmental review documents.
County approvals necessary for the proposed project include: Rezoning from P-1 to P-1, Final
Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Map.
A Regional Water Quality Certification (RWQCB) application for Section 401 Certification for
Waste Discharge requirements was submitted to the RWQCB for the Bodhaine Property and is
pending. The following permits are required and applications are being submitted to USACE for
Nationwide Permit No. 7 (Outfall structures and Maintenance) and Nationwide Permit No. 39
(Residential, Commercial and Institutional Developments).
At this time, no other responsible agency, or agency with permitting or regulatory authority over
the project has been identified.
Cvramnre Accnrinte.c T.T.0—Rnrlhnine-Field Recidentinl Develnnment Prniart Drnft Tnitial Chvly 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
•
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant proposes to construct 89 single-family residences and associated roadways and
infrastructure on approximately 9.3 acres in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County,
California. The project site is composed of two properties, the Bodhaine Property and the Field
Property(approximately 3.4 and 5.9 acres respectively). These two properties would be divided
into 89 lots and 22 parcels that are discontinuous or serve different purposes such as the tot lot,
courtyards, various internal roadways, bioswales, easements, and right of ways. Additionally,
improvements would be made off-site to Drainage Area 57 (DA57) storm drain facilities.
SITE LOCATION AND ACCESS
The project site is located within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, north of the
City of Martinez. The street addresses are 4755 and 4781 Pacheco Boulevard and the site is
located 1,000 feet south of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF)Railroad and 2,000
feet north of Arnold Drive, immediately west of Interstate 680 (I-680)and one mile north of
State Highway 4 (Hwy 4). Access to the project site would be from Pacheco Boulevard and
proposed ingress/egress' "A" Street and`B" Street.
SITE AND VICINITY LAND USES
Existing Site Conditions
The residential project site consists of two parcels of 5.85 and 3.39 acres. The properties were
previously approved in the early 1990's (Subdivisions 7324 (Field)& 7325 (Bodhaine)) for 27.
and 16 single-family homes, respectively. The site slopes up approximately 10 percent from
Pacheco Boulevard. There are two existing homes and 46 ornamental trees on the site. Access is
provided from Pacheco Boulevard. An existing church with parking lots and an occupied
residence is located on the south central portion of the site and will remain. This area is
surrounded by the project site and is not part of the project. An additional residence with
associated sheds and farming equipment is located in the central northern portion of the project
site, within the Bodhaine property. These structures would be removed as part of the project.
Vicinity Land Uses
The proposed project is surrounded by suburban portions of the City of Martinez and
unincorporated Contra Costa County, and includes the following: The parcels immediately to the
north include three single-family homes and storage yards for construction companies. Further
to the north are offices and storage yards for a landscape maintenance firm, vacant land and the
BNSF railroad tracks. Interstate 680 is immediately to the east. Immediately to the south are
properties within the City of Martinez which includes several single-family homes, some being
utilized for home occupations. Across Pacheco Blvd to the west are the approved Essex
Courtyard Homes(85 units), Della Rosa Courtyard Homes (41 Units) and Fassler project (20
units). In addition there are four existing single-family homes.
,vr.mmnrP Avznrinteq I J.0—Rnrihninr Fif4d T)rnft Initial Rt1AV/k4T%M 3
Figure 1.Project Vicinity
,4 .'s"S}�}' � l..ta 4 '—�«S 4� t� � �...} � •�to
.. "`.,�'= l meta s. •,5. � 'C� '" „ t }
��.. , ♦ .yens
MW
'" �`� l � s: pr?�"♦{��r .� '���s�; "'"'4 tea' �a.W,� `-L;
"'E it_ � �� y��' ",`♦.i� `,.1'.1, �i,��fN, -e �i 1 „i. ,m1-s+'�''1�
� �,��� +" �\� �,� .., x.,r `�i t � Y �• .'r=�".,.�;, t Y 9a♦ 5x4 -.
0_00 RIN
A. as,te
QOb6 � � x s ��� .��ay T .
4�'�S��r� t � � �yt F�.-z�i� '���i .:• tax � !'�, a':+';.;��„
F+1kY tQ�5•# \t O�l,•,..
l�c �` i�'_.��}}+rtl,�Z l.ria� �ti.v�\ ♦`'^'�:�,-,�{ �"- '�• �`�'�\,,�� e,'� "t $���Le.'�e
v ', •, z i` �}1' t $�sa
•I `�•'" �+ rt"�`�� ht0 vra i { rf p p j M` ti #i
+1..:>...ti_ ♦t� r:i f"* _`- '� tr 4 '�z } 4R t t ',�L rx t # x i
7 I
Il� ,
T$t �7i�� 4 x ♦ a..
� �+ �z, ,F is \. �� .�190 . ; , J,•- a��� per
�}�� 1 �Jt}aYK� ..rw=..., �zy. i � .;'.,t '+�,(` a rJ, a� p• +. t w .`"��� rY � '��.
jY.�.,„.--��y� i_""`.v��'�' f,hs '�'�4`` o-i: t �"+�xp�,{t+'.a t 4 #� r {� �„ '+.. ♦ 2 f�7�.,c, 1 iD r
/' v 't t •+I . t �1 C„c:�, ` +c:� x t !�" `^t 5 �P l 1 Sj w OY sot
rz
1x
l 4 L%i{SQ } t�,^�f _I✓ ::vi � ��L.t-�`^�3 y+1 ,_.n•�:,ii<mc/_.t' l�,-�„'� - _ \
Z 4 L. Sp
X61
inal
t,
Legend Figure 1
Project Vicinity
Project Side Contra Costa County
Initial'study Bodhaine-Field Property
Corr-ra Costa County,California
124,001D 1011105 mrtmmgre k-sm-iata-LLC:
1 inch equals 2,000 feet 2099NIi.Diabk'Hlvd3 Su1te3.de
hSs dc:um� r'de�fcr to vote use of t Wahtut c n I.,CA Os 19 i
comm cava c=:j.rm doconer..no:imfarided 4 t,440 2,�J04 3,040 4.440 55 -VI)r1w
fcrdarai:ed dese�n uck.ItSGS�uadrartg 'f�^nt Feet x,tiv� v Ilam:
Sats Fmniu—SapA.,E--Re(r;:I Gafah-.<_e.
S:�'ro"eKs'�Ch,ta Ccsts.Coun^ilni;ial St:cv�adhaine-Field Prs e.%.Gra hi:s'�.GIS',Pry :;SF:ini, iC1105.rrx:
4
CvramnrP A cenrintPc T T.r—Rnrihnine Field Drnf4 Initial 1.gbAv/MNn
77,
Fite/+�+..�• t�3 ,1 i r �'T at%Y (�"yi "
� v Fr'41 � i i'1 R. f t�
j. I Y .h � ,h P �,f� ��,,,< 'F`/}� + .{� +���. •^y� 4.c M..tjt.. r`/�t
f � pix
�ew
-'L'` T i! q.'ice' �r
.. � •r X S+ '�^ ' '�' � ,14� i
72,
F�
c \ e1
rxz'S, a>` .+ vim' .,�f �a..•y..+�.r `+ >� .� �.
34,.
��1. Lj a- '.'y. a �` bq 1�` � rQ• � � n.?� �.h...-w ,tix�,�r i, r� �'�.� ;::... f ,`'3.
`_��:»�6�`'b '..9"�... ��� ,_�?��Y. 'i:���tt��•'5- „C,�+i,.v_.,,..�.'...'"� rix ���'' !
Drainage Area 57 (DA57) is a County formed drainage area that encompasses the east area of
• Martinez and extends east from the project site and east of I-680 in the vicinity of Pacheco
Creek. DA57 facilities consist of an artificially created stormwater conveyance system between
Pacheco Boulevard and an outfall on the north side of the railroad right-of-way. The DA57 site
has been heavily modified by grading and filling activities, although wetland vegetation has
become established where surface flows back up behind the railroad embankment.
PROJECT FEATURES
Residential Development. The project consists of 89 single-family homes on individual lots.
Gross residential density would be less than 10 units per acre. A Rezoning, Development Plan,
and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map are being requested by the Applicant. The development
would consist of thirteen,courtyard clusters,three to eight residences clustered around a parking
court. Ten homes will be located directly off of the private street, not in clusters. Three different
single-family, detached, housing types would be developed; each courtyard would contain a mix
of the housing types. The houses would be 1,620 to 1,770 square feet on an average lot size of
approximately 3,500 square feet. The houses would be two stories (maximum height of 35 feet),
have three bedrooms, and a two-car garage. The proposed project would include the creation of a
homeowners association. Refer to Figure 3,Development Plan.
Landscaping and Open Space. The courtyards are terraced east across the property. There are
landscaped modular key-stone block terraces and slopes between courtyard clusters. These open
space areas would be planted with trees and shrubs. Modular key-stone block walls would be
constructed fronting Pacheco Boulevard, and planted with flowering shrubs, groundcover, and
accent planting. Similar landscaping would be planted at the entries to each residence, street trees
would be planted along the Private Road, and other groundcovers, accent plants, shade trees, and
screening trees would be planted on the site. All front yards and slope areas fronting Pacheco
Boulevard would be landscaped with initial construction. "Good neighbor" fences (finished both
sides)would be built along lot lines. Dry swales will be constructed and landscaped along the
lower edges of the property to meet the County's C.3 Clean Water requirements. Retaining walls
would be utilized, but would be generally hidden behind and between units. Where visible,
retaining walls would be of decorative design. The homeowners association would maintain the
private road and landscaped areas.
Transportation, Circulation and Parking. A private road off of Pacheco Boulevard would
provide access to the site. The roadway would loop through the project and provide two means
of ingress, egress and fire department access. The project has been designed to accommodate the
realignment of Pacheco Boulevard as planned by County Public Works. The private road would
be up to 36 feet wide (curb to curb),this would allow parking on both sides of the road. A total
of 120 (60 on-street and 60 extra driveway) parking spaces would be provided.
Sound Wall. Due to the close proximity between the proposed project and the Interstate-680
corridor, a sound wall will be constructed along the eastern boundary of the development,
measuring 850 linear feet and with an average height of 8.2 feet. Refer to Figure 3, Development
Plan. The sound wall will significantly reduce the audible noise, as a result of traffic flow, for
• future property owners within this residential development.
gvramnrP. Accnrintnc T I.C.—RndhninP Field T?raft Initial Ctwlv/MND 6
I
General Plan. The General Plan designation for the project site is Multi-Family Low Density, •
which allows between 7.3 and 11.9 net multi-family units per acre. The proposed residential use
and density (less than 10 units per gross acre) is consistent with the existing General Plan and
Zoning limitations for the property.
Drainage Area 57 Improvements (DA57).Drainage from the project site would be captured in
DA57, and improvements to accommodate this flow would be made to DA57 as part of the
proposed project. Improvements would be made to the existing stormwater conveyance system,
within an existing County drainage RW to the north of the site, between the two commercial uses
and then under the Burlingtop-Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF)Railroad line. The improvements
to DA57 would include the construction of approximately 250 linear-feet of 72-inch concrete
pipe, 3 headwalls, one junction box structure, and 170 linear-feet of channel grading. A portion
of this work would take place within a wetland area. Refer to Figure 4,DA57 Plan.
Wetland Areas. A small portion of the Field, Bodhaine;and DA57 properties contain
jurisdictional wetlands. All wetland areas within the Field and DA57 sites have been delineated
and verified by the USACE and mitigation plans for the impacts to wetlands within these
properties have been prepared and certified by the USACE and the RWQCB. A wetland
delineation and preliminary jurisdictional determination was completed for the Bodhaine
Property in June 2005; however, verification from USACE and the mitigation plan are pending.
Site Preparation. Site preparation would include'the demolition of all existing structures,
utilities and landscaping. The project has been designed to minimize grading qualities and depth
by terracing clusters of courtyard homes to accommodate the gentle slope of the property. The
project grading includes import of 42,000 cubic yards of excess dirt available from the Essex and
Della Rosa projects, immediately across Pacheco Boulevard. This dirt would be moved to the
project site in 2006 after issuance of project grading permit.
I
Construction and Phasing. Details of the construction and phasing are not known at this time.
For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that construction would take 15 to 18 months.
Approvals. County approvals necessary for the proposed project include: Rezoning from P-1 to
P-1, Final Development Plan,land Vesting Tentative Map.
I
i
.,vrmmnre Accnrinte.c T J.0—Rodhnine.Field T)rnft Tnitinl Ctndv/k4NTI 7
Figure 3. Development Plan
tee
Op
...-• ('j f � -�— •.�_„ `� 5 req
•r [�
/ f/ •W°
EA
CvramnrP Accnriatnc I.I.0—Rndhnine.Field Y)Mft Initial Cbitiv/M D 8
E y
/ t
f
i
r �1
\ \ \ ! (.~.�.,1 Q
too
1 � A
9
{} iat Ctt��vlN�n
���i nP�iPid
c-�r`atPsj j�•�.Y`
Cara�'nrP A .
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project title: Field-Bodhaine Courtyard Homes
2. Lead agency name and address: Contra Costa.County
Community Development Department
Administrative Building
651 Pine Street
2nd 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
4. Project location: The project site is located within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa
County, north of the City of Martinez. The street address is 4755 and 4781 Pacheco Boulevard
and the site is located 1,000 feet south of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe(BNSF)Railroad,
2,000 feet north of Arnold Dr., immediately west of Interstate 680 (1-680)and one mile north of
State Highway 4 (Hwy 4). APN: 159-230-002 &-003.
• 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Loving and Campos
245 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 200
Walnut Creek, CA 945964025
6. General Plan designation: The project site has a General Plan designation of Multiple-Family
Residential-Low Density(ML).
7. Zoning: Planned Unit(P-1).
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved,including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support,or off-site features necessary for its
implementation.Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The Applicant proposes to construct 89 single-family residences and associated roadways and
infrastructure on approximately 9.3 acres in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County,
California. The project site is composed of two properties,the Bodhaine Property and the Field
Property(approximately 3.4 and 5.9 acres respectively). These two properties would be divided
into 89 lots and 22 parcels that are discontinuous or serve different purposes such as a tot lot,
courtyards,various internal roadways,bioswales, easements, and right of ways. Additionally,
improvements would be made off-site to Drainage Area 57(DA 57) storm drain facilities. Refer
to the previous Project Components section for additional details.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: The
proposed project is surrounded by suburban portions of the City of Martinez and unincorporated
• Contra Costa County,and includes the following: The parcels immediately to the north include
three single-family homes and storage yards for construction companies. Further to the north are
.,vramnra AcenrintPc T.T.C.—Rnrihnine FiPUi nraft Tnitini CtlAvIK41s ) 10
i
offices and storage yards for a landscape maintenance company,vacant land and the BNSF
railroad tracks. Interstate 680 is immediately to the east. Immediately to the south are properties •
within the City of Martinez which include several single-family homes; some of which are being
utilized for home occupations.Across Pacheco Blvd to the west are the approved Essex
Courtyard Homes(85 units), Della Rosa Courtyard Homes(41 Units)and Fassler project(20
units). In addition there are four existing single-family homes.
Drainage Area 57 (DA.) is a County formed drainage area that encompasses the east area of
Martinez and extends cast from the project site and east of I-680 in the vicinity of Pacheco Creek.
10. Other public 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:
• Caltrans
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD)
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
• Contra Costa County Public Works
At this time, no other responsible agency, or agency with permitting or regulatory authority over
the project has been identified.
i
I
i
CvramnrP A ccnrintrs T.T.r—RnAhninr Field T)raft Tnitinl CtnAv/MNI� 11
I
I
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 ❑ Agriculture Q Air Quality
Resources
Q Biological Resources Q Cultural Resources Q Geology/Soils
Q Hazards &Hazardous Q Hydrology/Water Q Land Use/Planning
Materials Quality
❑ Mineral Resources Q . Noise ❑ Population/Housing
Q Public Services Q Recreation Q Transportation/Traffic
0 Utilities/Service Q Mandatory Findings of Significance
Systems
•
•
n-4. r.,:+:..r C!+-A-/WAvn 17
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
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.
L find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
Q 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 prepared.
i
F1 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
significant 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.
I find that although the iproposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
El or
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.
' 6
Pa,�M L
Signature Date
Signature Date
EVAL UA TION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A"No Impact'i answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g.,the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts. •
Q--_ n r r 0 R.71,,::.o R;ela T'%__f+ Q",AA A- m 1
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant,less than significant
• with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more"Potentially
Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"
to a"Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly-explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures
from Section XVII, Earlier Analyses, may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15 063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated,"describe the mitigation measures which were
incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
• address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts(e.g.,general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should,where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
.7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form,and lead agencies are free to use different formats;however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any,to reduce the impact to less than
significance.
C.,......,..�o AT T P T7...7i,..;..o Vi-14 T1b 47 T..;+;..1 Q".A7 /WAkTII �4
! Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant with No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporation Impact •
I
L AESTHETICS—Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
b)Substantially damage scenic resources,including,
but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character ❑
or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ❑ Q
I
d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare El
would adversely affect day or nighttime views El ❑
in the area?
E
IUAGRICULTURE RESOURCES—`In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects,lead agencies.may:refer to'the California Agricultural Land Evaluation andSite Assessment
Model(1997)Trepared by the California Dept:of,Conservatiowas.an optional model to use inassessingimpacts on
1agriculture and farmland.'Would the project:
a)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or
Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b)Conflict with existing zoning for cultural use,or El El
[�
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?
III.AIR QUALITY—Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.Would the project:
a)Conflict with or obstruct implemenition of the ❑ El
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 ❑ Q ❑ ❑
ambient air quality standard(including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d)Expose sensitive receptors to substa tial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑
concentrations?
e)Create objectionable odors affecting is substantial ❑ ❑ Q ❑
number of people?
r T r D-Al,.,;:.o r;-IA n—ff r.,;.;.,i a,,,a.,mm m 15
• Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the
project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or
through habitat modifications,on any species
identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status ❑ ❑ ❑
species in local or regional plans,policies,or
regulations,or by the California Department 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 ❑ Q ❑ ❑
the California Department of Fish and Game or US
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, ❑ Q ❑ ❑
vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal,
filling,hydrological interruption,or other means?
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?
e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources,such as a tree ❑ ❑ [.� ❑
preservation policy or ordinance?
f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation El ❑
Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat
El
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the
project:
a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in ❑ ❑
'15064.5?
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the.
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ❑ [.� ❑ ❑
'15064.5?
c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic ❑ [.� ❑ ❑
feature?
d)Disturb any human remains,including those interred ❑ Q ❑. ❑
outside of formal cemeteries?
Q--- A.. . :,♦e T T 11 T2...71,n,--'M-M n—f+T..;♦;.,1 Q+-A,./AdTTrI �Fj
i
i Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
I
VL GEOLOGY AND SOH:S—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? I ❑ ❑ Q ❑
iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including ❑ ❑ ❑
liquefaction?
iv)Landslides? ❑ ❑ Q ❑
b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ Q ❑ ❑
topsoil?
c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the FJ ❑ El project,and potentially result in on-or off--site
landslide,lateral spreading,subsidences,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?
I
e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste,water disposal ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal
of waste water?
I
I
VII.HAZARDS ANDAAZARDOUS
MATERIALS—Would the project:
I
a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the El 11 Eli
environment through the routine transport,use,or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and ❑ Q ❑ El
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ �7
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
c..,..,...,.,.o A.. . :.row T T r T7:o1a Tl—f4 T..:+:..i e...A_A.0r.TrN 17
• Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact .
Incorporation
FIAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
(Continued)—Would the project:
d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to El ❑ El
Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,
would it create a significant 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 within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ El El
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ El with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
• loss,injury or death involving wildland fires,including ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
VIIL HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—
Would the project:
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑
discharge requirements?
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)?
c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area,including through the alteration of the ❑ Q El El
course of a stream or river,in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area,including through the alteration of the El ❑ El
of a stream or river,or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface tnnoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-or off-site?
e)Create or contribute runoff water which would
• exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater ❑ ❑ ❑
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
e.. ... ,.o A +o. r r 0 n„aH.;.,o F;.IA T-."C+T-;+;.,l c+-A-/nX%Tn 1 R
Potentially Less Than Less Than •
Significant with No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporation impact
I
)EIYDROLOGY AND WATER QUA
(Continued)—Would the project:
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
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?
I
h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ❑ Q ❑ ❑
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
I
i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss,injury or death involving flooding,including ❑ ❑ ❑ `Q
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflov? ❑ ❑ ❑ `Q
DL',LAND USE AND PLANNING-,Would the
project: l
a)Physically divide an established community? El El ❑ 0
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, ❑ ❑ Q ❑
specific plan,local coastal program,or zoning
ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑
plan or natural community conservation plan?
{
X.MINERAL RESOURCES—Won d'the project;
I
a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑
resource that would be of value to the re .91 and the
residents of the state?
b)Result in the loss of availability of a,locaily-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated on ❑ ❑ Q
a local general plan,specific plan or other land use
plan?
I
XL 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 ❑ Q ❑ ❑
plan or noise ordinance,or applicable s6ndards of
other agencies?
b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ Q ❑ ❑
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ❑ ❑ Q ❑
without the project? l
i
n . :..oma T T 0 u,al,.; o A;-1A T-U-C* 1-;r;.,1 Q...,l.AAXTn 19
•
Potentially Less ThanLess Than
Significant with� No
Significant • ation Significant act
Impact Incorporation Impact
�P
NOISE(Continued)—Would the project result in:
d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in E] Q El El
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 public airport or public use airport,would ❑ Q ❑ ❑
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, El El Q
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the
,project:
a)Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly(for example,by proposing new homes ❑ El Q ❑
and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, El Q ❑
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
• elsewhere?
c)Displace substantial numbers of people, El El El
the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
XIIL 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:
i)Fire protection? ❑ ❑ Q
ii)Police protection? ❑ ❑ Q ❑
iii)Schools? ❑ ❑ Q ❑
iv)Parks? E] ElQ El
v)Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ Q ❑
Q......w....b AT T ' R...11...:..n 17;n]A T'U—f+T..;r;.,l Q+_A.JKA-KTr\ 7n
i
Potentially Less Than Less Than No •
Significant Significant with Significant Impact .
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
XIV.'RECREATION.—
a)Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or ot)er recreational ❑ [� ❑ ❑
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
I
b)Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational ElQ ❑ ❑
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
XV.TRANSPORTATIOMTRAMC—Would the
project:
a)Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the ❑ Q ❑ ❑
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)?
i
b)Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level
of service standard established by the county ❑ ❑ ❑
congestion management agency for iignated roads
or highways? •
c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns,traffic
EJ El El
an increase in trac levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design ElQ ❑ El
(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)?
e)Result in inadequate emergency across? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
i
f)Result in inadequate parking capacity ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
i
g)Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs
supporting alternative transportation(e g.,bus ❑ Q El El
turnouts,bicycle racks)?
I
XVI:UTILITIl';S AND SERVICES i STEMS
Would the project:
I
a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b)Require or result in the construction hof new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ Q ❑
facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
•
C........,...n A........:..+oma T T!' R...7T..,::.o F;or.i TN—,r*T..:+;..r C+..A—fhdTTrl 7�
• Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
UTILITIES AND SERVICESYSTEMS
(Continued)—Would the project:
c)Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing E
facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑
project from existing entitlements and resources,or are El El
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e)Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the ❑
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project=s projected demand in addition to the
provider--s existing commitments?
f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑
capacity to accommodate the project=s solid waste
disposal needs?
g)Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and El ❑ E Q
regulations related to solid waste?
• XVII MANDATORY'FINDING&OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining ❑ ❑ ❑
levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
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 F-1 El
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c)Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, Q
either directly or indirectly?
•
Q--. A T T r n-Ah.;-.F;ota T-%-4, Tn;t;M Q+,,A–th m.Tn 77
RESPONSES TO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
• I. AESTHETICS
The topography of the project site is gradually sloping to the west and south with an elevation of
approximately 60-feet above mean sea level (msl) on the eastern side and approximately 10 feet
above msl on the western side adjacent to Pacheco Boulevard. The northern half of the project
site consists of two hill slopes separated by a small swale. A flat area was graded on the
Bodhaine property, (southern portion of the project site)to accommodate an existing residence,
shed, rubble piles, and two large gravel parking areas. The site-is surrounded by developed or
disturbed land on all sides. The on-site vegetation is highly disturbed and supports primarily non-
native grassland and ruderal species. Scattered native and non-native trees and shrubs are also
present.
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. According to Figure 9-1 of the Contra Costa County General Plan, which
identifies scenic resources in the County, including major ridges and waterways, the
project site is not in an area identified for scenic resources. The project site is not part of
a scenic vista, nor would it block views of a scenic vista from existing development.
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,including, but not limited to,trees,rock
• outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The project site does not contain scenic resources such as rock outcroppings,
trees, historic buildings, nor is it within a state scenic highway. There are 46 ornamental
trees located on-site; however, they do not represent a scenic resource. Removal of all
trees is proposed as part of the Final Development Plan application.
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site or surrounding areas. The proposed project would
be consistent with surrounding land uses. There are no visually unique or distinctive
features of the project site that would be affected by the project. Refer to response (b)
above.
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urban environment where
exterior lighting associated with residential and public uses is common. Adjacent
roadways also provide street lighting. New exterior lighting would contribute
incrementally to light and glare in this existing urban setting. Lighting would not be in
• excess of that commonly found in urban areas, and new lighting would utilize fixtures
designed to minimize light spillage. Given that the project site is surrounded by areas
Cvrmmnre AccnrintPc T.T.f.—Rnrlhnina Field T)rnft Tnitinl CtwivWNT) 23
I
already developed and�has on-site light sources, the proposed project would not be i
considered a new source of substantial light or glare. Further,the project would be
required to conform with Section 76-2.1014,Public Nuisance Lighting, of the County
Code, which states, "Lighting fixtures shall be so installed, controlled or directed that the
light will not glare or be blinding to pedestrians or vehicular traffic or on adjoining
property. With compliance of the aforementioned county code,the project would not
result in significant new light or glare impacts.
H.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide
Importance(Farmland); as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. According to figure 8-2, Important Agricultural Lands, of the County's
General Plan, the project site is not located within an area of agricultural importance.
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. Refer to the previous response. •
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?
No impact Refer to the previous response. Further, the project site is not within current
agricultural use.
i
Rvcamnr(-. A ccncintPc T.T.C.—Rnrlhaina Fuld T)raR TnitiA RhAv/1VI -M 24
I
• III.AIR QUALITY
The project site is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin(BAAB), which comprises the
nine-county Bay Area. Air quality in the BAAB is regulated primarily by the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District(BAAQMD). The BAAQMD monitors and enforces District, State
of California and Federal air quality standards. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin does not
meet the State ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and inhalable particulate matter(PMIo).
In 2002, 16 exceedances (state standards) for ozone occurred, 19 occurred in 2003, and 7
exceedances occurred in 2004. In 2002, 4 exceedances(state standards) for PMIo occurred, 3
occurred in 2003 and 1 exceedance occurred in 2004. The state standards for these pollutants are
more stringent than the national standards. The Basin does not meet the National ambient Air
Quality Standards for ozone and is unclassified for PMIo. All other pollutants are designated as
"attainment" or"unclassified" for federal standards and as an"attainment" area for the state
standard.' State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards are shown in Table 1, State and
Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards.
•
• ' California Air Resources Board Website.http://www.arb_ca.gov. 03/18/05.
RvramnrP kvznrintac T.T.0—RnAhnina Field T)rnft Tnitinl RtntivWNT) 25
Table 1. State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards
•
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDW
i
Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards" National Standar&
PPM µghn' Primary° Secondary°
PM Nis PM µ Ma
Ozone 1 hour, 0.09 180
8 hour 0.08 0.08
Carbon Monoxide 8 hours 9.0 10,000 9.0 10,000 9.0 10,000
1 hour, 20.0 23,000 35.0 40 000 35.0 40,000
I
Nitrogen Dioxide Amnia] 0.053 100 0.053 100
1 hour, 0.25 470
Sulfur Dioxide' ArunnalI. 0.03 80
24 hours 0.04 105 0.14 365
3 hours 0.5 1,300
1 hour) 0.25 655
I
Mot Aral 1 30 50 50
24 hours 50 150 150
PM2 Annual 15 15
24 hours 65 65
LeadB Calendar quarter 1 1.5 1.5 •
30-day avg 1.5
Sulfates 24 hours 25
Hydrogen Su)fide 1 hour 0.03 42
Vinyl Chloride 24 hours 0.010 26
Visibility 8 hours(I OI a.m.- In sufficient amounts
Reducing Particles 6 p.m.) to reduce prevailing
visibility to<10 miles
when relative
humidity is<70%
w/equivalent
instrument method
' Standards first promulgated in ppm concentrations except where noted. Equivalent gglrr?concentrations based on reference temperature
of 2500 and reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury.
° California standards for ozone,carbon monoxide(except Lake Tahoe),sulfur dioxide,nitrogen dioxide,PMro,and visibility reducing
particles are values not to be exceeded.I
National standards,other than ozone and those based on annual averages,are not to be exceeded more than once a year.
" Designed to protect human health with Ian adequate margin of safety.
Designed to protect public welfare(i.e. prevent damage to vegetation,property,visibility)
'Federal standards firstpromulgated in Ip/rr .
8 Standards promulgated inµg/m3 only.
•
gvramnra AccnrintPc T.T.r—RniihninP Fii-ld T)rnft Initial gfivlv/MTM 26
• Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan(Plan)prepared by BAAQMD.
The main objective of the 2001 Plan is to attain the state air quality standard for ozone.
The 2001 Plan includes current air quality data, updated emission inventory and emission
factors, a description of the District's photochemical modeling results, updated analysis
of emission reductions needed to meet and maintain the state ozone standard, discussion
of potential air quality impacts to the energy crisis, and recommended adoption of three
specific control measures.
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.
Air Quality and Land Use Handbook
• The California Air Resources Board's (CARB) primary goal in developing the Air
Quality and Land Use Handbook is to provide information that will help keep
California's children and other vulnerable populations out of harm's way with respect to
nearby sources of air pollution. Recent air pollution studies have shown an association
between respiratory and other non-cancer health effects and proximity to high traffic
roadways. Other studies have shown that diesel exhaust and other cancer-causing
chemicals emitted from cars and trucks are responsible for much of the overall cancer
risk from airborne toxics in California.' The intended purpose of the Handbook is to
highlight the potential health impacts associated with proximity to air pollution sources
so planners explicitly consider this issue in planning processes. CARB believes that with
careful evaluation, infill development, mixed use, higher density, transit-oriented
development, and other concepts that benefit regional air quality can be compatible with
protecting the health of individuals at the neighborhood level.
The Handbook recommends the following, "Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within
500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000
vehicles/day." The project site is immediately adjacent to the right-of-way (ROW) of I-
680 and within 300 feet of the traffic lanes and is a residential development which is
considered a sensitive receptor;therefore, the project would not be consistent with the
handbooks recommendation. However; as stated in the handbook, "Land Use decisions
are a local government responsibility. The Air Resources Board's role is advisory and
• 'Air Quality and Land Use Handbook,California Air Resources Board. April 2005.
Cvrmmnre. A zcn(intPQ T.T.r.—RnAhnina F1P1A T)rnft Initial CtnAV/MT%M 27
i
these recommendations do not establish regulatory standards of any kind....Land use •
agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation
needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues."
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
Less than Significant,with Mitigation Incorporation. The proposed project would
generate short-term construction emissions and long-term vehicle emissions associated
with the increased vehicle trips to the site.
Short-Term Construction Emissions
Ozone Emissions During Construction: According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines,
construction projects using typical construction equipment such as dump trucks,
scrappers, bulldozers, backhoes which temporarily emit precursors of ozone (i.e., volatile
organic compounds or,oxides of nitrogen), are accommodated in the emission inventories
of state and federally required air plans and would not have a significant impact on the
attainment and maintenance of ozone ambient air quality standards(page 13 of the
Guidelines). Thus, the project would not individually, or cumulatively contribute to the
non-attainment of ozone standards.
I
Particulate Matter Emissions During Construction: The project construction phase would
generate PMIo emissions in the form of fugitive dust and vehicle exhaust from
construction equipment. Construction activities for the proposed project would consist of
excavating the project site and other construction related activities. Emissions from
construction equipment engines also can contribute to high, localized concentrations of
PMI(), as well as increased emissions of ozone precursors and carbon monoxide.
i
The BAAQMD has prepared a document, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Revised 1999
that provides guidelines for assessing construction related air emissions. According to
Section 2.3, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines the BAAQMD's approach to CEQA
analyses of construction impacts is to emphasize implementation of effective and
comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. The
BAAQMD has identified a set of feasible PMIo control measures for construction
activities. These control measures are listed in Table 2 of the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines and in Table 2,Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of
PM10, below. As notedi in Table 2 below, some measures ("Basic Measures") should be
implemented at all construction sites, regardless of size. Additional measures ("Enhanced
Measures") should be implemented at larger construction sites(greater than 4 acres)
where PMIo emissions(generally would be higher and other PMIo controls ("Optional
Measures") may be implemented if further emission reductions are deemed necessary by
the Lead Agency.
•
Cvramnre AcmriatPc T 7.C'.—RndhainP.Fuld Draft Initial Ct11AV/AAT%M 28
• Table 2. Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PMio
Basic Control Measures. - The following controls should be 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(with water sweepers)all paved access roads,parking areas and
staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep streets daily(with water sweepers)if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent public streets.
Enhanced Control Measures—The following measures should be
implemented at construction sites greater than four acres in area.
• All `Basic"control measures listed above.
• 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.
Optional Control Measures—The following control measures are strongly
encouraged at construction sites that are large in area,located near
sensitive receptors or which for any other reason may warrant additional
emissions reductions.
• Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment
leaving the site.
• Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s)of
construction areas.
• Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 25 mph.
• Limit the area subject to excavation,grading and other construction activity at any
one time.
Source:BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines,Table 2.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce fugitive dust-related
air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure Air-1: The"Basic Measures" and the"Enhanced Measures" listed in
Table 2 shall be incorporated into the construction plans for the proposed project. The
"Optional Measures" listed in Table 2 shall be incorporated if further emission reductions
are deemed necessary by the County. The County shall review these construction plans
• to ensure these measures have been incorporated.
CvramnrP A ccnciatec T.T.C.—Rnrihaine..Field 17raft Tnitial Ctndv/WTNM 29
i
Long-Term Vehicle Emissions:
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide thresholds of significance for operational
impacts by pollutant. An exceedance of any threshold would represent a significant
impact on local or regional air quality. The 89 single-family homes would add
approximately 842 daily trips and 89 peak hour trips to the local roadways. The net
increase in long-term 'vehicular emissions generated by the proposed project is not
anticipated to exceed the BAAQMD's operation thresholds and would have a less-than-
significant impact on local or regional air quality.
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)?
Less than Significant)with Mitigation Incorporation. As previously indicated, the
BAAQMD is in non-attainment status for Ozone and PMIo. Based on the guidelines
provided by the County and information provided in the BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines
document,the project would not generate significant PMIo emissions during construction,
nor would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any air
pollutants. The projects construction would not contribute substantially to cumulative
Ozone or PMIo emissions. However, because the project is located in an air basin that is
in non-attainment for particulate matter,Mitigation Measure Air-1, incorporating •
Feasible Control Measures above for controlling dust emissions during construction is
recommended.
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
I
Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors around the project site include all
existing residential areas. The project's primary pollutant emissions would be dust during
construction. The residences would not be significantly affected by dust during
construction, as mitigation measure Air-1 would reduce construction dust emissions
during the length of construction.
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. 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
receptors in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to
objectionable odors would result from the proposed project.
i
I •
gvrmmnre A ccnriatPc T TP—Rnrlhaine.Fuld T raft Initial gtndv/MNTm 30
• IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Biological Assessments were completed for the Bodhaine Property, Field Property, and the
Drainage Area 57 (DA57)Improvements site by Wood Biological Consulting and Wildlife
Research Associates in April 2005, November 2004, and August 2004 respectively. Per the
recommendations of these Biological Assessments, focused botanical surveys were conducted in
May and August of 2005 for the Bodhaine and Field properties and in August of 2004 and April
2005 for the DA57 site. The discussion regarding the three properties is largely derived from
these aforementioned assessments. All of these biological reports are fully referenced in the last
section,References, Persons Contacted and Report Preparers, of this document and are
available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department.
Bodhaine Property
The Property's vegetated habitats are highly disturbed and support primarily non-native
grassland and ruderal plant species. Scattered native and non-native trees and shrubs are also
present. A surface drainpipe is located off-site on the slope below Highway 680;the pipe
discharges run-off midway down the hill that then flows onto the site. At the time of the survey
the soil surface was saturated from downslope of the pipe outfall southwest to an area of
freshwater marsh habitat adjacent to the southern property boundary. A drainage ditch from the
lower end of the freshwater marsh diverts water from this feature west alongside the property
• boundary. The ditch is partially vegetated with ruderal, non-native species. This ditch ties into a
roadside swale that carries flows northwest along Pacheco Boulevard, ultimately draining to
Pacheco Creek via a series of culverts. A wetland delineation and preliminary jurisdictional
determination was completed for the Bodhaine Property in June 2005; however, verification
from United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is pending.'According to the biological
assessment for the Bodhaine property,these habitats are presumed not to fall under jurisdiction
of the California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG), as they are not associated with a natural
stream course.'
Field Property
Most of the property consists of non-native grassland that has historically been heavily grazed
and is partly divided by fence lines. Adjacent to Pacheco Boulevard, is a narrow seasonally
inundated drainage supporting ruderal, seasonal wetland habitat. The wetland is fed by roadside
runoff and sheet flow from the slope above, and when inundated, drains northwest into further
wetlands and ultimately into Pacheco Creek via a series of culverts and a canal. The upper part of
this property near Interstate Highway 680 is heavily disturbed ruderal habitat and includes a
single-family residence, other smaller structures, abandoned vehicles, timber and debris. The
USACE verified the wetland delineation and jurisdictional determination completed by Wood
'Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Bodhaine Property,4781 Pacheco
Boulevard,Contra Costa County,California.Prepared by Wood Biological Consulting. June 7,2005.
• 'Biological Assessment for the Bodhaine Property,4781 Pacheco Boulevard,Contra Costa County California.
Prepared by Wood Biological. April 2005.
Cvr_nmnrP A zQn(-.iatf-Q i x.0—RnAhaine Field T)raft Initial Ctndv/MTM 31
Biological Consulting for the Field Property February 2005.5 According to a letter.from CDFG, •
this property is outside the jurisdiction of the CDFG under Section 1600 et. seq. of the Fish and
Game Code.6
DA57
The DA-57 drainage improvement area, which is off-site, consists of approximately 1.5 acres of
historically disturbed and altered land on the north side of Pacheco Boulevard near 4677 Pacheco
Boulevard, as well as a small area north of the BNSF railroad embankment. The site consists of
an artificially created stormwater conveyance system between Pacheco Boulevard and an outfall
on the north side of the railroad right-of-way. The site has been heavily modified by both
historical and recent grading and filling. Wetland vegetation has become established where
surface flows back up behind the railroad embankment. Several habitat types are present,
including: non-native grassland/ruderal, seasonal wetland, ruderal seasonal wetland, creeping
wildrye grassland, coastal/valley freshwater marsh, willow riparian scrub, and a planted grove of
cottonwood trees (Populus fre�montii). This wetland delineation was verified by the USACE in
January 2005.' According to a letter from CDFG, this property is outside the jurisdiction of the
CDFG under Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code.'
Would the project:
i
I
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?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation.
Impacts to Special-status Plants.
According to the aforementioned BAs for the project, a total of 30 special-status plant species
have been recorded from the project region and none have a moderate or high potential for
occurrence on the property. A total of 11 species are considered to have a low potential to occur
within the study site based on the presence of marginally suitable habitat. These species are:
slender-leaved pondweed (Stuckenia frliformis), Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens),
and Suisun marsh aster(Suisun Marsh aster), big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumose), Congdon's
tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. Congdonii), Santa Cruz tarplant(Holocarpha macradenia),
rayless ragwort(Senecio aphanactis), bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris), round-
s Wetland Delineation,Field Property,4755 Pacheco Boulevard.Prepared by Wood Biological Consulting.
December 15,2004.Verified by USACE February 9, 2005.
6 Letter from CDFG regarding Strearnbed Alteration Agreement Notification Review to Norm Dyer.February 17,
2005. i
' Wetland Delineation and Prelm* uiary Jurisdictional Determination for Drainage Area 57 for the Essex and Field
Subdivision, Contra Costa County; California.Prepared by Wood Biological Consulting. July 16,2004 •
'Ibid. CDFG letter.
Rvcamnre A ccnciatec LIP P—Rndbaine Field i)raft Initial RfiulvWND 32
• leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum), Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern(Calochortus pulchellus), and
fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea). The remaining 19 species are considered to have no
potential for occurrence, either due to a lack of suitable habitat on-site or because they would
have been detected during the present survey.91°'1 As previously indicated, focused surveys for
the aforementioned special status species were conducted in 2005. The corresponding botanical
survey reports for the three properties concluded that no special status plant species were
detected on-site, none are considered to have any potential to occur and no further surveys or
mitigation measures are warranted.
Impacts to Special-status Wildlife.
There are six special-status wildlife species that are considered to have potential for occurrence
within the study area. Cooper's hawk(Accipter cooperii), Nuttall's woodpecker(Picoides
nuttallii), and oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus) are considered to have moderate potential for
occurrence on-site as either foraging or nesting species. Burrowing owl (Achene cunicularia) is
considered to have a low potential to forage or nest on-site. Bridge's Coast Range shoulderband
snail (Helminthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi) is also considered to have a low potential for
occurrence on-site. Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)was detected during the Field
Property survey, but this species is a winter visitor only and no suitable nesting habitat is present
on that property; however,the Bodhaine Property has potentially suitable nesting habitat within
the on-site wetlands. Further,there is potential for other special-status raptors and passerine birds
to have some potential of occurrence on-site or to nest in the trees on-site.12'3
Impact Bio 1.1: Special Status Bird Species
Several special-status and common bird species have the potential to nest in existing vegetation,
including trees, shrubs, ruderal habitats, emergent aquatic vegetation, or grassland within the
boundary of the project. Any removal of buildings,trees or shrubs, grading, or construction
activities in the vicinity of active passerine or non-passerine land bird nests, or active raptor
nests, could result in nest abandonment, nest failure, or premature fledging. Destruction or
disturbance of active nests would be in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA) and
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code. Implementation of the following
mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure Bio-1.1a: The removal of any buildings, trees, emergent aquatic
vegetation, or shrubs shall occur from September 1 through December 15, outside of the
avian nesting season. If removal of buildings, trees, emergent aquatic vegetation, or
9 Botanical Survey,Bodhaine Property,4781 Pacheco Blvd.,Contra Costa County. Prepared by Wood Biological.
May 2005.
10 Botanical Survey,Field Property, Contra Costa County. Prepared by Wood Biological. August 2005.
11 Botanical Survey,Drainage Area 57,Contra Costa County.Prepared by Wood Biological. April 2005.
12 Biological Assessment for the Field Property,4755 Pacheco Boulevard, Contra Costa County California.Prepared
by Wood Biological.November 22,2004.
13 Biological Assessment for the Bodhaine Property,4781 Pacheco Boulevard,Contra Costa County California
Prepared by Wood Biological. April 2005.
CvnamnrP AccnniatPc T.T.( —Rnrlhaine Field r)raft Tnitial CfiulV/M1%M 33
shrubs occurs, or construction begins between February 1 and August 31 (nesting season •
for passerine or non-passerine land birds) or December 15 and August 31 (nesting season
for raptors), a nesting bird survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist within 14
days prior to the removal or disturbance of a potential nesting structure,trees, emergent
aquatic vegetation, or shrubs, or the initiation of other construction activities during the
early part of the breeding season (late December through April) and no more than 30
days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season
(May through August)'. During this survey, a qualified biologist shall inspect all potential
nesting habitat(trees, shrubs, structures, grasslands, pastures, emergent aquatic
vegetation, etc.)in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests.
Mitigation Measure Bio-l.lb: All trees with active nests should be flagged and a non-
disturbance buffer zone should be established around the nesting tree in coordination with
California Department!of Fish and Game. Buffer zones typically range between 50 feet to
90 feet for passerines and nonpasserine land birds, and between 200 feet to 500feet,
where feasible, for raptors, as determined by California Department of Fish and Game
depending on the species involved, site conditions, and type of work proposed.
Mitigation Measure Bio-1.1c: Active nests should be monitored by a qualified biologist
to determine when theyoung have fledged and are feeding on their own. California
Department of Fish and Game should be consulted for clearance before construction
activities resume.
Impact Bio-1.2: Special-status Bat Species
Special-status bat species have the potential to nest or roost on-site due to the presence of large
trees or on-site structures. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce
impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure Bio-1.2: Pre-construction surveys for roosting bats should be
conducted prior to removal of trees and buildings. If found, California Department of
Fish and Game should be consulted for guidance on establishing a disturbance-free buffer .
zone during the maternity roost season(March 1 -July 31) or for approval to safely evict
bats, if deemed approp I nate.
Impact Bio-1.3: Bridge's Coast Range Shoulderband Snail
Little is known about this subspecies of terrestrial snail; which lacks legal protection under state
and federal law. However, it is considered rare under the California Natural Diversity Data Base
(CNDDB)ranking scheme and impacts to it could potentially be considered significant pursuant
to CEQA guidelines. While suitable habitat (i.e., leaf litter, downed branches and logs, accessible
ground burrows, duff, rocks, vegetation thatch, and debris) is present at the site, the potential for
this species to occur on-site is low, and as such, no further analysis or mitigation is required.
i
Rvrmm�re AccnriatPc T.T.C.—Rndbnina Firld T)raft Tnitial RhAv/k4NT) 34
I
I
• Impact Bio-1.4: Burrowing Owl.
The Field property is within range of burrowing owl and supports potentially suitable habitat for
the species. While no ground squired burrows were observed on-site during the aforementioned
surveys, the project site is within the range of Burrowing Owl (BUOW) and the basic habitat
conditions are present. As ground squirrels could move onto the site and create suitable habitat
for BUOW in the future,the potential for occurrence does exist. While burrowing owl was not
detected during the biological survey, the species could move onto the site prior to the initiation
of grading. Disturbance during the wintering or nesting seasons could result in the take of adult
burrowing owls, nest abandonment, and mortality of young. Implementation of the following
mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure Bio-1.4a: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, pre-construction
surveys of all potential burrowing owl habitat shall be conducted by a qualified biologist
within the project area and within 250 feet, where feasible, of the project boundary.
Presence or sign of burrowing owl and all potentially occupied burrows shall be recorded
and monitored according to CDFG and California Burrowing Owl Consortium
guidelines. If burrowing owls are not detected, by either sign or direct observation,
construction may proceed. Pre-construction surveys must be reinitiated if more than 30
days lapse between surveys dates and construction activities.
Mitigation Measure Bio-1.4b: If potentially nesting burrowing owl is present during pre-
construction surveys conducted between February 1 and August 31 grading shall not be
allowed within 250 feet, where feasible, of any nest burrow during the nesting season
(February-August), unless approved by the CDFG. All burrows containing active nests
should be identified by flagging. Such nests must not be disturbed until the young have
fledged and compensation of habitat loss, at a mitigation ration to be determined in
consultation with the CDFG would be required.
Mitigation Measure Bio-1.4c: If burrowing owl are detected during pre-construction
surveys outside the nesting season (September 1 -January 31), passive relocation and
monitoring may be undertaken by a qualified biologist following CDFG and California
Burrowing Owl Consortium guidelines, which involve the placement of one-way
exclusion doors on occupied and potentially occupied burrowing owl burrows. Owls shall
be excluded from all suitable burrows within the project area and within a 160-foot buffer
zone, where feasible, of the impact area. A minimum of one (1)week shall be allowed to
accomplish this task and allow for owls to acclimate to alternate burrows. These
mitigation actions shall be carried out prior to the burrowing owl breeding season
(February 1- August 31) and a qualified biologist shall monitor the site weekly until
construction begins to ensure that burrowing owls do not re-inhabit the site.
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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?
. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation. Sensitive natural communities are those
that are considered rare in the region, support special-status plant or wildlife species, or receive
Rvrmmnre. AccnrintPc T JF.—RndhninP FiaUl T)rafl Initial Ctnriv/MNT) 35
regulatory protection(i.e., §404 of the Clean Water Act and/or §1600 et seq. of the California •
Fish and Game Code [CDFG]). In addition, the CNDDB has designated a number of
communities as rare; these communities are given the highest inventory priority (Holland 1986,
CDFG 2003). The on-site special-status natural communities include creeping ryegrass
grassland, willow riparian sc i b, and the cottonwood grove on the DA57 site.
A formal wetland delineation'and preliminary jurisdictional determination was conducted for the
three properties in accordance,with the procedures outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE)Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987).'4 Verification
requests were submitted to the USACE in 2004 and 2005 for these properties. Final USACE
verification was obtained in February 2005 and January 2005 for the Field and DA57 properties,
respectively. Final verification of the jurisdictional determinations by the USACE for the
Bodhaine property is pending. According to the Bodhaine Property wetland delineation, the
property supports a total of 3,744 sq. ft. of waters of the U.S., which is composed of 3,034 sq. ft
of ruderal seasonal wetland, and 710 sq. ft. of ruderal freshwater marsh.15 Based on the Field
Property wetland delineation, the property supports a total of 1,246 sq. ft. of waters of the U.S.,
composed of ruderal seasonal wetland habitat. Habitats for the three properties are presumed not
to fall under CDFG's jurisdiction, as they are not associated with a natural stream course.
Impact Bio-2: Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community
Implementation of the proposed project could result in impacts to creeping ryegrass grassland,
willow riparian scrub, and the cottonwood grove on the DA57 site. Implementation of the •
following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure Bio-2a: Removal of willow and cottonwood trees on the DA57 site
shall be avoided to i the maximum extent feasible. The pruning of branches to
accommodate construction equipment shall occur instead of tree removal to the
maximum extent feasible. Any removal of trees shall be offset by planting of trees of the
same species at an appropriate ratio, determined in consultation with the regulating
agencies. I
Mitigation Measure Bio, 2b: Grading within the creeping ryegrass grassland on the DA57
site shall be avoided tol the maximum extent feasible. To facilitate equipment access over
the grassland, trench plates shall be installed on the ground to avoid turning over the soil
and destroying plant rhizomes. For unavoidable temporary impacts, rhizome cuttings
shall be collected from undisturbed areas and re-planted in the disturbance area. For
unavoidable permanent impacts, rhizome cuttings shall be collected from the site and
planted in cleared, prepared ground in a suitable on-site location. On-site grassland
habitat shall be created!at a 2:1 replacement ratio (square feet created: square feet
destroyed).
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
Cvramnre A cencintec I JP—Rndhnine Field T)raft Tnitinl 4;1ndv/1 4NM 36
• 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?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation.Implementation of the proposed project
could result in impacts to seasonal and ruderal seasonal wetland, and ruderal freshwater marsh
wetlands. A total of 5,701 sq. ft. (0.13 acre) of potentially jurisdictional wetland may be
permanently affected by the project. A wetland mitigation and monitoring plan was developed
detailing the mitigation design, wetland planting design, maintenance and monitoring
requirements, reporting requirements, and success criteria for the created wetland and was
approved by USACE and RWQCB. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would
reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Impact Bio-3: Wetlands
Implementation of the proposed project could result in impacts to wetlands. Implementation of
the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level
Mitigation Measure Bio-3a: Impacts to wetlands shall be minimized to the greatest
extent feasible. All jurisdictional wetland areas located outside of the immediate grading
footprint shall be avoided during construction and no fill would be allowed within these
areas. Exclusion fencing shall be erected at the boundary of the wetlands and the active
. project area to limit access of heavy equipment and expansion of the construction area. A
biological monitor will oversee the installation of the exclusion fence and would monitor
the construction site on a weekly basis to document avoidance of wetland areas.
Mitigation Measure Bio-3b: To compensate for the unavoidable, permanent loss of
jurisdictional wetlands on the DA57 and Field properties, a new wetland shall be created
within the DA57 area, at a 2:1 replacement ratio, as approved by the USACE and
RWQCB.
Mitigation Measure Bio-3c: To compensate for the unavoidable, permanent loss of
jurisdictional wetlands on the Bodhaine property, the County approved stream restoration
project shall be completed, pending approval by the USACE and RWQCB. A restoration
plan shall be developed detailing the restoration, planting design, five-year maintenance
and monitoring requirements, reporting requirements, and success criteria for the created
wetland. USACE and RWQCB would need to approve this plan prior to implementation.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the aforementioned Biological Assessments, based
on the existing level of development and human activity around the project site, wildlife
movement across the site is likely to be highly localized. No contiguous wildlife movement
• corridor nor large nearby open space/parkland areas of high integrity, nor native habitat exist as
CvramnrP AscnmPtec T U'—Rntihnine Field T)raft Initial RhAv/A411r) 37
I
sources for potential special status species to enter the project site. The project site is not •
considered to be part of an important wildlife movement corridor because of a lack of
connectivity between the project site and any substantial undeveloped lands.
i
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Lnpact. The project proposes the removal of all 46 trees located on-site.16
" Chapter 816-6, Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, of Contra Costa County Code
provides protection for trees greater than 20 inches in circumference (approximately 6.5 inches
in diameter). This ordinance states that arborist or forester reports and tree removal permits are
required for the removal of any such protected trees. In accordance with the County Code,tree
assessments were prepared for the proposed project. The Applicant is required to replace these
trees via conditions of approvi 1 associated with the Final Development Plan.
E Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
I
No impact. The project would have no impact on an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
•
I
c
I
16 Tree Inventory/Assessment for 4755 Pacheco Blvd.Prepared by Maureen Hamb-WCISA Certified Arborist
#2280 Professional Consulting Seivices.December 2004.
"Tree Inventory/Assessment for 4781 Pacheco Blvd.Prepared by Maureen Hamb-WCISA Certified Arborist •
#2280 Professional Consulting Ser'vices.April 2005.
i
Cvramnra AacnriatPc T.T.f —RnAhaine.Finld Draft Tnitial Ctnrlv/MTM 38
I
• V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to§15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation. Responses a through d. Two
assessments were prepared by William Self Associates for the proposed project: Archaeological
Assessment of a 3.39 acre Parcel(APN 159-230-003), Located at 4781-,Pacheco Blvd., Martinez,
Contra Costa County, California(April 2005). and Archaeological Assessment of a 6.16 acre
Parcel (APN 159-230-002), Located at 4755 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez, Contra Costa County,
• California(December 2004). These assessments are fully referenced in the last section,
References, Persons Contacted and Report Preparers, of this document and are available for
public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department.
According to the aforementioned Archaeological Assessments, the project is not anticipated to
expose cultural or paleontological resources as the area is largely disturbed and partially
developed. The record search and the visual inspection of the project site indicate that the
likelihood of encountering cultural resources with the project area is extremely low. However,
while no prehistoric cultural resources were observed during the survey of the properties, there is
a possibility that cultural resources may become visible once vegetation is removed or during
construction excavation. As such, the proposed project could have a potentially significant
impact to historic and/or archaeological resources. Should any previously undiscovered cultural
remains, historic artifacts, or paleontological resources be discovered, the implementation of the
following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure Cul-1: In the event that previously unknown archaeological resources are
discovered during any land alterations,the construction crew shall cease work immediately in the
discovery area(i.e., within 100 feet). A qualified archaeologist approved by Contra Costa
County shall be consulted to evaluate the resource in accordance with state and Federal
guidelines. If prehistoric Native American remains are discovered, the State Native American
Heritage Commission and affected Native American groups shall be notified according to state
regulations. All archaeological activities shall be conducted in accordance with prevailing
professional standards, as outlined in CEQA, and shall be implemented before recommencement
• of work within the area of the resource discovery.
Cvr..gmnre, A ccnr-intec T J.0—Rndhnine Field TImft Tnitinl 4;t7,r1v[K TNT) 39
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS •
Environmental Setting
Terrasearch, Inc. prepared a Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed project in May 2005.18
The following discussion is largely based on the findings and background information provided
in the report. This geotechnical investigation is fully referenced in the last section,References,
Persons Contacted and Report Preparers, of this document and is available for public review at
the Contra Costa County Community Development Department.
The region is located in California's geologically active Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province.
The province is characterized by a series of northwest trending mountain ranges, valleys, and
faults. The dominant geologicprocesses that have shaped the San Francisco Bay region are
active faulting along the San Andreas, Hayward, and other faults; uplift and erosion of the east
bay and peninsular hills; and subsidence of the San Francisco Bay basin.
I
The primary geological units that underlie a large part of the San Francisco Bay region are the
Alameda Formation, Old Bay Mud, San Antonio Formation, Young Bay Mud, and the Temescal
Formation. On the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay, bedrock geology consists of
sedimentary and metamorphic'rocks ranging from Cretaceous through Quaternary periods(up to
144 million years to present).
i
The project site is underlain by the Upper Member of the Meganos Formation(Lower Eocene), a
marine sandstone, which strikes toward the northwest and dips toward the southwest at 75
degrees from horizontal. Quaternary alluvium underlies the flatter portion of the property and
consists of alternating layers of clay, silt, sand and gravel. No known landslides were mapped
on-site.
The closest active fault to the project site is the concord-Green Valley Fault, situated
approximately 2.2 kilometers east of the project site. The Concord-Green Valley Fault is mapped
as strike slip fault with right lateral movement and is considered active by the Alquist Priolo
(AP) Earthquake Fault Zones Act. The project site is not located within an AP zone but is within
a Seismic hazard Zones. Othef,faults located win a 100 km radius of the site are shown on Table
3,Earthquake Fault Zone Data.
I
'8 Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Pacheco Courtyard Homes Est,4755&4781 Pacheco Boulevard, •
Martinez,California.Terrasearch,Inc.May 2005.
gvramnrP. AccnrintP.c T J.0—RndhninP Finid T?rnft Tnitini g1hiiv/MN17 40
• Table 3. Earthquake Fault Zone Data.
Fault Name Fault Type Distance Fault Magnitude
(km) (Mw)
Concord-Green Valley Blind Thrust 2.2 6.9
Greenville Strike-Slip 12.2 6.9
Calaveras(north) Strike-Slip 16.2 6.8
Hayward Strike-Slip 20.3 7.1
West Napa Strike-Slip 22.9 6.5
Rodgers Creek Strike-Slip 24.5 7.0
Great Valley 6 Strike-Slip 25.5 6.7
Great Valley 5 Strike-Slip 29.7 6.5
Great Valley 4 Strike-Slip 36.4 6.6
San Andreas(1906) Strike-Slip 49.4 7.9
San Andreas(North Coast) Strike-Slip 49.4 7.6
San Andreas(Peninsula) Strike-Slip 49.6 7.1
Hunting Creek-Berryessa Thrust 50.9 6.9
• San Gregorio Strike-Slip 52.8 7.3
Great Valley 7 Blind Thrust 57 6.7
Monte Vista-Shannon Thrust 64 6.8
Pointe Reyes Strike-Slip 66.1 6.8
Calaveras(South) Strike-Slip 67.5 6.2
Great Valley 3 Blind Thrust 74.4 6.8
Maacama Strike-Slip 82.8 6.9
San Andreas(Santa Cruz) Strike-Slip 91.3 7.0
Sergeant Thrust 96.1 6.8
Source:Geotechnical Investigation,Prepared by Tercasearch,May 2005
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?
•
CvramnrP AscnciatPc I.1.0-Rnrihnine Finlrl Drnft Initial Ctnriv/WNM 41
I
Less than Significant Impact. As previously indicated,the project site is not located t
within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. Further, according to the County's General Plan,
Figure 10-4,Estimated Seismic Ground Response,the project site is located in an area
with the lowest damage susceptibility.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significantl Impact. Because the project site is located in a seismically active
region, it would be subject to potentially severe ground shaking during a major
earthquake on an active fault in the region. A significant seismic event could potentially
damage the proposed project; however, due to the nature of the project and the distance
from the nearest active'fault, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Further,
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
would further reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction?
Less than Significant!Impact. Seismically induced liquefaction is a potential problem
where saturated, loose sands are present within approximately 50 feet of the ground
surface. According to the County's General Plan Figure 10-5,Estimated Liquefaction
Potential Map,the project site is in an area with"Generally Low" liquefaction potential.
Compliance with building and grading regulations would further reduce impacts to a less
than significant level.
iv) Landslides?
Less than Significant Impact. Since the project site contains a hillslope on the eastern
half of the site,the eastern portion of the property may be susceptible to landsliding
and/or ground lurching)during a strong earthquake event on the Concord-Green Valley
Fault. However, due to;the shallow depth to bedrock and the gently sloping inclination of
the terrain, the potential of landsliding or ground lurching is low. Due to the nature of
these subsurface materials, the site is not susceptible to liquefaction but is susceptible to
differential compaction along the western portion of the site. Since the subject site is not
located near an ocean or lakefront, the secondary hazards of tsunamis or seiches are not
probable.
b. .Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The project site's soils
are variable in composition, and soil properties cannot be determined without site-
specific investigation. Soil exposed by grading activities could be subject to erosion if
exposed to heavy winds or rain. Compliance with Mitigation Measure Hydro-1 (See the •
CVramnrP. AccnciatPc T.T,('.—RnrihamP Field r)raR Initial Rfivw/MNM 42
I
• Hydrology and Water Quality Section) would lessen the potential for substantial soil
erosion or loss of topsoil during grading activities to a less than significant impact.
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,liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The geotechnical
investigation prepared by Terrasearch has concluded that the proposed residential
development is feasible for construction on the project site provided the
recommendations presented in the report are incorporated into the project plans and
specifications. The major geotechnical concerns for the development of the site are the
presence of non-engineered fill, highly expansive soils, and colluvium soil deposits.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Geo-1 would lessen the potential for impacts in
this regard to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure Geo-1: Prior to recordation of the Final Map the Applicant
shall submit an updated Geotechnical Investigation for review and approval of the
County Geologist that addresses the specifics of the final grading and final
drainage plans. The updated report shall include an original geologic map of the
site presenting the consultants interpretation of the site conditions and that map
shall show the location of all subsurface data that was considered in the
• evaluations including bore holds and test pits of previous consultants.
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?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Refer to the previous
response.
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. The proposed project does not involve the use of septic tanks.
VII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
•
CvramnrP AccnriatPc T.T.0—Rndhaine Field Draft Initial ghAv/N 1%M 43
i
No Impact. 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.
The project would notlrequire the use of such materials.
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset land accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the,environment?
I
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Environmental site
assessments and subsurface investigations were conducted for the proposed project in
2004 and 2005 by Terrasearch, Inc. These assessments are fully referenced in the last
section,References, Persons Contacted and Report Preparers, of this document and are
available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development
Department. These studies indicated that scattered debris such as wood,tires, metal,
trash, batteries, above-ground diesel storage tanks, and 5 to 50-gallon containers exist on
the project site. Additionally, a petroleum pipeline easement (with associated warning
signs) is located along the northern and western boundary of the Field parcel. A septic
tank and an associated I leach field are located approximately 25 feet directly east of an
existing residence on the Field parcel as well. Based on historical aerial photos and
topographic maps, the structures existed on the site prior to 1978;therefore, asbestos
containing materials (ACM) and lead based paint(LBP) may have been applied to the
construction of those structures. Otherwise, based on their visual observations, City and
County documents and interviews, no evidence of existing underground storage tanks
(USTs), stressed vegetation, pits, ponds, or noxious odors were noted at the project site. •
Further, no previous gr contamination beneath the project site was reported.19 Zo
The subsurface investigations concluded that no organochloride pesticides or elevated
levels of metals arsenic, lead, or mercury were detected.21 22
�I
As the abovementioned debris and structures exist on-site, numerous recommendations
such as the removal of the debris and retaining the services of a state-certified LBP and
ACM contained material professional prior to demolition of the on-site structures were
made. Compliance with Mitigation Measure Haz-1 below would lessen the potential for
hazardous releases during grading or demolition activities to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure Haz-1: Prior to demolition of buildings known or suspected of
construction prior to 1980,the project developer shall have a lead-based paint and
asbestos-containing materials survey conducted by a certified professional that shall
be submitted for the review and approval by the Building Inspection Department.
19 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development 4781 Pacheco Boulevard,
Martinez,California.Prepared by Terrasearch. April 2005.
20 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development 4755 Pacheco Boulevard,
Martinez,California.Prepared by Terrasearch.November 2004.
21 Surficial Soil Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development Field Property 4755
Pacheco Boulevard,Martinez, California.Prepared by Terrasearch.December 2004.
Zz Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development 4781 Pacheco Boulevard,
Martinez,California.Prepared by Terrascarch. May 2005. 0
I
Cvrmmnre. ACSnr intP.0 T.T.0—RntlhninP Field T)raft Tnitinl gfiAv/k4TM 44
• Identified loose and peeling lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials
should be abated in accordance with applicable regulations. Federal and state
construction worker safety regulations should be followed during demolition
activities where lead and/or asbestos are known or suspected to be present.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or hazardous waste within one-quarter mile of an existing-or
proposed school?
No Impact. The proposed project is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school. Refer to the previous response(a).
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 public or the environment?
No Impact. The site is not on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5. However, it should be noted, according to the
previously mentioned Phase I site assessments for the Field and Bodhaine properties, five
relatively cross-gradient secondary contamination sources consisted of RCRA-SQG,
FINDS, HAZNET, and EMMISSIONS were reported within a 0.25-mile radius of the
properties. However, no contamination and/or unauthorized discharge were reported from
• these sources. In addition, no USGS water well was reported within a 0.25-mile of the
project site. No groundwater contamination was reported and the possibility of the
groundwater contamination beneath the project site is highly remote.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the Buchanan Field
Airport Influence Area. This airport is located approximately one mile southeast of the
project site. The Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan outlines land
use policies relative to all property with an established distance of the Buchanan Airport,
generally 14,000 feet from the end of the runways. The airport plan is fully referenced in
the last section,References, Persons Contacted and Report Preparers, of this document
and is available-for public review at the Contra Costa County Community Development
Department. The project site is within the Airport Influence area, approximately 5,280
feet northwest of the north end of runway 14. The Plan has three areas of evaluation:
Noise Compatibility, Safety Compatibility and Airspace protection.
Noise Compatibility. The Plan states that acceptable noise levels for single-family
residential uses is up to 55 dB CNEL. According to Figure 3B of the Airport Plan,
•
..vramnre AccncintPc T I.C.—Rndhnine Field r)rnft Tnitinl g1hAv/k4N17 45
i
Composite Noise Contours Buchanan Field Airport, The 55-60dB CNEL contour in the •
project vicinity is east of I-680, approximately 3,000 feet from the project site_
I
Safety Compatibility. Airport safety zones are given the designations of 1 through 4, with
4 being the least restrictive with regard to allowable land use. According to Figure 3C of
the Airport Plan, Safety Zones Buchanan Field Airport, the project site is not located
within a Safety Compatibility Zone, and is approximately 2,000 feet west of the closest
zone, Zone 4. 1
Airspace Protection. Airspace protection zones are delineated in the Airport Land Use
Plan. The project site is in an area where no structure is allowed above 173 feet mean sea
level (msl). The proposed buildings would have a maximum height of 35 feet and with
the maximum pad elevation for the project site at 60 feet;the highest proposed building
height would be 95 feet, which would be below the 173 feet msl limit.
E For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Less than Significant Impact. Refer to the previous response (e).
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The project will not physically interfere with an adopted emergency •
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
I
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?
No Impact. The project site is located within an area surrounded by development.
According to the County's General Plan, Figure 10-10,Fire Hazard Areas,the project is
not located within or adjacent to a fire hazard zone, or wildland area.
VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Environmental Setting
The Field property contains a roadside swale upslope from a storm drain outlet.No natural
surface tributaries or blue line Istreams occur on either property. The storm drain conveys surface
flows resulting from sheet runoff from paved and unpaved surfaces over a 100-acre watershed.
Outflows are directed via buried corrugated steel pipe into a flood control basin managed by the
Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. From there, collected
storm run off is directed via concrete culverts to a flood control channel north of the railroad
Rvramnre. A vznriatm T.T.r..—RnAhainP FiAd T)mft Tnitial RfiAv1MNr) 46
• embankment, leading to Pacheco creek and ultimately to Suisun Bay. No natural surface
tributaries or blue line streams occur on this property.23
Surface water is present on the Bodhaine property, which comes from an unidentified below-
ground source. A storm drain culvert from the highway empties at the property's northeastern
edge. It is believed that a buried water pipeline running along the base of the highway fill slope
might be leaking. Another possible source of groundwater could be the Contra Costa Canal,
which passes near the easternmost corner of the property. Another possible source would be a
natural spring, which is known to occur on both sides of the highway. No natural surface
tributaries or blue line streams lead to or are in any way associated with this property, and none
are believed to have ever been present.24
Line B of Contra Costa County Flood Control& Water Conservation District's (CCCF&WCD)
Drainage Area 57, which directs the project area runoff, is located to the northwest of the site on
the east side of Pacheco Boulevard.
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation: A Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan would be prepared for the construction of the project consistent with
Section 401 Water Quality Standards to prevent water quality impacts from construction
activities. Additionally, dry swales will be constructed and landscaped along the lower
• edges of the property to meet the County's C.3 Clean Water requirements.
Surface water runoff from the project during construction could impact water quality off-
site if not properly controlled. Surface runoff could contain sediment as a result of
erosion if proper construction techniques are not implemented.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) administers the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)Permit Application regulations for
Storm Water Discharges under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA uses the NPDES
permitting program to monitor and control pollutants in industrial process wastewater,
municipal sewage, and industrial stormwater runoff and runoff from construction-sites 1-
acre or larger, and as such, the project is required to obtain coverage under the General
Permit (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ) for Discharges of Storm Water
Associated with Construction Activity through the State Water Quality Control Board
(SWRCB).
NPDES permits are issued by the SWRCB. To meet Storm Water Pollution Prevention
requirements,the SWRCB issued a statewide NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. Dischargers who wish to be covered
by the General Permits are required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI)to the SWRCB.
• zs Ibid.Wetland Delineation for the Field Properly.
24 Ibid.Wetland Delineation for the Bodhaine Property.
CvramnrP AccnriatPc T.T.C.—RnrihninP Field Draft Tnitial ghjdv/MNM 47
Submittal of the NOI signifies that the discharger intends to comply with the conditions •
of the General Permits
I
The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a
Storm Water Pollution,Prevention Plan(SWPPP). The SWPPP should contain a site
map(s), which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings,
lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both
before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must
list Best Management Practices(BMPs)the discharger will use to protect stormwater
runoff and the placement of those BMPs during construction. Additionally, the SWPPP
must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for "non-
visible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment
monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for
sediment.
Further,to ensure that the mitigation measures would be designed and.function effectively
over time, a Stormwater Control Plan would be required. The SWPPP would address
construction-stage impacts and mitigation measures, while the Stormwater Control Plan
would focus on post-construction/permanent impacts and mitigation measures. Additional
information regarding preparation of a Stormwater Control Plan is available in the
Stormwater C.3 Compliance Guidebook.25
The Improvements in the CCCF&WCD Drainage Area Plan were designed to accommodate
the land uses to the General Plan, including development of the project site. The adopted
drainage area plan calls for replacing the existing 36-inch pipes with 72-inch pipes under the
BNSF railroad track embankment and under the private driveway serving the properties
across Pacheco Boulevard. As a condition of approval,the County requires the Applicant to
complete the aforementioned improvements to DA57. Without these improvements,
flooding could occur ori lower elevation properties along Pacheco Boulevard. Additionally,
dry swales will be constructed and landscaped along the lower edges of the property to meet
the County's Stormwater Control Plan and C.3 Clean Water requirements. The
implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts in regard to
hydrology and water quality to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure Hydro-1: A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)
shall be prepared in accordance with the General Permit for Discharges of Storm
Water Associated with Construction Activity. The SWPPP shall contain
appropriate Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and water quality
impacts. Erosion control measures shall also be reflected in the grading plans and
construction documents for the project. The Best Management Practices should
include, but not,be limited to the following measures:
25 Stormwater C.3 Compliance Guidebook, Contra Costa Clean Water Program, Stormwater Quality Requirements
for Development Applications.2ndEdition.March 2005. •
CvramnrP A ccnciatac T J.('—RruihainP FiP1A nrafl Tnitial Cfivlv/MNII 48
• • Protect stormwater inlets by using a double row of straw bales to absorb
sediment and pollutants. Protect the stormwater inlets from vehicular damage;
• Install sediment traps in catch basins and drain inlets, or create an overflow
drain by raising the inlet so that sediments will settle before reaching the
drain;
• Prevent spills and leaks from construction vehicles and equipment;
• Clean up spills immediately when they happen, using dry cleanup methods
whenever possible, and if water must be used, use just enough to keep the dust
down; ,
• Store materials under cover;
• Cover and maintain dumpsters;
• Clean up paints and solvents, adhesives, and cleaning solutions properly;
• Keep fresh concrete and cement mortars out of gutters, storm drains and
streams;
• Service and maintain portable toilets;
• Dispose of cleared vegetation properly;
• Make sure all demolition waste is properly disposed;
• Plan pavement construction to avoid stormwater pollution including: Apply
asphalt and seal coat during dry weather; cover catch basins and manholes
when applying seal coat; and always park pavers over drip pans or absorbent
material.
• Mitigation Measure Hydro-2: A final Stormwater Control Plan shall be submitted to
Public Works for review and approval prior to the filing of the first Final Map. The
Applicant shall comply with the County's C.3 Clean Water Program.
Mitigation Measure Hydro-3: The Applicant shall construct Line B improvements for
Drainage Area,57 as required to handle additional project runoff in accordance with
CCCF&WCD requirements. Costs associated with these improvements shall be
eligible for Drainage Area Fee credits and reimbursement per CCCF&WCD policy, if
fee credits do not cover the total cost. The CCCF&WCD shall acquire right-of-way, if
necessary, at the Applicant's request. If procurement of right-of-way or construction
timing delays these improvements, the CCCF&WCD shall work with the Applicant to
develop interim solutions.
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)?
No Impact. The project would not use groundwater supplies or interfere with
groundwater recharge.
•
wrmmnrv. AccnriatP.c T 7.C..—RndhninP Field T)rnft Initial g1wiv/k4hM 49
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?
Less Than Significant)with Mitigation Incorporation: The proposed project would
change the drainage pattern on-site and would increase impermeable surfaces; however
the construction standards and permit requirements described above in VIII. (a)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 of;-site?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation: Refer to responses VIII (a and
c) above.
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff)
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation: Refer to response VIII (a)
above. As previously indicated,the Applicant is required to complete the improvements .
in the CCCF&WCD Drainage Area Plan as designed to accommodate the land uses in the
General Plan, including development of the project site. The adopted drainage area plan
calls for replacing the existing 36-inch pipes with 72-inch pipes under the BNSF railroad
track embankment and�under the private driveway serving the properties across Pacheco
Boulevard. As a condition of approval, the County requires the Applicant to complete the
aforementioned improvements to DA57.
I
E Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation: Refer to response VIII
(a)above. Surface water runoff from the project during construction could impact water
quality off-site if not properly controlled. Surface runoff could contain sediment as a
result of erosion if proper construction techniques are not implemented. As such, the
Applicant is required to comply with the County's C.3 Clean Water, Stormwater Control
Plan, and SWPPP requirements.
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?
i
Less Than Significant,Impact with Mitigation Incorporation: According to the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (ESRI 2005),the project site is within a 100-Year Flood Hazard
Cvramnra AscnrtiatPs T.T.C'—RrulhamP FiPlri Tlraft Tnitial Chviv/MNT) 50
• Area.26 However, only the northwestern-most corner of the Field Parcel (proposed lot 2)
is sited within the Flood Hazard Area, and no housing is proposed for this portion of the
project site (refer to Figure 3,Development Plan, and Figure 4,DA57 Plan). The lowest
finished floor elevation within the proposed development would be 19.5 feet above mean
sea-level. The proposed project would not result in the placement of housing in a flood
hazard area.
Further, it should be noted that as a condition of approval, the County requires the
Applicant to complete the previous mentioned improvements to DA57 (Mitigation
Measure Hydro-3), which would handle the additional project runoff and further reduce
impacts. Further,the Applicant is required to comply with Chapter 82-28.1006, Standards
for subdivisions of Contra Costa County Code, which states:
(1) All applications for tentative map approval are incomplete unless the tentative
maps identify the flood hazard area and the elevation of the base flood. (See
Section 82-28.806(2))
(2) All final subdivision improvement plans shall provide the elevation of
proposed stiucture(s), pads and streets. If the site is filled above the base flood,
the final pad elevations shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or
surveyor and provided to the floodplain administrator.
• (3) All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood
damage.
(4) All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as road,
sewer, gas,electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize
flood damage.
(5) All subdivisions shall provide adequate drainage to reduce exposure to flood
hazards. (Ords. 2000-33, 99-35, 96-11, 90-118, 88-50, 87-45).
With implementation of Mitigation Measure Hydro-3 (improvements for Drainage Area
57) and compliance with Chapter 82-28.1006, Standards for subdivisions of Contra
Costa County Code, impacts in regard to flooding would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Refer to response VIII
g above. Mitigation Measure Hydro-2 above would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
• 26 ESR1 and FEMA website:http://www.esri.com/bo7ards/Makemap.html. October 11,2005.
CvnmmnrP Accnrintec T 7.f.—Rndhnine Field rlmft Initial Ctndv/MT%M 51
i
I •
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
No Impact. According to ABAG's Dam Failure Inundation Areas map, the project site
is not located within a'area designated as such.27 The proposed project would not expose
people or structures to,a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
j. Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow?
i
No Impact. Since the subject site is not located near an ocean or lakefront, the secondary
hazards of tsunamis or seiches are not probable.
IX.LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The project would not divide or disrupt an established community, as it is an
infill residential project surrounded by residential/suburban uses.
b. Conflict with any lapplicable 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?
I
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is subject to various plans and policies at the
county, regional and state level. Conformance with each is discussed below.
Contra Costa County General Plan 2005—2020
The County's General Plan was certified in January 2005.28 The General Plan is used by
the County and the Planning Commission in considering land use and planning-related
decisions. The County's staff uses the General Plan on a daily basis administering and
regulating land use and development activity. The purpose of the Contra Costa County
General Plan is to express the broad goals and policies, and specific implementation
measures, which will guide decisions on future growth, development, and the
conservation of resources through the year 2020. The goals, policies and implementation
programs contained in the General Plan represent the hopes and concerns of the residents
of the County in terms sof defining and preserving a "quality of life.X29 The General Plan
2'ABAG website:Dam Failure Inundation Areas:http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickdamx.pl. October 11,2005.
28 Contra Costa County 2005—20201 General Plan. Certified January 18,2005.Prepared by CCC Community
Development Department. •
29Ibid.Page 1-1.
gw-mmorn. Ascnninteq T X.C.—Rnrihama Field T)rnft Tnitial CtiAv/MTM 52
• policies identified below are most relevant to the proposed project. The project's
conformance with these policies is also discussed.
General Plan Designation
The project site has a General Plan designation of Multiple-Family Residential -Low
Density(ML). This designation allows between 7.3 and 11.9 multiple family units per net
acre. Sites can range up to 5,999 square feet. With an average of 2.5 persons per unit,
population densities would normally range between about 18.5 to about 30 persons per
acre. Primary land uses shall include attached single-family residences (such as duplexes
or duets), multiple family residences such as condominiums, town houses, apartments,
mobile home parks, and accessory structures normally auxiliary to the primary uses.
Secondary land uses which do not conflict with primary uses may be allowed, including
churches, second dwelling units, home occupations, and group care and/or childcare
facilities. The project consists of 89 single-family homes on individual lots. Gross
residential density would be less than 10 units per acre. The houses would be 1,620 to
1,770 square feet on an average lot size of approximately 3,500 square feet. The project is
consistent with the County's land use designation.
Applicable General Plan Policies: The project site is located within the Vine Hill/Pacheco
Boulevard Planning Area. The project is consistent with these planning area land use
policies for the following reasons:
• Policy 3-101. The scenic assets and unstable slopes of the Vine Hill Ridge are to
be protected for open space/agricultural use. The project site is not located within
the scenic assets and/or unstable slopes area of the Vine Hill Ridge.
Policy 3-102. The residential neighborhood east of I-680 shall be buffered from
the industrial/land fill-related uses. The project site is west of I-680.
Policy 3-103. Approximately 40 acres of land south of the ATSF tracks, between
Morello and Pacheco, is designated "Agricultural Lands," to encourage the
continued 'operation of the Viano family vineyards and winery. The project site is
not located within this area as Morello Avenue is west of Pacheco and the project
site is east of Pacheco.
Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance
The project site is zoned P-1, Planned Unit District. Contra Costa County's Zoning
Ordinance states that the P-1 district classification is intended to allow diversification in
the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes and open spaces while
insuring substantial compliance with the general plan and the intent of the county code in
requiring adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health,
safety and general welfare.
The following uses are allowed in the P-1 planned unit district:
•
Cvramnre Accnrintec I J.0—Rntihnine.Field T)rnft Tnitinl RtudvfvT m 53
I
(1) Any land uses permitted by an approved final development plan which are in •
harmony with each other, serve to fulfill the function of the planned unit
development, and are consistent with the general plan.
I
(2) A detached single-family dwelling on each legally established lot and the
accessory structures and uses normally auxiliary to it.
(3) In a P-1 district for which residential uses are approved, residential second
units complying with the provisions of Chapter 82-24. (Ords. 87-67 § 6, 79-74: §
84-66.006: prior code § 81660): Ord. 1743).
The project complies with all of the zoning code standards and Ordinances that apply to
the Project.
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation-plan?
No Impact. According�to Figure 8-1, Significant Ecological Areas and Selected
Locations of Protected Wildlife and Plant Species Areas, map of the County's General
Plan, the project site is not located within such an area. The project site is located in an
area designated as Multiple-Family Residential -'Low Density.
X.MINERAL RESOURCES
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 mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. Items a-b. Construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss
of availability of known mineral resources of regional or local importance. According to
the General Plan, Figure 8-4,Mineral Resource Areas, the project site is not located in an
area known for such mineral resources;therefore, no impact would occur in this regard.
XI.NOISE
Would the project:
i
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?
I
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. According to the
project's Environmental Noise Studies, the noise environment in the project vicinity is
influenced by the Burlington Northern& Santa Fe Railway tracks to the northwest and •
I
CvramnrP AssnriatPc T P—RnrihainP Field T)rnft Initial Rtw1V/A4NM 54
I
• from vehicle noise on local streets such as Pacheco Boulevard and I-680.30 These studies
are fully referenced in the last section, References, Persons Contacted and Report
Preparers, of this document and are available for public review at the Contra Costa
County Community Development Department. The most significant noise source is from
I-680. Noise from Pacheco Boulevard is also significant. The noise from the railway
tracks, which will be audible(typically 78 dBA), does not occur frequently enough to
affect the total equivalent continuous noise level requirement.
Measured noise levels indicate that residences in the zone nearest I-680 are exposed to
high noise levels due to vehicular traffic according to the standards established in
California Building Code (CBC), Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) and Contra Costa County Regulations.
The noise study further concluded that traffic increases from the project would add 2 dB
to the current noise level. The proposed residential building facades facing Pacheco
Boulevard and Highway 680 would be impacted with noise levels of up to 72 dBA Ldn
(future) and would be in the HUD and in the County of Contra Costa Normally
Unacceptable category. Exterior walls for the proposed residential units will not require
special consideration to limit environmental noise inside the residential units for meeting
the applicable code requirements. However, a sound wall with a minimum top elevation
of 52.8 to 64.5 feet would be required as described in the supporting letter for the
project's Noise Assessment.31 This sound wall height would range due to varying ground
• elevations adjacent to homes, distance of the house to the property line, the distance of
the barrier wall to the freeway, and the elevation or the road. Additionally, sound-rated
windows and door assemblies will be required on most elevations as described within the
Environmental Noise Studies.
Further,the proposed residential project would create a short-term, construction related
incremental increase in noise than what is generated at the site currently. However,the
Applicant is requiried to comply with county Noise Ordinance, Chapter 716-8.1004,
which limits construction hours. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Noise-1 and
Mitigation Measure Noise-2 below would reduce impacts in regard to long and short-
term noise to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure Noise-1: Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, the
aforementioned Environmental Noise Study and plans for the project must be
submitted to the County's Building Inspection Department for review and
confirmation that the proposed development fully complies with the CBC, HUD and
Contra Costa County Noise Standards and/or Regulations. All recommendations set
forth in the Environmental Noise Studies and or the County shall-be followed.
30 Environmental Noise Assessment for Pacheco Boulevard Field Courtyard Homes, City of Martinez,Contra Costa.
County, California.Prepared by Shen,Milsom&Wilke.July 22,2005.
31 Environmental Noise Assessment Sound Wall Letter for Pacheco Boulevard Field Courtyard Homes, City of
• Martinez,Contra Costa County, California.Prepared by Shen,Milsom&Wilke. September 6,2005.
RvramnrP AccnciatPc T 7.C.—Rnrlhaine Finlrl Draft Initial gfivlv/MNJD 55
i
I
Mitigation Measure Noise-2: The Applicant shall comply with County Code Chapter •
716-8.1004,Work Hours, which states: If operations under the permit are within five
hundred feet (152.4 meters) of residential or commercial occupancies, except as
otherwise provided�by conditions of approval for the project, grading operations shall
be limited to weekdays and to the hours, between seven-thirty a.m. and five-thirty
p.m., except that maintenance and service work on equipment may be performed at
any time. (Ords. 99'-46 § 15: 69-59 § 1, 1969).
b. Exposure of persons,to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
i
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Refer to response XI a
above.
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
i
Less than Significant Impact. As indicated in Response XI a above, the project is
residential in nature and a nominal increase in noise associated with project related traffic
would occur and is anti i ipated to be 2 dB above the current noise level.
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project? •
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation.Refer to response XI a
above.
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 the project area to
excessive noise lev Iels?
i
No Impact. The County's Airport Plan states that acceptable noise levels for single-
family residential uses is up to 55 dB CNEL. According to Figure 3B of the Airport Plan,
Composite Noise Contours Buchanan Field Airport, The 55-60dB CNEL contour in the
project vicinity is east of I-680, approximately 3,000 feet from the project site.
I
E 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?
No Impact. The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Cvramnra AccnnintPc T.T.0—RndhainP Field T)rafl Initial gfivivfK4NT) 56
• XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly(for example,through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than Significant Impact. Responses a to c. The proposed project would develop
the site with 89 residential units. Contra Costa County has an average household
population of 2.72. The proposed project would increase the net population of the site by
approximately 242 persons.12 The additional 242 residents represent less than one tenth of
one percent of Contra Costa County's existing population, which was 948,816 in 2000
according to the US Census. The project would not displace substantial numbers of
people or housing.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
• a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. Responses i to v. The proposed project would construct
89 residential units in an areas surrounded by development and is infill in nature. This
would create an incremental increase in the level of public services required for the site
than the level currently demanded. As part of the building permit review process, all
• 32 89 units x 2.72 persons=242 total persons.
.QV(`.amnrP. AccnriatPc T.T.C.—RndhainP F1PU9 Draft Initial Rihiriv/mmn 57
i
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, schools,
maintenance of public facilities including roads, and other governmental services as
anticipated by the County's 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 construction of government facilities.
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?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Responses a and b. The
project would cause anincremental increase in population and the use of surrounding
recreational facilities. The project is proposing the construction of a tot lot on Parcel U,
adjacent to the existing church. The payment of in-lieu fees, as assessed by the by the
County, would be required as part of the project Further, as required by County Code,
Park Dedication Ordinance(78-5), and as a Condition of Approval for the project,the
following Mitigation Measure would further reduce impacts to recreational facilities.
Mitigation Measure Rec-1: The Applicant shall pay in-lieu fees as required by the County
and in accordance withilPark Dedication Ordinance (78-5). An assessment district for the
maintenance of new park facilities in the project area shall be created.
XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
I
a. Cause an increase lin 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 for designated roads
or highways?
I
i
I
Cvrmmnre. A zgnrintes T.T.C.—Rnrihnine.FiPiri Draft Tnitial Rtiviv/MNTI 58
• Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Responses a and b.
Project traffic impacts have been assessed by Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering33,
The project proposes the construction of 89 residential units and this would incrementally
increase the existing traffic volume within the project area. The County Transportation
Division, has reviewed the Abrams report and concurs with its findings with respect to
traffic impacts. ss The project is anticipated to create 842 daily trips, of which 66 trips
would be during the AM peak hour and 89 would be during the PM peak hour. The
increase of these individually and when added to a background growth rate of 5 percent
would not cause a deterioration of this Level of Service (LOS).
The project would create a short-term, construction related incremental increase in traffic;
however, as with project build-out,the project individually and cumulatively would not
have a significant impact on LOS standards for study intersections. The implementation
of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure Trans-1: The Applicant shall pay traffic impact fees as required by the
County and in accordance with the County's Traffic Fee Schedule. In addition to associated
impact fees,the applicant shall contribute a fair share amount towards the installation of a
traffic signal at the intersection of Pacheco Boulevard and Arnold Drive. The amount to be
contributed shall be based upon the ratio of trips added to this intersection by the project
compared to the cumulative total of new trips forecasted to use this intersection, subject to
the review and approval of the Public Works Department.
• 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?
No Impact. The project would not affect air traffic patterns.
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. A private road off of
Pacheco Boulevard'would provide access to the site. The roadway would loop through the
project and provide two means of ingress, egress and fire department access. The project has
been designed to accommodate the realignment of Pacheco Boulevard as planned by County
33 Abrams Associates,Pacheco Boulevard residential Projects,Traffic and Circulation Study, Contra.Costa County.
January 2006.This document and is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community
Development Department.
34 Letter from Hillary Heard,CCC Transportation Planning,to Ryan Hernandez,regarding project trip generation.
August 23,2005.This document and is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community
Development Department.
3s Letter from Hillary Heard, CCC Transportation Planning,to Ryan Hernandez,regarding project trip generation.
• January 30,2006.This document and is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community
Development Department.
Cvrmmnre AccnrintPc T J.C'.—Rndbninv.Fif4d Drnft Initial CbvlvWND 59
Public Works. The private Road would be 22 to 36 feet wide(curb to curb). The 36-feet- •
wide roadway segments would allow for parking on both sides of the road.
The County Transportation Planning Division has expressed concern that the project could
adversely affect the safety of school children traveling from the project site to schools
located north of the proj i ct area.36
The following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level:
Mitigation Measure Trans-2: The Applicant shall pay a fair-share contribution to a road
Improvement Fee Trust (Fund No. 0682-9752)designated specifically for pedestrian
facilities along Pacheco Boulevard, from the project site north to the Arthur Road
intersection. These fe s shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
e. Result in emergencyinade uateaccess?
inadequate
No Impact. The project has been designed to accommodate the realignment of Pacheco
Boulevard as planned by County Public Works. Emergency access would be via the two
proposed ingress/egress' off of Pacheco Boulevard. The project would not cause any
changes in roadways that would result in inadequate emergency access.
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The private Road would be up to 36 feet wide(curb to curb);this would allow
parking on both sides of the road. A total of 120 guest parking spaces would be provided in
addition to the code requirement of 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit(178 spaces, included
as two-car garages). On street parking would provide 60 parking space and driveway areas
would provide 60 parking spaces.
I
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The project would not
conflict with adopted alternative transportation plans. However, to assure that the project
complies with the County's Transportation Demand Ordinance, the following mitigation
is proposed:
Mitigation Measure Trans-3: Prior to filing the final map, the Applicant shall contact
the local transit provider, Contra Costa County Connection, to determine services
presently provided or I planned for the project area. The Applicant shall provide
36 Letter from Hillary Heard, CCC Transportation Planning,to Ryan Hernandez,regarding project trip generation.
January 30,2006.This document and is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community •
Development Department.
i
CvramnrP AscnriatPc T.T.0—RnrihainP FiPld T)raft Initial 4;tnrtv/N(AT17 60
• evidence to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that the.Transportation demand
Ordinance has been fulfilled.
XVI.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Responses a and b. The project site is served by
Mountain View Sanitary District(MVSD). The project proposes the development of 89
single-family residences and is surrounded by similar uses and is infill in nature. The
project site is currently served by utilities and public service systems. According to the
MVSD, in 1990 a sewer line, which has sufficient capacity to serve the project and
surrounding area, was installed in proximity to the project site. The project would not
exceed wastewater treatment requirements or result in the need for new facilities.37
According to a letter provided by the District, the District approves of the development
providing the project complies with the Districts fees and other requirements outlined in
• the letter.38 This letter is fully referenced in the last section,References, Persons
Contacted and Report Preparers, of this document and is available for public review at
the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Further,the Applicant
will pay to the District all in-lieu fees, and other applicable fees prior to obtaining a sewer
construction permit and the Applicant will comply with all conditions set forth in the
District Approval Letter.
c. Require or reslult in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant
All
environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Drainage from the
project site would be captured in DA57, and improvements to accommodate this flow
would be made to DA57 as part of the proposed project. Improvements would be made to
the existing stormwater conveyance system, within an existing County drainage RW to
the north of the site, between the two commercial uses and then under the Burlington
Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF)Railroad line. The improvements to DA57 would include
the construction of approximately 250 linear-feet of 72-inch concrete pipe, 3 headwalls,
one junction box structure and 170 linear-feet of channel grading. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure Hydro-2;which states that the Applicant shall construct Line B
3'Telecom with Mountain View Sanitary District,Randy Leptien. October 17,2005,
38 Letter from M.View Sanitary District,Randolph w.Leptien,District Engineer,to Ryan Hernandez, CCC Project
Planner.May 3,2005.
CvcamnrP Accnniatec T.T.r.—RnAhaine Field Draft Tnitial Rtwlv1k41"M 61
improvements for Drainage Area 57 as required to handle additional project runoff in •
accordance with CCCF&WCD requirements, would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level. Refer to the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this document for
additional information regarding stormwater.
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is served by Contra Costa Water District.
The project proposes the development of 89 single-family residences and is surrounded
by similar uses and is infill in nature. The project site is currently served by utilities and
public service systems. According to Contra Costa Water District, sufficient water
supplies are available to serve the proposed project.39 The Applicant will pay to the Water
District all in-lieu fees and comply with all district requirements.
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to response XVI (a)above.
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
Less than Significant Impact. It is anticipated that the proposed project would •
minimally increase solid waste over the existing levels. At present,the Keller Canyon
Landfill has adequate capacity to serve the project site and cumulative development."
The project would have a less than significant impact on landfill capacity.
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
No Impact. The project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste,per the Contra Costa County standards.
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 dor animal or eliminate important examples of the.major
periods of California history or prehistory?
39 Telecom with Contra Costa WaterlDistrict,Peter Dunn,Engineering Services Coordinator. October 17,2005.
ao Telecom with Contra Costa County Lorna Thomson.October 17,2005.
Cvrmmnre AvznnintPc T.T P—Rndbninr..Fii-ld DrOl initial gtiAvfM'NM 62
• Less than Si nificant Impact with Mitigation IncorPoration. Based on the above
analysis, the project could impact several special-status wildlife species, such as Cooper's
hawk, Nuttall's woodpecker, oak titmouse, burrowing owl, Bridge's Coast Range
shoulderband snail; tricolored blackbird, and several special-status bird and bat species,
as the surrounding 'region provides potentially suitable habitat. Mitigation Measures, Bio-
1.1 (a to c), Bio-12, Bio-1.4(a to c) and Bio-2 (a and b), and Bio-3 (a to c)included in
this document would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Further, in the
event that previously unknown archaeological resources are discovered during any land
alterations, Mitigation Measure, Cul-1, would require the construction crew to cease
work immediately in the discovery area. A qualified archaeologist approved by the
Contra Costa County would be consulted to evaluate the resource in accordance with
state and federal guidelines. If prehistoric Native American remains are discovered,the
State Native American Heritage Commission and affected Native American groups
would be notified according to State regulations. All archaeological activities would be
conducted in accordance with prevailing professional standards, as outlined in CEQA,
and would be implemented before recommencement of work within the area of the
resource discovery.
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)?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The project would
generate dust emissions during construction that would contribute to the non-attainment
status of the air basin for PMIo and ozone. Mitigation Measure, Air-1, has been
incorporated into the project to further reduce dust emissions. The measures contained in
Air-1 are Best Management Practices recommended by the BAAQMD for reducing
construction dust impacts.
During construction, the project could contribute to region-wide, cumulatively significant
watershed impacts:from siltation and erosion. Mitigation Measure, Hydro-1, has been
incorporated into the project and would require the preparation of a site-specific Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with the General Permit for Discharges of
Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Further, the project would seek a
Section 401 Water Quality Certification prior to construction in order to meet water
quality standards. Mitigation Measure Hydro-2 would require the compliance with the
County's C.3 Clean Water Program and the development of a Stormwater Control Plan.
Mitigation Measure Hydro-3 would require the Line B improvements for Drainage Area
57 as required to handle additional project runoff in accordance with CCCF&WCD
requirements. See the discussion under Section VIII,Hydrology and Water Quality, for a
description of the construction BMPs, and DA57 improvements. Impacts to air and water
.,vramnre A ccnriatec T.T.C.—Rnrihaine Fielrl Draft Tnitial Cfivlv/MNT) 63
quality would be short-term, construction related, and would not create an incremental •
cumulative, or otherwise, long-term effect.
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project
could have significant impacts on air, noise, seismic safety, and hydrology and water
quality. Additionally, the development of the project could create adverse impacts
associated with the release of hazardous materials. Mitigation included in this document
would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure, Air-1,
recommends Best Management Practices for dust control during construction. Mitigation
Measure Noise-1 and 2 would require the construction of a sound wall and compliance
with the County's noise standards and ordinances. Mitigation Measure Geo-1 ensures that
the project will incorporate the latest requirements for seismic safety contained in the
Uniform Building Code. Mitigation Measure Hydro-1 requires the preparation and
implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to eliminate and reduce
contamination of stormwater runoff during construction and Mitigation Measure Hydro-2
requires the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Control Plan, Mitigation
Measure Hydro-3 would require the improvements to the DA57, which reduce the flood
related hazards. Mitigation Measure Haz-1 would require the compliance with the
recommendations set forth in the project's Phase I and Phase II Environmental
Assessments would reduce the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials
such as lead or asbestos.
gvrmmnre AvznriatPs T IT C—RndhninP.Field T?raft Initial Cfivlv/MNM 64
• REFERENCES,PERSONS CONTACTED AND REPORT PREPARERS
Reference
Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, A Community Health Perspective. California Air
Resources Board. Apri12005.
Archaeological Assessment of a 3.39 acre Parcel (APN 159-230-003), Located at 4781 Pacheco
Blvd., Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by William Self and Associates.
April 2005.
Archaeological Assessment of a 36.16 acre Parcel (APN 159-230-002), Located at 4755 Pacheco
Blvd., Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by William Self and Associates.
November 2004.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1999.
Biological Assessment for the Field Property, 4755 Pacheco Boulevard, Contra Costa County
California. Prepared by Wood Biological. November 22, 2004.
Biological Assessment for the Bodhaine Property, 4781 Pacheco Boulevard, Contra Costa
County California. Prepared by Wood Biological. April 2005.
Biological Assessment for the Proposed Drainage Improvement Area 57, Contra Costa County
California. Prepared by Wood Biological. April 2004.
Botanical Survey, Bodhaine Property, 4781 Pacheco Blvd., Contra Costa County. Prepared by
Wood Biological. May 2005.
Botanical Survey, Field Property, Contra Costa County. Prepared by Wood Biological. August
2005.
Botanical Survey, Drainage Area 57, Contra Costa County. Prepared by Wood Biological. April
2005.
California Air Resources Board Website. http://www.arb.ca.gov. 03/18/05.
California Geological Survey Website: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/Map
index/county.htm
CDFG Letter regarding Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification Review to Norm Dyer.
February 17, 2005.
Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Shutt Moen Associates. Adopted by
CCC Airport Land Use Commission December 13, 2000.
Contra Costa County General Plan 2005 —2020. Certified January 18, 2005. Prepared by CCC
Community Development Department.
Contra Costa County Municipal Code. Current through Ordinance 2005-08 and the April, 2005
code update. LexisNexis Municipal Codes. October 2005.
Contra Costa County Transportation Planning Letter from Hillary Heard to Ryan Hernandez,
• regarding project trip;generation. August 23, 2005.
SZvrmmnre Accnrintec T.T.("—Rndhaine F1eUl Draft Initial gI1Av/MNIM 65
Contra Costa County Transportation Planning Letter from Hillary Heard to Ryan Hernandez, •
regarding project trip genera tion. January 30, 2006.
Environmental Noise Assessment for Pacheco Boulevard Field Courtyard Homes, City of
Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by Shen, Milsom&Wilke. July 22,
2005.
Environmental Noise Assessment— Sound Wall Letter for the Pacheco Boulevard Field
Courtyard Homes, City of Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by Shen,
Milsom&Wilke. September 6, 2005.
ESRI and FEMA website: http:l%www.esri.com/hazards/makemap.html. October 13, 2005.
Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Pacheco Courtyard Homes Est, 4755 & 4781 Pacheco
Boulevard, Martinez, Calif rnia. Terraseach, Inc. May 2005.
Mt. View Sanitary District, Letter from Randolph Leptien, District Engineer,to Ryan
Hernandez, CCC Project Planner. May 3, 2005.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development 4781 Pacheco
Boulevard, Martinez, California. Prepared by Terrasearch. April 2005.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development 4755 Pacheco
Boulevard, Martinez, California. Prepared by Terrasearch. November 2004.
Phase H Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development.4781 Pacheco
Boulevard, Martinez, California. Prepared by Terrasearch. May 2005. .
Surficial Soil Phase H Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development,
Field Property 4755 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez, California. Prepared by Terrasearch.
December 2004.
Stormwater C.3 Compliance Guidebook, Contra Costa Clean Water Program, Stormwater
Quality Requirements for Development Applications. 2nd Edition. March 2005.
Tree Inventory/Assessment for,4755 Pacheco Blvd. Prepared by Maureen Hamb-WCISA
Certified Arborist#2280 Professional Consulting Services. December 2004.
Tree Inventory/Assessment for 4781 Pacheco Blvd. Prepared by Maureen Hamb-WCISA
Certified Arborist#2280 Professional Consulting Services. April 2005.
USACE letter regarding Verification for the Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination for the DA57 Drainage Site, Contra Costa County, California. November 16,
2004.
USACE letter regarding Wetland Delineation, Field Property, 4755 Pacheco Boulevard.
December 15, 2004. Verified d by USACE February 9, 2005.
USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA, Forest Service (USDI). 2003. Survey Protocol
For Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species From The Northwest Forest Plan. Draft
Version 3.0. Region 5/6,0R/WA/CA.
Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the DA57 Drainage Site,
Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by Wood Biological Consulting. July 16, 2004. •
Cvcamnre A,,mrintPs T.T.0—RnrlhainP Field T?raft Tnitinl Rtndv1K4NTD 66
• Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Bodhaine Property,
4781 Pacheco Boulevard, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by Wood Biological
Consulting. June 7, 2005.
Wetland Delineation, Field Property, 4755 Pacheco Boulevard. Prepared by Wood Biological
Consulting. December 15, 2004. Verified by USACE February 9, 2005.
Persons Contacted:
Dunn, Peter. Contra Costa,,Water District, personal communications with Kelene Strain,
Sycamore Associates, October 17, 2005.
Leptien, Randy. Mountain°View Sanitary District, personal communications with Kelene Strain,
Sycamore Associates, October 17, 2005.
Thomson, Lorna. Contra Costa County, Planner with the County, personal communications with
Kelene Strain. October 17, 2005.
Report Preparers:
Sycamore Associates,Biological Consultants
Kelene Strain, Permitting Associate
Richard Grassetti, CEQA Specialist
• Whitney Fiore, Permitting,Unit Manager
Marylee Guinon, Principal
•
CvcmmnrP A ccncintac T.T.r—RnAhnlnP Field Draft Tnitinl CtnrlvIM7% I 67
O � O•m
Q O f
c3 A �w✓
U
9✓� J �
50��
O Ad
N iA U �b
W d` ✓�
W � o ,,o •°� '06, o
�" •$ o •D J •o sti y o
A O r •4 d Q ✓ p ✓ 4 oNi R ✓ O o � J � J
'�N N✓�� y fl SY � N N S Al U v �' �... U N
�y •N
WP � � N off ° °: NO�a o �.o� ✓0 9 m °' o
4 'G p U ✓' a6 f J d o 0CA
0 o
N N
� o Q C J G
GY Uy ✓'op N N 3Y y a, o
QJ � N ^'.5'�'✓ N 'Cd�@G O �� � °a� N U� N J� U N � Y �°N_
3
✓ cd 9 i U ✓ S-
vs
wg
C' ..aj, '� d C� o o `° i N T1 °' •R `° 3 C D � r U� � � G "' °yN
C+7" � !J�i.0 J•N� {, d N�A G y U �� O .�i- c' O O O v, R N 7 d
O N o m o o as•r � fl y �� 3 �s w a ✓v'O � g � v 3 o w
i 7 �. op � f''O o N� G � ofl o d�� v T✓� d o'3� ¢'� d� � �.'�'y
L,) A "�', E"' •�-' y•r "' � 7 G A ✓� Y°„ v �'''O�°cd�� � ?p�w�� T N G�7'U9N^�- O
U� �.., a>�' �y ✓ 9 0 � �r N�•op y o d .O J y ca N w y w N m o .a
r D y J cb ed N "'' N d r " r � v p r•^�r 7^
i � � s °J' °Y' 3 " pD �v � '' �i °' � ° q N N P^✓ c✓e es �y•.0 r, ��.�
..•i .O y N G 4 i N'R'O m .O y o ,�i � N O �..G-^
H �" d No � J O:o d � � �,,4.a � Q.o; � .oJ o•rr, YoO-^
Q' o..� N •'ie D ,Ufa- �" 7 G N N
„•?o
v
✓� y�� a� � ,a•ao o•yp�Ao
N N
P^U RS �2 � J � V ,r� N N O'CS O✓� N
16
U d ✓ N I
E" Y
o w d •�
k
d
9
d
i
N
wt
to
in
O U �.w
U:E
w o
of 7
o.a 0 O A N � } ¢
C U u .�m sN,o N vavt� ° +`C„.G �M-,•'�7 ..
ry N i3
y Ca.� C tO�j 91 _
pp N G
O
v c a
En E
a
CJ a Q
0 DA E to 20Ei sa s > ?
Uma xw ° � Rv45' E Nc. a �
.. O O
G DCA w M C .p U" C 4 N m• T y G
O•N.0 �'N O C � p SD•�� C a •�.� N w w w�
i DA's o a � � DA•,y 8 1`°_;° ^� to��•� o � �Q
oo' Q° o6L � o �s�Y 3E
w N
to
o w � � ❑ vsW � °,
i U a°ib� !oG� m AnwKioUU vmo '�°
°•
o'0" o _ own DA
te, m C O rAn C c�i 'C
ov c E '6 �nnR'�d °�
E v w C w o w'^ [ m d a p w o w
A
o n > E m° x' ti Y m ami aw ro w v �r°A
>
w
y w
L w
ro
N L ^ C
w UC1; wnT.u°arES
C R°b�u
t!
iso
•v o x ° LAG ° �, ��
o�
Y
N
� 0
O C�
O p O N,.y 0 0•
U 9 "
Q
Q G
�O
.�''Q A li� cin
N N Q 7
O O N 'oQ'�
a7 r
00
Oil
J
� r G
0�9 O.• J N r✓ .
d 3 " N
o ta
> y Y 9
•�� o ,� a ,d 3 �a, av, o�
O ?i O O N r0,.tw' N v p .0+'.01• 'O N O d "p
U N�OA N J l✓ � �
� ✓ ''.@NG UR'� �'.00 � �.'% vat- 'S'',A�•� OO� ��
'pto 0 ,, cd Y O 'O.+ •�: OY-4W
Y L O a y O O } d ~G w N y-O ,'gyp� e.fl "I,0 N O"
G�j.•0$ R N N y in
p o rCw 4y J'w i w > r d Q
A A"„ or.. o ,a cc o o moo cn
lFC
O .9 O
c ° m 'cw' v U ach nai C d d 9 a `0 S
O:p
'� O P'.� ��" •+ O w6 O O � d �, 00 y'1`�' 'A N� M..
0 N'o
OO to i .O .O p^•Or�A d yt,!cq 6y N .�+ '..' O N er rcy 6•
.' � d v Y w C O cC. O,� P N � O �o N J ;y.,•a 9
o. o9O y
G A N '� ?'`c6 •�, O 00 td:✓ J .•' J,'.� .. Q c0 W� G U N N W O
Ar `r 46 v,f,o' J > w 9 oa°''y o•�a t a'p •¢• G
N O �w .� 7 •CS'N rN At
y ^ J
� 3o �Jo�yOr
•�y u o N
r
N
d o d
J
•y O L y
.�+ v v u
R a �
� o s
.+ w a o
Q
d d c
f4
1
' N o O t U 'G Q may+ G•° � O F� �a y- .
;LG G,w`•LS�.'� +�. G„•Y G :A N,.'�-+ _ � N^OD� � N N p.W Q+.i v�;Ly' o,
,.
C, 7:,.
O`? NA _ ,4 .. A•'^p � �, � ,� -
N.'U
-
P � y a•U ;'• ° pSDs � �
V o � o'a.s� A �� �.o �•° 7 •'
0 0 ' ° DOy od9 ° a p
V o,
.o
o
U'
�ad p � �•O•o O G�� N �^p ti N p �� V N � � ..
U O. w y G .pG•• � a OCC� 4Gi'7� *y' � ,3, U y p .II O,,'N c'a � a'Z+ �� O
%6..'G+ V o G y '.N+ S+U � O G'G O N Nj•UVt ap.Q U N •�'V,.Nr V
° G G � o �'•v'^•• oAs �.�, p�q-cf�s ^°6 ^'�•� .�� ?J' 6t
aa�i Tom' K O •N NOD N G >• N d N dI G a -NG^ ° O �
dZ CmU �•�o o y Zou °s ¢g° � �.• U o o �v a4o aC
'�' N.nD y✓ ?? ,^• � •� �r A �•u1 G U P a> G C, � O �«^- ✓ u U w•✓ w O N O.O L�•+
c. G p O O W Cn O y �. H OD N N p U 7 � .t Y b C'N 4••� � G M G+�+ G •f '
o p a o, a G � G y cD o p y � �m 7 v o a 3•N °J g y p° �•-.�
N U .L� U N Q.••� ow 7 G Op M N *. O^ Y.G ?, f:) 6'..G G d Try-+ °�•�°Op:: N � w ud �
d �� �v o p. �o � v 'C N oD 0 �r o A cyu ..•'y ..' aUi:G �P �'�°' a a G.�. p°r-.
y, N .L> � OD� N•CG G 7 O N.- V'«+ N .n cd G ,cGd y N +'j•r � O N p 0
NO ✓ ° °� �a a D P G p,`*".G ;� `n w, .m
a N 3 Goo
= o A a.^ C
A � � �'�,•v o ?, a O•
'✓ 6+A'+" GIa N N O YW A .•✓(.� 4tn O G O O C•N O r A
O •" U
O
�'iso � °� oNi ''a�� aTi 'oed r' s s x G c3:fl�•mo% �u�i �4s'� o o v.G°.. o o
O �+V p N Q 3 7 °N' �'^ •Go W GOD 7 G O •;'n ° p s�V F+ A+° OD
NFA+
y G^ «+ � W•� U O N OD O A O
- a� U p C % OD N .� �.N w A A ayi � N 6'•� � y y"' .�„D bD s G o U „•^ ��. �y w rri L "'
cvaU
wA0UcCy{ .Ar O°a'i�GaNi TUOSNV•�°.°N�+ •OAR yoo.N�dm A"vs'ywUpN m ~pUoi.`'� %UYeao yE"VGaio aaad,i N UaO ON.°G'°i'�0,0 C'c i
.ta •"• Dc
NUO ° d 0 sD OD ddy
d o o o
0
.pyo F `, 6 v cUYo T o G cUa C7 n^D
? y
-to,O p U al a A 6.1 y✓ •rN o A tY .
.r y n 9 3 —T cf d 5 nr a y v � t o v o P
r+ N O•o 0 0 v� yo
° °�> G oNi� aD y OD G� ea v•3 �'� O oD 9 p N o � 3',U�� y OD� ?�,O A GO•°U.°r 3
m ° nD•� °c°a N 3o°. 3'� � � >.�°' 'u �, 9� �7 cd 9 �= A O d �y oaoi'oca cDo �' �' A 7
�n � o to:
N Y L> W A
OD 4 N U 9 U A U ' G}• .
•yam•+ � p c w oV A
a.
m 3 0
u ; >
O
,Lt
O� a
v
a�
o,
C,
a a
Q
Q �
a Q
U
b
w
m p O •� � G �U � p m tti'O'
•p
O G N
@ V 2+'w O aU+W ��•� as � �» •�^, a7 G
u'C`O F+ b4 p• Lam.',UG O C to
r-
0. =G O U
rt..
•� �.� �o � �aU ia.n`� a o 0
o,
w p
o G .� o •�
Ge3 ° > *C.N ° r R, o ° PA.
° > > o o.o a Ca a d U a d
U Cl. 4
C?
Cl. 4 w
m NoEcwiE•v, o �-o �,,ym da
'� ON' ei�. ^ '� 'U w G O W C•b
� v > NIN e�o� am u � s � �y ° arm d3u
aamEa mwa° oow Eo qac Adm �^�o
o wq. esz m. U °. U G,O U O at G
,� vOi m a�2Y �° is G" Q U y E•'rOJ' r N "o Cj •rJ
O Ewp
U 'O N Oa'�'
ta
U oo O G N 6 cGi N d .p•o g rn
�c �.yGm.�3 aU °tio � EmG. � �-o �
o.°o � an— ` o � om rod✓ 8 °`��w
m e
o
U al a+ ^ T
>e a' � o LQ
mW ° G a -�U e` b ?
d N G LU �a b
ie u=gr m a wv E a`di ° ai omi aci O "� p
O
�rca— ro� cNawon�� �
>
p t7 R.° ui .on
•� •tea
Er
h 7 N Qi aJ 4).O > 6) CaA :d O C V� p yyN U N
�O cN0 W w-oa7 r- O .-.
0 m _ C n
o O C ODA N m N'+� b0 O R
a a° at.o °° a,—: Nay nab
a fl m t% G a•G sc m - o a' y w
•�'o �
N O G]
w
C? Vi
O
d a a a
G to
0
3
on O p •eC q
N
It
>.
U ,cd
U �
13 00
°o'er
N I to
G .
oU. °gym
O
tea¢
may .
G
Cd
o �v H.ti. QD p•,
o
78!
G N
i2- v� _ O0
i� b➢ N N U � ^0 N
U P+N O
et
O v O ca
CID
y0, w C V O b0 V-e Y G w
y"l7 Cw'o
Ri rj1 V O �.b O �y N .+ O•N �N b0 -
C
❑ W N N Q V i ''^' O A—%
cd O O
p .i' iT SJ ,OWN'O
^ u
,`�, u N •i 7 Y "a o IVa, y > G' 7 C7
c ° cc
o O1
tDN W (z7
W a
o'
0
�•N v on
Ga
to
-
Gi p
Gi U
Qa,
to C
A a �
On d1
N N O
'O. U
C-
u
U 0
Q � N
o.
�+au0 w ° o v
o
J O
° o y a
O R ;•,.,-r o.
Q N M N w N
q•��,', L ��'1 N O G3
L Ci'fl K3 N ttt _ �
G m o .°Q a
a.
ow Goo o as '�
•� at bn�a.^'m G � o
m
fl.N
0 6 p bn U O y cu y >
•� X
G P.Q o C o o -r
damtD
d � a
on
c G D v°, on 03. .�v+
0 6 m � �ono o O.6 �•°� R�
a•� y t6 � v y� y � �,a y v
° O v•a o � >,•> ;�� v� ao
a `*
rS
-
°
w
o
0. �.
Ga
A
H ^.o rma
ti � ° u
a
w
vto
zo
4.
a o
o o id
0
U
IS
Y �
c
o oo °
N v,o
as o ou o
a.15
as �v•-
10
C �-tyL.p of p
03 03 ° —td
'o3 G d
o-00
'C', m.G �! 11 ❑
CL 0 d6
aado`•y °' °%' N b 'a
x �v ca o c
su. o
ODw
EAdO
O °L
a 0-0 a a 3 ~an
F75 °' a u o v w i4 xOR w b y C,6 N^ R
It
15
o a u ^y °
s. ea
c C3 y o°i H> v y eu > m a y uc p
o G�4 WW U .mac
x�
R
a� O
G1.
v -
CIL,
O .
S a'
Do
bo
� t.7wd
G.
0 o Wim °
° ❑
in 45' y m
T3 p �-
'
m3Aa.�� E 'p° "' N � to' •�°. � a"i °� =' oaO � 3 q
lap � asoama°
� N
an
O U
� �
0.1 v u v d b p is a4,—
m y y c
N � cn C, 0
U A'O v� •O,O. N t1'.G Y� O w. y p0`,
a = ° "opo
U
� 'd' C O d � �.•id v� c'nc � R �
CCD
c7
X
0
&4)
cr
p. O _L p 4 - 0 00•s a qA - C o o0.0
ai -ti a o .. p,.E O N 4 p y 4 p
� � °� b cora
3a 3a y aha �°" ti i3 -42
rr)a I
G1 q Q q
w
u
V V
y, b y
4 sC 4 in -C vi�...
.: onbo
p
10 0
0 o a o
'4w
+N c� G .ycnjp.ai .C5, . g 2 -a
° m Tv
0
v N mEiU m a E ma. U a E ro. U.m 4 E m. rr cn 4
0 0 ° °
oC3 >
>o
>
0 0
Ua`d Uad U0. Uw` C CJw Q
-s.E o U 4 c3 uy m � Cda
a� .�.� a"° � � „' vU•c �tea'
Cd
to
uaR a A N N
a c °
co.—. L U V p as C o - •�U 4 v� ° cn -
b ° uZ N _
aao am = woai' > > aQ v'E o
rl
bo u
CL
,C°u, u�''�w c°Ki - o ca 4) v tz .
w 3 .g - - b. pro. o
o tIIa ro dc�r�w.� 4 � i° L L ° m o " a > q .
enN V Q x x a
°03 L P E cc-)ad F
i.
W 4 R
h R Ct1 w�"O
0 O ,0.. w - w cC -02-
s,_RS •�
CO _ L LOr
0.r
3
18 m
c
eo u o u o ° w
u E.O h w C O.� .y q S y ee •� .O'y� �.a O rp+.G � �G y 27 � -
C R 4+ V O Cwd.+, V .e e 7 L � .G. O
.>. C 0 «+R .+ L O iO. O L L A r-. O '9 b0 0 =
. w w O '4n,�'t1 V C ,��, �O .S.• u-^ 7 o w G'Ow � O sir p � � O C—' p' � �
a� m ao L °' c io u no a L L yy L ea
61 V Gb
to 17
Z
t aL.
IN
OlT W'p. 4 O C R O V 7•7Cn 6m" 0 0 6 y�.i ��'" L u O S C L Cd R O O„ 0 N
Cf)R7 w ev m 3 0 U
C7
J.,
.n -
0
p Q-P. N p > i1 a� 4��a� N
lu Iu
p65
> - A>
G p�'c7 a O ����
0.C.O G. C.j�ON Rb v' p,:d
Rb o R n_ v a ti ti R a R E
ffi� Wit . n
to
391.
� o �.=a p"o
4 a > ,"3 ctl R a
UD :;ma °: � °: a a cn ;; 0,a
y p
a c
a
„
�"q cq 07
O to
O Ei y0 ti O N .0 0 u. C U
C c m a v y e v N H, a y a
on
C N R.^ C N C cNC a p,. _ C y �.i`c� 4:p� p•a '�
U m a a.0 UroaE
to
0 0 0 $ o.., c
o m o Ta °o 71 0 o o �+ o m
v' o . U.ao_c W
a. R ~. c R R a 0 0
R_ a. a
o R o ° R o R 8 0 R o R
Ua d UCl.dUa d Uwd Uq d
o
o h o y o y� Y
. p L R R �' N p. Ji
'U M O N O
eda• = wbw3
30
r ° u �bq o
3 fl ti c H o x.�a °u w c; a.° rn v°,
"' Cc>d 3 ° �•�•°' ^0.01 h •GRAN 42
-
12
C N R +�"" Oa" N 8= ti.? C y ` .p
N 0•� 3 ❑ w oD.0 w p C•O ❑U�p p,
c o o °'3 �Y � o
.fl 007 as = o ani h a o• o Q
�7 w w x d ti o ❑ F o o > N. o,
a"i - N 5 N �i .. � ❑q o,m ca .�.v a 3 �a O1 -
L
7 7� � G ect � % �� O T o0� yN X�'U •p - p -
3 ° v o q api w y o 3 > N . 0 0.
c z = n a c n z Q' x c
c E N
O O A �id O d L L.'^ '� �'ti h L O•O �'� � O
�.
m cnq �c d azv o oz �� v R > o
O pp a.b cd o L > 'ti
O L u Cc)
•lC wN+ > + bq
6LJ t 'O C.W) d L` - R .,�". ❑ oR h =p •C 0. [: p
d d o Q o c s N o
R: CGw oq
9z we GAWU RzWU 3 v o C. 3
N
L.L C N >
a mss' � s m N = a
2F
= � � � o g 'as L � mo• �� d �
0
m
da m o w h m y v
c i so E o LID
cu o
L ° O .�
N C
O O p `�•' W K'p 6 u•� !C N
m0704� U ., 3G a° COD
z
21 R b N ro vi
•� 'rte� y U �" N �
o
y
U A
o;o
-
ba
�
o ar
w a
w
0
0
%a
Uwd
a
•d 1.�,ca
In.�
L p
a� R
N
,U+ U
cc
m. as -
rn
0
� � o
esQ o A
z ,
a
'3 �L •y
y
-
ar „ •a
C m t
O W O
�+ -CICI �•� �
y w
41ca
to y U N
lu
-
d O+C w o y p y C
� °. o
°•C a,o o ,9 aai o ac n oc :,-a o A U
m G cz
10
V L a }
A �.^'v F u .0 G w'�•� ami u R o uRi N � �°.
p sa y v, o y C u�. W o 6n u „ o L o
K V.Q p .9 4i O O Or 1 U i L Ov+SS CZ
N M
y
o'd.
p w
i
7°
� oN"��Nfl^S oso
CIA
s O
y ♦ 9
•C .! y,� N�,a�N 7 m aY7 � �
G y,
19
a ,�
Y c AA ors °,p
d
d
Ad GU qp "C5 J-t - t4.a .Gd 7 .15
r V 3 .S
a E„
c�
a
w
U •
Q
o
0
W•y �P, a
Go A
V¢,
g
GUY. .doQ� p"
O r—
i ed
G U
•N � tµ o o �,� p
N o tw� N
N Q
'O
v nai aGi
o h o.40g, 3
N
*�` N m•O Opp A.U+'>. G
o a ar CC U �H W
'3
y� v E•- o m c � c7 .
•�`�, m pw u as� 3 �•
w °' 'L° C oo�- � v v •c"a
•p u on o92
w°. �, •6
c
M
V
(} f% H
o.6 aci - CQ
o,
U cw
ti
o
3'p
y 5
m m
0 0 00
P.4,3, Cl
C� v p
0
G m R m c
O N ai
14 O 0 -
GC
O
U r/j
O " 3
w N O V
O d OD
b6'
E W cam= G3 � °•'baa:-w� c
y" 4•G � � 8 n.o c m v°i U
•c vi
-
�+
Wu c
►+�` v v 3 o°�i w 4 4
NOTIFICATION LIST
159220003 159220006 159220008
MYERS KAVEN G & CAROLYNE L WATSON TODD & KARENC.TRE GRIMES MARJORIE ANNTRE
82 KOBERT RD 114 BATES CT 4795 PACHECO BLVD
TERS CA95694 ORINDA CA94563 MARTINEZ CA94553
159220011 159220012 159220015
BARTLETT RICHARD J GRIMES MARJORIE ANNTRE GRIMES MARJORIE ANNTRE
4791 PACHECO BLVD 4795 PACHECO BLVD 4795 PACHECO BLVD
MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553
159230002 159230003 159230004
FIELD BROTHERS BODHAINE RANDALL C & C I TRE JANIN ASSOCIATES INC
1187 CAMINO VALLECITO PO BOX 23366 957 STOW LN
LAFAYETTE CA94549 PLEASANT HILL CA94523 LAFAYETTE CA94549
159230005 159230006 159240006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CHURCH OF GOD AT MARTINEZ JANIN ASSOCIATES LLC
PO BOX 722 4769 PACHECO BLVD 957 STOW LN
SAN BRUNO CA94066 MARTINEZ CA94553 LAFAYETTE CA94549
159240007 159240008 159240009
GAFFNEY GLADE & JOAN TRE COLA SALVATORE & ALLENE COLA ANTHONY & ALICE TRE
1049 PEBBLE BEACH DR 4683 PACHECO BLVD 4685 PACHECO BLVD
CLAYTON CA94517 MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553
0240010
161021009 161022001
ANSELMO MICHAEL JR &
ANNE BRADDOCK & LOGAN ASSOCIATES NAREZ RICHARD S
ROSE
4687 ANN ECO BLVD PO BOX 5300 2504 ROLLING HILLS CT
MARTINEZ CA94553 DANVILLE CA94526 ALAMO CA94507
161261004 161262009 161262014
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ERDEI VICTOR N KOCH EUGUENE R & DARLENE G
1220 MORELLO AVE#100 4736 PACHECO BLVD 4754 PACHECO BLVD
MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553
161262015 161262021 161262022
GUNSUL THOMAS KNOBLOCH ROBERT & CHRISTINE OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC
4754 PACHECO BLVD 4734 PACHECO BLVD 2001 WINWARD WAY#200
MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553 SAN MATEO CA94404
161262023 161270011 161570001
OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC KELLEHER WILLIAM J H & B PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LLC
2001 WINWARD WAY#200 906 HARBOR VIEW DR 1306 MASTERSON LN
SAN MATEO CA94404 MARTINEZ CA94553 LAFAYETTE CA94549
570002 161570003 161570004
B PROPEERTY SOLUTIONS LLC H & B PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LLC H & B PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LLC
1306 MASTERSON LN 1306 MASTERSON LN 1306 MASTERSON LN
LAFAYETTE CA94549 LAFAYETTE CA94549 LAFAYETTE CA94549
Building Inspection Environmental Health P/W Engineering Services
*** Interoffice*** *** Interoffice*** *** Interoffice***
i
Darwin Myers
P/W Flood Control CC Fire District Community Development
*** Interoffice*** *** Interoffice*** 651 Pine St., 2nd FI. NW
*** Interoffice***
i
Historical Resources Information
Sheriff's Office System Mt. View Sanitary District
Admin. & Community Services Northwest Information Center P.O. Box 2757
*** Interoffice*** 1303 Maurice Avenue Martinez, CA 94553
IRohnert Park, CA 94928
i
Contra Costa Water District !Martinez Unified School District City of Martinez
P.O. Box H2O 921 Susana Street 525 Henrietta Street
Concord, CA 94524 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553
Pacheco MAC
Department of Transportation Campos
Loving &
5800 Pacheco Blvd. CALTRANS 245 Loving
& o Valley Rd.
CA 9
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
Pacheco, CA 94553 P.O. Box Walnut Creek, CA 94596
! •
-Field Brothers Randal Bodhaine
11 Embarcadero West#125 P.O. Box 23366
Oakland, CA 94607 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
I
I
i
i
I
I
v
n� cps
� 1
L
t
t
1,
1
r
• �
4
1
r
i
s
� 1
4
1 i
p �
40ey» ky
•� �1�>t #� i a -'��'� r n,.'a�`l� �t `'•r 4 5 •7 t ��r r� � �r � t .
, ��v 1 �r ,.a �`c ik Y`r.��' �'��/.��r �}. '� � � �`���, w�„ 'tit th:- z.M � !t •
x [ ,�., x ;n a _,�h ^ tit PrP �Jf • • •
i ;�A 'r�'w.m 1,'�, 7LV r f ,v a "" 'rJJ] nt -.}�' ✓'i f
Ilk
•tom , J r 1 z F. t r ^3` rA G i �, .atL`c„'+ 3 r •�'
r �'_+ �Kw~ t"��r JAv a til •w ': � I '''�, '�''�.'7t t �� r
r c, •w^ � t ef.,. j w 5 � •
x r .,y.: u e J fid J^`u 'u��lp�y 77l'1 tf �➢ri 7 � 4" S � •
;akn. a f�- wP}'}� +'c r,'�t',°3• li 'r ud..: p"Jy F'J�!,� = ajtlfi *� t�
v.. ar•' t rst•�� K -nrw
"Sv e .ti �rnt J
fix`+ r. s j'{• 1tt a <,`['w �Jy� '3"t'�b Y3 E,�, ,y, I ,� d n y �,.,r,... �r, a
ft�y r5 ,J''t r`�` a r t�=' i= :•�f,r')�,�.""()I,'�r ���•`„i j'q1.i *yub ra�i„��` r�yy rc:=rv���1 f{R'��F"`��,f"i�i1�� '.
�k",I
x[41 � J�, V.
Jn " t ti 3
r 'y Y�'r�L'"^j, i v !� ,.j! �. • J cvd i r„ p�•� ,.,, r;t i >, �� � "'• td� Jfi;^s���r)'h'Z�µ� 7 S�!<5 •
�I Ic •
�� 4r�te:•� �. r4 `r�. S �n�u 1t4"Ji � t �i't t`r(��)�� r� ,,(� � ' ��rf tk��qt.
�"+}'Rk� �+ as it�J *'' t, ! � �,� t ,••.a�� �3���:��� �.i ���.�-'a�,,.�- A�„��ly y, tA-.r Y�F'tttF,;U�'. ••
':�J.'�ti 7, yi+�s/`J�e y, � ��•3 'tn{`:`r1 �t n '� ' 7h�a �-�J1 }���{�., ��p�a'rf� .' }: � ��Etk*,t}j,.r�, 2�'#?"yy1.. { �� I • •
k r�'r�r'F -2 1 � I �. �jtt 3=1 r���Y C ilt. •• t ds ri wj � hla
Lk \i. Juts x �rSS S�firi � �it J� ik
i r+ 'SrJ K.
��„k'�yi>z '��'.y- �`o-'S"'f��t' "tri. yq ". �9 i�� 4r�s1 .�"+ i•� . a,��i2 ..tea r>�� ot3{`)r'k+i
� -;;H v"'' r-x�'x ;r`� `}' y,�' k.g��`.�'�V���yi� � �y1�. }J[�t �7' 't'� ,�v�J•��J r.�,��i ..0
� {t 1-T,7
fi+� `i ac5', "'f YI9T{#-, t Yr krJ ).• �. tr y ; '
��` La
t b{ Lr b 1 u a
xKi S •'t t*' i r
C Z5
En
NIP
ed
rr���M Lk xl�`- ��� ��� �� �a'Sk�'' t� a J ���}7t4�'a -hi w�`� : i yr - •
•
in
c
boo-r - J�i-�7++n r� R'f is •
� -
In
F ,t,
� �� i t y �.� .� � J .�t' a'ctN� 's ,asp. r H712�.5�} F•t .c �� ` f ".vf � i1
`r`a,�^-Y'm ix -r a} �r� !}r �t'� `� v..:n °�t� "sr -++ �' � 1t +xa .. •
�� R� .,�'*'t`15 �2�sr1.;,41` ,'y�r�•J'Sn:' �'St 1 d� If n��� • .
,�`��., ) +_.) '. a�,•rk' ���{ � a. `'e
� kR l .,n Yl�~ Jitr ti,.T hvY
0
r^ .i } K, s �kcth3 tr7�•!J� aiK3r#rya f �' k put
"RE [�
R4 X16
r.♦a C ?F irr, , s ��� �t�JJ� ra"�`+s� ir{�7' r;�.A="-,��'L';�F r�•�'> � tl
%'3J`�°[R�' ' ' �y $.? � � `� r -�;' ,� 3i✓n wl' 'wts` j�'�`,r y, + �, ,3 •
¢, x:�ar rKt �r�' r�a w'>•<ly t J:wfT',.if�tt�xm�W>t?a.i�;=-d��fStu' �t'k'1C�`r^a7''y�r[.1.s1+5 r �'"�tf>)'a"?L' r='rra.''r•taff�lr��Fy".=1 � oo
vIblain
04 •rt
,
w Ind
t
i
C�F7rd LF ` 7 l `; Fr '"�rJL•rI,,Sc t� }„ ) .# I •
x J 4� r try°t iiia)�{ io :
c t rr tea: r i ar tyV�J r$ �t�{tr�fy;� 4 > „� • - -
CIA
ata rF ,.,c'j =°yyy 4k ,,+�'.�-7 ft a la.t•{ �,,t� S� ��
W LLI LL. LZ
c cc
-
a •
TFtvL'`',� .r t
1
t4.r•a Y n w �*3� ,J,gY $�� -At V�� d.Yh� t''�1 rf-. *t-4
r r r R� L.•SM t i � � �y n 'l fpr f
us- ��i�g trig� z'av '`•�s ' �
trr t.cuett�r, 4a,if jj'
r F{}g` t_y { kd +•i t,�? ti. t 1
{R ,� � aS)�. r hi�•hy�q`'� 7l*rlr�
a 141wi ',,� h6 ,� t
r� +J tkN 7"lir Oji �lt r i t `d1 * .C'
r•�,y�7 tt7r*)> `nyi y. r ,,� i R . Kq 3; `��rj,� •
k �+ k r yA i ��J a r, [v ��r _ J vz ? � J{ y •
o r,;,�fr^`V�,'Y: ':tcr.• -yt`rr�� +Qf''�'tif rJ r,� S�'�r 'r-i �'`}g#1 t x. �� �� r� j[yfY�r`�v>; ? f"
.t '� �.a� ,l'I q '4 `' T`ti aJ.y rf 7 ' •" y7 q•n _^ •
• •
+a
d��7 r��� F ` f Y �i�+'� •a' -! .,'kH t �i�q 5'F A J� - •
t'�i.N7S'���Q rt+'`PY ¢t «Pj ,�}".1.C �6r idi t§i Ji`1l LTtLr �y'i }'r't�k, �7rI�•.at �q, � tl * JJrr • •
Po ..y�„.ct�4},(�5 R � �A nd�i Sp J'`'J i�,,=jy I, _ }�1-1.,.11 1..'u..�>� f `i d�t 1 �tNt�N`!� � �}ii �.r..v li •
"'� < _�f� 14 a �'�, % r. a. J � -� ,.- � Ja..-v 4 r s � . �I4 ti x, n n•s"f,tT,,G d R '�: tr/ � ..tf r -. r
t�' "sYw4 Y+� I�fr�� a ii�,r,�' i17�:� yJfrc je N��� aal�y r'.rz�,A,-•r�yp��t' �� 1 �.S,t'j�'`yit4 >j� r-� r� 'pyyf;,'��� �. �{�t:'� � f
�; �..rgR,�rn.�<.{.'��' J�r• �:��� r+(J�'`r'`�' >a��� '�`�4-�'{;�� � x,�� ,� $e�fV{�� t} '���� te•� t A�'ity+a� j.F�i ['�(,h.�
-a r yy3$�` rSx 1� ,�' r.�;k;,,.f: a1�s`�.py t la`3''�+^]rr� r q •"M.�t�t. , yt k d � �(�.
.q�'� NFr } r. n!) ,'ri it rkj F`1v,r4.�a r r}t lt''fp''1S a ':.i •`'i�.. �1'�l ja:,�c k .� y.3 r 4
_.+ , �• A t ky, M- A l t � IS ��y A .'
EAT
at.�,l>� �.�
•''`"rri� ��rr t kr Tr r arse �fxfi r R='"i3 s ^°.• ? ( txr =
r7r {i� S r �J i cc aS., ii it r i%
n. tr3s.�krI? •.i.,{y~7. �,c' b, , Std ,-ra, zre,.�: 1t r''.6 ,�d;-,4,=�M1.'��`�
•.7`5' "�.ii h�.g r 1"'�7 d)+. r h+ 'Lc r ,�5 r t r+q itY er 8 i i.�y�pY. gut` Y �•.
�7i gp,.-c Y"14
fts� q .,.r �g �4 R•: a 4?�:: t 4� ;_? t ''''r .{ ,•33
r f Ycui _ y ca �
��° a7i* �r .# i�,.;;� �. '• _
�T{,��p -�' M�''�-,t" •d.r r � t i'C e, ,a �,'. i t v h• �tl�.'4 r ,q K;,1. ��`.J�r ty
t .^rvY,'R� o. vk �ip``}4. b ,I,Y i�i!'i'�.`u7�r"•^�r�n 1, �' �. m•{��,� � y. s�52W's.t"�{ 1,f Yht�.�.
IiR r § � L~ -rl ♦7 '}11+,a.... ,',' -� .a+ t...
.t�i'"�+�,�:'x'��tr ,t.�.�a i'.�ti+ t' t�., S - y :jk ,,•-'x*s,. tPJ�'r.r;.,.= _�.I vY,* .��,,�r 5-�� t _
�,t� >"i�t �}�'•C'�t C� f�,���u„H�h}k ✓` n� �J�Qs Y [�. t-�R�S� ��`kkt' � �"2.yi h�� tt:
_74(f
k I +q�t ��in,�4�J`t S����� `7Yr *�. t. y �s�ski� S .+•e�v �=ui l`ry�i P •stl� t ] i* �”�
n�
�;i!$'# �[�^!�4;13ri"'�r"•.�y��F-. „ �tl t'v., ti,�4� .S Uot:��t �r i?� ��J. :u�d')�rh �)tt t�' y, d' 'f q�
L' y,dn ,'tS'lu�..,,. r v' 6 a S� ..fr�y}+r 1 F •es i).s' ,r
{�LG r Ta' ,�tu-- �{'t'�a'It `tt �. ,C� P}�. 2'Y' A*5M 4.t^ rT,�"g ✓ ,�51{� '�.
Y rf ,J }r' �+`� �7"*^e✓''w'n'�-'� , �ti uq° �'�fi...L. ..".:-r.Ta*,�'"'E J, , >.c { �. L rJ r t.14,' � 'i,. �y
�V ti. ��-:u.� r. ,�.1 t.1�.9 a �.tY✓`_ �.j.li � ya Y �,��.."d� V ISM I r}�F � yy .ut,: A +£1' r�
'��i ,7. �ir'n.,tt,'t ikU `i. r�4�v"r5.�'^^a,u'µ 'a`a�- :? ".�' �a•'7ar�' �elyi �r'r4 t• .?r't S i.
•
`f
IKH0anV
r9ifvr e lid naov��u^nil=o�Astz �`Z'3AII.I.-IVW UU- MT MA OD'�I-DVa HU
J�MI S L�3.LIIi�2Id SOdWd� rJd-:) T — --- �5 o u
ri916tfi b a:l 965t66Ji��J,^^f°M � '7��/yT /`/���' y�(�J� p{�v�®��' /'$A{ /�'��'7yj yee
` Ll '�N I ` H dl 0 9 ham. 1 :S 1 A 5 �ggW N z
}d-F�
aS9�m�5 V-ti¢ �orc ¢ a
K
15
F-
Qv
�V
[Y Q
am
I
--
awl
-
,�e
loom
WWI
� V
r
T
i
e. NOW
�.I
f k y ( 1 fl.
Y � {t t ! 3 _•�ry { 2
t �
L" } t i'sif
VAR
eow OWS 10
{
tr
.r✓ r 'Fn i z.r t j � {
15145 nickf
h
Ica x
H
v
4,
, ll i
r II�11f
66 12
.�� a.
i��
F s
or
"'9.•�¢ NOW
� 7C � Z t
�e-4
P";,;i f 1
INHE
AF
i
`-
4
JIM p 3
r s
F 3 a � q �§ �•1 s � � ,$ �� �..r
t F� I1r1 p
1 9
\ f, Ml
((',B�+
',{�yyBB��,,
-
��..,,.�3pa
dCt.v.,�,,�f �� - � }• 4 t 'per'` 3 l7' h + d'11�' '
ff '
NOW
rl B b �E, �
s��
�I
$ 4 ill I��`1� +d ¢ry e�m e a sc+m
Y= >� ( Illiihl'PIIIi�I • �;�INOMPI .
awl IT
J"r✓1 Y !1 1 re 3 1 t So¢
ire: �!f�li��a IhII�.4 4 11JlIyyI�V_i 411aJ IIS 'xar-Ww:'f F
�4f€jc d�e 2 !
SEE
yr
r S w
}$p @
3:1 l }fit r t � ir6� It4$xtf;t �.
p f€
�
-9,
#1 t OWNS y
a {p Ce ft tPN
�1[em l ! f H'6 f4
4
Y
3 y
RI
..........
�;y `t�l�lli�l��ll�i O ®"
7VS
WMI
OW I.
HRta�leEIR, Ati
ran'...
4,N
,R!:0
IWO-
•
sign
12.
igli il
NONEONE
0 N
....Inns
gP uk
µTl iii
ZE-,
�IFF
golf,
JNiNN V"IJ wua sudwao ..ol..mm 7H(1J.J3J.IkIJNb' P g L^� $ p 8
am 55
9ovrnhs e xa 9nsr6vJ i Jmui•,x Vll MOJI'ZVJ(ZaKIIHVW U-9VAI-MOU OXgHJVd 5SL6 p ri g° €ay W,ms Ln
9191'rr6'i i6'I Id Ir.N A.11"u��vu9.1"Z ----------------------------------....--------- F g ;t. g s W a
3'INI�'.I.SU:ll:1d (N13:1U(i(llAY(1 SOJWVJ'9'INV:J /"� ,T g g T _ r',-' )'� w`s'4 8y 9$ qC Nr g ?
H 1�``I16 1 `Vy 1 4'1.^��e 9 s g r u § o (n W w
•D�i siaailHDxF soaWVo W oKrnoI
A11H
j
i
I
H
I � F
1
k �U
k� I FII I
ly�,r
q
•!i I
O
I F
1
h�• � I i O
s
I
1 6
F .I 1-6 Us
o , 44
I m
:
11 n,
11 11
y u^ I I
I A
t a
50, I l
�
U F
za
d
30
san-
i--------1-'�
I F900
" 0;
F
i
I
N
B
�
k `
I
_.._
a o
I I
MUM
� ty
Oo®o
I 1 l �000 I
C
ffl-011,
F i
`,
EUEll
HIE
C
- i
I
i
i
i
A I Ins or.VIA O.
a
t 3 {SS f"� $ 3f�~���`��}✓; iii
+� e
. ���\t IgEE;I�I i 6 rs IIS,c
°Y 3\\� IIS f�l�-. 7 c�:�l :t��.�.s.`.=C�'a � ■■�
t
1
T
Sis \ nr/ EI Inp■ Lim
"A,
es !
I
r t t:
M•
yy?T�.��oorr'�1.. � f a�s� � a■�
.��t-��J' pq `•�,,,�i IIS ;; ■■� ,.... I
a
1.
I
uu -
■
2
o ug9iI+I IIMI Gt:I;VI I P d c
1 nlm� ®��®
11mi° ®� II
Milli
NOW
�0Miil REEHAi S. g
it3t os �„ � ec' ■lam'f�AI f[�I�Jnr aeras. sc�c � �I
ii�•&;k(y��F;E igk dur \�._. ('-n I I.L.I.a.-a "gem `�$a��� � � :� -
I
�.®�,
01
.'q, 4 ,n I 'Sn2 ■
I g
>*` r r 1I■■■■
DNINNV Id
96M VXN—�I i1-111M VIrquoqI,-IV:)'ZEINIIUVW G'RVAI-ICIOff ODaH-,)-Vi S5-1
e a
P-d r mi 3
(D
Z91 I'M SZ6 lid
CTVISL�tl WAVO soliq -njv,l
W> w--c
zz It-,�j u I-t 6�
SIDAIII]DEV SOdVVVD W DNJAOI INJ INIVH (IOR U11 1119 3
0
ahF M HE --
4
MIN
if
a.
A.
ffill
I%
Lo
..........
•
•- i
SUMVIdl 666ue66S1 C633616Yj VIN8oinV0 )dNf100 Va3WVIV A1Nno3 V1S00 VaLN03 OL-6ZISSO PN aar
(%V!)56ZZ-OY6/tZ6 SN P>"atldV a
(13l OOZZ-OYB/9Z6.� somm" YIV31 Wd a°o�p
W 969Y6 V° N33N3W
01 N1VM J1 a SOH atlt/Jll»f100 3NIt/Ha09 - (3131=1 YV3 Ydu61°
OOZ 311RS"1S NIVW 111110N1111
)969 NOISIMIGnS NVId 1N3Wd013A3a IVN13 (INV dVY4 3AIlVIN31 EMMA WOHS S'°"'6 e
•mnwu 90/w/r•mo°
oil y
V\ ��+
VZZI ? yl .4Lry ��;;,,{{IZ AC •- •--nn�n�
yO O Z req. tL_ 8 (f Y�°
9. -IT
zzz�z
ZOn O¢m�»
g � IA pq=K ]•g � \ �F � Ze'a Shy O �¢ ��
8 [aq� s� k $ �g e
Z o
5`p
is fi] UP _• o �Fff a W gim m
i - La mm mm m
w ���jjj •° b onm pA
arm � �jy � rvNn - iNry
d\
PX
I S z
six
. ' o
/.M/�/ \ $ I I I I 1
W
I I
W
LL
f � __. ` obi y •I I � � � � �'
`` '1•J O 7 b F
Hall 11 I'll
J >0 a; �, • •y;� I I a � � a � � n � a
�° \ ♦ F r1111A ok�sbiib5g§�
fV m I ,` • mo I I #i I
Z t—
w w ; •. I a
` O
0 OED 8
■��i■ I I w G` g
ZJ oc�` x attilca I.L. z, d d = 3 82
W W O A I Fj I ♦• I I op � � d 7z 3 3y B ° S
Q W �qga�
� I
J 2
00
Z \\\\ is a ®6Va m!' I
U_ za
H1WI03 I I I I
\ Yy I I
II
\ _ --ryry-ryyyyy
\\\ J I $ • I I III
Y �\
OPH
I w U
\ 1 1
AUD4 :A9 031101d 90-II-Y0 '31V0 1014
6°P'S1N10d-10\S133HS\dtli\'.IMO\6Z19S0\GObu3\:H ;3riN ON IMYSq
i
I J11.
I
I
y soundl s66uwngl sH33HI0H3 VINaoAnvo Xi Nnoo.Va33hVIV�./ A1Nf10a V1SOa V2ll NOa 01-6ZI990 oN Wf
fi6ZZ-096/SZ6 ■IM N Y lO 11 m Y-1 , __ SH Perc,daV g Q,
(l31 OOZZ-O"/9Z6 WV31 Wd uww0 i
W 969Y6 V0'%33HO 1nNlVM SBWOH ciuv Ilunoo 3NI`dHa08 — ai313 WV31 Wd�6lsoa a
OOZ 3IInS"1S NIVW HIHON ZUZ
1969 NOISIAIaens NVId INMdO'13A3a 'IVNld aNV dbW 3AIlVIN31 JNIIS3A a�o�ti; g C%
e
Ji
w
mlIf
Qtltlil @
3NIl A123Nn
l0HLN00 Z 'eR l0lllIN
00
I
Pd \ I I
3Nn
10H1N00 �' ilbFl
J?
,1
a 3Nn
C 9oa Noy 4�$r(
3Nn z
j
Al
IvIllin
FI \♦ I W
91 zo
�0. •• «< D dtl1107 n I I ml
O 7218Vd Q z Z
n IO N00 IOUHLNOJ yO y1 z
a
1Lx I
vvv I i
+ H
r -
avi .9
SRI
Q r F R7
\; u a I iSl �000 �y
\ ` I 4 R _ 3Nn
3Nn z
I s \ IOHLNW W IDHLNOO
g ~ 1Wy
\ ■
/ I % %'�"'� / / j \\\\ m "■ I \ til ��
Muc4 :AH 03110ld 90-I1-k0 �31VO 101d
6-P'ZHWl0d-ZO\S133HS\dVW1\OMO\6Z 1990\90603\:N :3WVN ON IMVHO
p a
I c •
`f.
sY3YYVldI ss6t3wngl fiY33Mi6Y3 VINNOdfIVO ALNnOO V43YiV-IV AANnoo V1S00 vdINOO m-fi21990-Na°r
(xv3)6622-006/926 NV
31JNiavdD S1, °Addy E
Y (lit)'X3383DOZZ-Iwo `l' dv yn ^ V a J WV31 Wd uMolp i
W 96S96 YO'%3M 1nN1VM S3WOH Qa Y�l,Gll IOJ 3N)Y HQOa Q�SI7 WV3L -1--S
u-1--S p,
002 3 ms is nroW W1aoN«cz 1969 NOISIAICIOnS NVId 1N3WdO13A34 "IHNIj aNV d` A 3AIlb1N31 °JN MA nMOHS 6V of°=5
m .wY '=6 90/mh.I°p 6
0
� n
g m
;
\% L I uC z
_ N §
n n
tt
Ic 8�
1 I ^
tg 'lY ng IIk
„r
dP
—
I '
I�fiIt u
Rarx
kit
It
tit
%at
I rm 33 lYnw
/ I \ n I
J
,. A a�y, tri` �It m m - I �', .. W� ,t �� •V A -(;.
'b � / �° � / mg \ \ � Iia ^ I ` ° •`" ��
.4
1-4 A6 031101d 90-I1-40 :31V0 i0ld"
6nP'0vilnj-£0\S133HS\dMADMO\6ZI990\906u3\;M ;3WVN 9NIMV80}•
if
SHMNWldl su613/unsl ss33s 3 VIN2(OdiIVO AiN/f100 V03AYIV /''� )1Nf100 ViS00 VHLNOO 01-6ZI990 oN 9°f
(xv 66ZZ-OY6/SZ6 N Y Id Dari lI 1 Stl Gwa�ddy E
Y
631 OOZZ-OY6/SZ6 ■.■ Wtl31 Wd ux.ol"G
°°z L185S416yNV Haa N"��Z S3NOH (iuv kimn66 3NIVHGO9 - 4131d Wy31 Wdu6,sa0
m
1969 NOISW49f1S NVId 1N3 4413AK IVNI3 (INV dVA MO NK DMIS3A 6y.I°'S '
B 90/LO/h a�o0
>
A i
W � °1 \ '
41
as Z1
as
1A Q
•• c
gy I —y
\ I
I
Imo, I' I I li I II
B itl007
OS t
i
41
�luoy :'a 03110ld 00-{1-r0 :31tl0 land �
6nP'1NYlOd-40\S133HS\dVW1\OMO\eZ ISSO\506 3\N 3NVN ONIMV8G
L990 oN qo
c 6tl3YYy1 dl stltluntln sl W33Y16tl] dlNiiOdlltlO 1.1Nf100 V03W`dlV .11Nl10o V1S0o V2llN0O 01-6ZS8 Waiddy b �'
a6zZ o: sie �r SNO1103S SSOHO ONlat/»J WV31 rid....,a
1+3 96548 V0'N33L0 1fINNM ■■ SW40H (38v kiano0 3NI`dH008 — al31d WV31 Nd-61--
0 o,
o0Z 31105 15 N(VW H18 L£LZ N 1969 NOISIAlasnS Nbld 1NWM013A3o IVNId aNd dVY4 3AIld1N31 JNIIS3A NMpHs sy =s
Y
B
�NEFA�
ddtlo=$
b'64 pp
N
i'LS 9'Bi
9 SS
6'lb
b'f9
N 966
a l9 n N
6'LC + I I fil9E N
n
0'lb N
o
M s
+
Z'L4 N
9 Oi Q g ` gi m I'64 V
o
6'fC n N c U do d EES 0CAI W
U
roc g N
L'9Z
e'sz ± o s'Es
o
L bZ +
L'lZ ` E'fS
� oo b'lZ
Z'LL
0
- — 6'61 + J g
9'EL o m . g $ Lcs
S'L1 ii
NI o I B'Bl
IW
m e ♦ N ny 0 O g
Q
4
H :AB 0311080 90-11-b0 31 V0 1080
6MP'SXW1O3-So\5I33133H5\dVWl\OMO\6Z ISSO\S06u3\:N :3VIVN ON IMVEIO
•
°i sn3nnn al sn6a3nnn Sl in33nlnn3 VIN2i0dfIV0 - A1Nh00 V03WVlV A1NWO V1S00 V81N00
Ot-6ZlSS0 ON 9%' _.
Sa P—ddy a C,
o. fi6LZ-046/SL6 S�I Y �Nla Y a� E
(l3l 00ZZ-046/SZ6 Wy3L wd uxw0 i
W 96946 vo'N338o inNlyM ■■ SMOH aavklafl0O 3NIVHa013 — a-131:1 - wy31 Hdu61aa0 0,
ooL Suns'as Nlyw H1aoN cca �1 m 1968 NOISIAIaenS NYld 1N3WdO13A34 7VNId (INV dVW 3AIlV1N31 EMMA
""0HS 6y`low
eo/m/4 visa a
3F „e
]6
ww
F
0
a 010
¢3 z
N I
1�
F r{
P
OB- AEl
z3
yPy
o
W � I
a
e,L
I
'lu-I A6 031101. 90-11-40 :31yO 101d i
6MP'10W10d-90\S133HS\dywl\0M0\621990\506-3\:n :3wVN ONIMYUO....
•
sn3nnr141 sn6A3wnSl 9n33n19n3 VIN210-4I1V0 .11N(100 Ya3WVlV .l-LN1100 V1S00 V2tiN00
m-6u"o cN w
P (%r3)66ZZ-046/SZ6 siivl3a aadklanoo wOidkl SH°°°° 0 E
C (l31 OOZZ-068/SZ6 j M 41 .n� Wya Ad uro�0
w 965.6 rJ'H3WS 1NN1rM S3WOH aliV) lanOp 3NI1/Ha08 — a131d Wy3 Ad u61ca0 c
Y ooz 311ns is NnW H ON Hca 1969 NOISIAKIMS NV1d IMMO-13AM -lVNW aNV dVW 3AIlV1N3l DMISM NM°Hs sr"o'S.�
m 9oRo/ro»oa�
r-1 �ii I i
r�o gad. �EIF.ffrn���u� .s X10 MM0
Ix _ � Ix y Ix y I Q I I� •I I I
'I
A ''
s5
' 1h
x. 9 d .:_ �..._ O U
— `— U -- —
j)Jii
a YC
A
30�VW YBI � Ss 55
00+', ISIS 3LV/lkld 0®i+yJ�a OpI+S V 1�tl15 31VAkid 0 +9 M
\�
HWSS cq
9_
^%
ieq
911
.s `� �Mffk to
n 0.
I•1 I
L 9 i I N
.08l' `�y S �j r� 1N3rv35tl3 �g - N I
�^W3i 3 F JIN3J5 Zt
C
o`ot o 1 3 OC 9ci I N 3va N I U
.Q ia9 O
— .6S .�• in 1 I 3lld 3(id
6`_
77777
\x /
�k (.
I n v mus MAW a� �� ��� V iMULS 31rnuw i
00 bS 0 �9 00+s 00'09
ONn1aVd �� "
El
huD4 a 031101d 90-t1-60 :31V0 l01d
/ 6-. loW103-zo\s133HS\dvni\oma\621550\S06u3\:H :3WVN ONIMVda
CM3MYVldl SHOA36MMS1 MINION VINNojnVO A1N(WO V03WVIV ki Nnoo V1S00 VLLLNOO ol-6ZL990•N a°r L
c SM Pw°�ddy ° �.
66ZZ-OY6/CZ6 SNOUMNO0 DMISIX3 y
(13I)OOZZ-ptb/p7.6 ■ J o 7 H J WY31 Wd unP,p§
1J
969Y6 Y7'M33N01f1NlYM S3WOH aavilanoo 3NIVH409 — a13ld WV31 Wd u6lcop°,
OR 311f15"15 NIYW H1NON LfLl
�"° OD
1969 NOISIAI09nS NY-1d 1N3Wd0�3A30 lvmj aNV dVW 3AUV1N31 DWS3AIKO
�tio
ck—
,
sE
11 I
� "6�\ I �•0 4 •d I cS��y" �ggF �� �i
I
\t
h _ ♦\
b �• s
aw
\\ 4 Q X g
fI
g 3 g<yyg w 434- �a sggIpj�gg �Sul�=��:
F I g k�dE: ...$5i•
'° '� I , � $ I __i_——1 r--- I it Ij®•s�®�aeteee�a���4�akv�o�da���=��eniiJ
� � b� •I @ I'-' I I jllllll�l
F..
' I
NCg I I I
I
C'q \ \ jl a •o V1GV� I �• � ® r
y1
,;1 I` \
JM 0
44
\ I
M—q :AB 031101d 80-I I-YO :31YO101d,
6.P'X3W103-80\S133HS\dVW1\• \6ZICCO\C06u3\:M ;3WVN ON IMVMO•
1
,
S213NNYld/SNOA3N1f1S15i533N1`JN3 VIM0JI1V0 kLNnOO V43ViY1V )dNnoo VLSOO V?;UNOD OL-6Z tNSp ON 9W�
oiddV
aV3)66ZZ-016/SZ6 (.LgVa) 1N31N3AOadWI 3OVNIVda V48O1S klNno:) 5"""...
(l3l OOZZ-046/SZ6 WV31 Ad 6!--Q i
96riS548 VO')13363 1nWYM ■ WV3l Ad V albaS i a
o9z 3 96*6 NIVW uaoN cca \I SMOH" advAia(1O0 3NIVHaOS - 4131d
1968 NOISIAIaenS NVId 1N3INd0'13A3a -IVNId aNV dVW 3A11VA31 MUS A -OHS se =6 . °'
'�sN�d 90/LO/90100 0
z
0
0,
0
N W m
z N
Z Q
W
W 0
� O
>Q
O Z C'
�Q CO
�Dr
— m
r W
Q O n
'o 0 Q
rIa
Z C1
Z O
oZ
aw
Zoe
Oo> 1a c d
o�
O N U C
w
zmm
w � i
O O cr Z J
z w Q J
i 1 I
k
I _
w
a
A UJ
�
1
/ F d
r i
w J L O
I! N tilco
N co
CD
I 1,
W
a \
r-
r O
I
i
O(N!I OJT
/ 1l z 4 yo,c
X =
i
I as
4
•_ L E.
N
2 a z
cr
o" a
N
o
0
a
w
0
z
LJ
>
J
U
U
N
UOID A8 031101d 90-ZI-40 :31VO 101d
6.p'L9VGr(1DA-60\S133HS\d"1\9M0\6ZISS0\906p3\:N ;3WVN 9NIW80
i
i 9$4,r
BLUM 'RD
i
co
y
� z
1
t
• 7 {r y' 1F'k h:
"*,.a,
VVVVV-
t
S
�1
`.F
�1
f
C�
►► .
t
� e
•
•
i
1
numv Iss+nsIV auwwt l LWW vim v31M o+ +man 9v .
(�cv�cv am-Owns sr O)
gas"va it nvu Ili "
MWIS ns ORwmx era t� ! 1989'NOISIA M IS Nnd 1NMdOMMO TVM aW AM 3ALLVIN31 O L RA ew�°d6+r�s
air
IS;z—
�c .�• o,_ :# ppb '� , : �Q: t'a
•r � �..wr+.►nnnom f � a�Ii
EL ��•�
adOY �
W 9 0
Y _ !
�.
CID
its
1
Fla Iloom
ral a b
in
CL
fill fillar'.1na;
<U) c4filo
�! a
ZRIM
W- gill
,1. y • ( 1
b 1 jill 111,111#111
, r a
- CL
l+ 6l®84�93 � 000000a �, a
LIJ
0 �0
0.
Cy 0
+
I�
W5 ERI i 1 11101911
—j LLLL
� •I�" b
1 =
i �Aww i4v,.-Qw
tat/
Eli00 M i3L
, a
w v
Ln Lin 160
c:1 CD CD W
mr -�
1
Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC To cctlegals@cctimes.com
11/01/2006 09:43 AM cc _ Ryan A Hernandez/CD/CCC@CCC
w
4 bcc
Subject Publication Request-Loving&Campos Architects, Inc.
Hi Anashia,
Please publish the attached legal notice in the CCTimes: Loving & Campos
Architects, Inc.
One day only, Saturday, November 4, 2006
Reference PO#: 2020
Please confirm receipt of request.
Should you have any questions, please call me at the number listed below.
Thank you,
Kathy Sinclair
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
925.335.1902
Laving-Campos-111406.doc
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.) ✓�
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Contra Costa
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years,
and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled
matter.
I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times,
a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published
at 2640 Shadelands Drive in the City of iWalnut Creek,
County of Contra Costa, 94598.
And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of
general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
Contra Costa, State of California, under the date of
October 22, 1934. Case Number 19764.
The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in
type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in
each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not
in any suppiornent thereu.on the following:dates, to-wit:
Nov 4,
all in the year of 2006
1 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Execut,4 at W naf'—OrCreek, California.
On tW day of November, 2006
c
................................................................................
Signature
Contra Costa Times
P O Box 4147
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(925) 935-2525
Proof of Publication of:
(attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that
published)
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC -
HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
MARTINEZ AREA 1
NOTICE is hereby given
that on November 14,
2006, at 1:00 pm, in the
County Administration
Building, 651 Pine Street,
(Corner of Pine and Esco-
bar Streets), Martinez,
California, the Contra
Costa County Board of
Supervisors will hold a
Public hearing to consid- -
er the following planning
matter:
Hearing on the County
Planning Commission's
recommendation to ap-
prove the applications of
Loving & Campos Archi-
tects Inc. (Applicant)
Field Brothers & Randal
Bodhaine(Owners)for:
A Rezoning to establish a
preliminary development
Plan, superseding one
that has expired, for 89-
homes within an existing
Planned Unit District (P-
1),County File#RZ453158
and;
Approve the request for a
final development plan to
establish 89 single-family
residences an the 9.3-
acre property that in-
cludes the removal of 46
trees. County File
#DP053027
Thelocation of the sub-
lect property is within the
unincorporated territory
of the County of Contra
Costa County, State of
California,generally iden-
tified below(a more pre-
cise description may be
examined in the Office of
the Director of Communi-
ty Development, County
Administration Building,
Martinez,California):
The location of the sub-
Lect site is 4755 and 4781
pPacheco Boulevard in the
Martinez area.
For the purposes of com-
pliance with the provi-
sions of the California En-
vironmental. Act
(CEQA),A Mitigated Neg-
ative Declaration of Envi-
ronmental Significance
(no Environmental Impact
Report required) has
been issued for this proj-
ect.
If you challenge this mat.
ter in Court,you may be
limited to raising only
those issues you or
someone else raised at
the public hearing descri.
bed at the public hearing
described in this notice,
or in written correspond-
ence delivered to the
County at,or prior to,the
public hearing.
Prior to the hearing,Com-
munity Development De-
partment staff will be
available on Tuesday,No.
vember 14, 2006 at 12:30
pm,in Room 108,Admin-
istration Building, 651
Pine Street, Martinez, to
meet with any interested
Parties in order to(1)an-
swer questions; (2) re-
view the hearing proce-
dures used by the Board;
i3) clarify the issues be-
ing considered by the
♦ +
Board;and(4)provide an
opportunity to Identify,
resolve, or narrow any
differences which remain
in dispute. If you wish to
attend this meeting with
staff, Please call Ryan
Hernandez at 925-335-
1206, Community Devel-
oPment Department, by
3:00 pm on Monday, No-
vember 13, 2006 t0 con-
firm your participation.
Date:October 31,2006
John Cullen,Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By Katherine Sinclair,
Deputy Clerk
Legal CCT 7029
Publish November 4,2006
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
MARTINEZ AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on November 14, 2006, at 1:00 pm, in the County Administration Building,
651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter:
Hearing on the County Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the applications
of Loving & Campos Architects Inc. (Applicant) Field Brothers & Randal Bodhaine
(Owners) for:
A Rezoning to establish a preliminary development plan, superseding one that has
expired, for 89-homes within an existing Planned Unit District (P-1), County File
#RZ053158 and;
Approve the request for a final development plan to establish 89 single-family residences on
the 9.3-acre property that includes the removal of 46 trees. County File#DP053027
The location of the subject;property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa
County, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in
the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez,
California):
The location of the subject site is 4755 and 4781 Pacheco Boulevard in the Martinez area.
For the purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no Environmental Impact Report
required) has been issued for this project.
If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to,the public hearing.
Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday,November
14, 2006 at 12:30 pm, in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez,to meet with any
interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board;
(3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve, or
narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call
Ryan Hernandez at 925-335-1206, Community Development Department, by 3:00 pm on Monday,
November 13, 2006 to confirm your participation.
Date: October 31, 2006
John Cullen, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By
Katherine mclair,Deputy Clerk
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
IN THE MATTER OF: Hearing on the County Planning Commission's recommendation to
approve the applications of Loving& Campos Architects Inc. (Applicant) Field Brothers &
Randal Bodhaine (Owners).
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a
citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited Certified Mail with Contra
Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez,
California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice, on the above entitled
matter to the following:
Please See Attached List
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez,
California.
Dated: November 2, 2006 ,
Kat erine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk
159220003 159220006 159220008
MYERS KAVEN G & CAROLYNE L WATSON TODD & KARENC TRE GRIMES MARJORIE ANNTRE
8282 KOBERT RD 114 BATES CT 4795 PACHECO BLVD
WINTERS CA95694 ORINDA CA94563 MARTINEZ CA94553
159220011 159220012 159220015
BARTLETT RICHARD J GRIMES MARJORIE ANNTRE GRIMES MARJORIE ANNTRE
4791 PACHECO BLVD 4795 PACHECO BLVD 4795 PACHECO BLVD
MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553
159230002 159230003 159230004
FIELD BROTHERS BODHAINE RANDALL C & C I TRE JANIN ASSOCIATES INC
1187 CAMINO VALLECITO PO BOX 23366 957 STOW LN
LAFAYETTE CA94549 PLEASANT HILL CA94523 LAFAYETTE CA94549
159230005 159230006 159240006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CHURCH OF GOD AT MARTINEZ JANIN ASSOCIATES LLC
PO BOX 722 4769 PACHECO BLVD 957 STOW LN
SAN BRUNO CA94066 MARTINEZ CA94553 LAFAYETTE CA94549
159240007 159240008 159240009
GAFFNEY GLADE &JOAN TRE COLA SALVATORE &ALLENE COLA ANTHONY&ALICE TRE
1049 PEBBLE BEACH DR 4683 PACHECO BLVD 4685 PACHECO BLVD
CLAYTON CA94517 MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553
159240010 161021009 161022001
ANSELMO MICHAEL JR & BRADDOCK & LOGAN ASSOCIATES NAREZ RICHARD S
ROSEANNE PO BOX 5300 2504 ROLLING HILLS CT
4687 PACHECO BLVD DANVILLE CA94526 ALAMO CA94507
MARTINEZ CA94553
161261004 161262009 161262014
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ERDEI VICTOR N KOCH EUGUENE R & DARLENE G
1220 MORELLO AVE#100 4736 PACHECO BLVD 4754 PACHECO BLVD
MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553
161262015 161262021 161262022
GUNSUL THOMAS KNOBLOCH ROBERT & CHRISTINE OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC
4754 PACHECO BLVD 4734 PACHECO BLVD 2001 WINWARD WAY#200
MARTINEZ CA94553 MARTINEZ CA94553 SAN MATEO CA94404
161262023 161270011 161570001
OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC KELLEHER WILLIAM J H & B PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LLC
2001 WINWARD WAY#200 906 HARBOR VIEW DR 1306 MASTERSON LN
SAN MATEO CA94404 MARTINEZ CA94553 LAFAYETTE CA94549
161570002 161570003 161570004
H & B PROPEERTY SOLUTIONS LLC H & B PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LLC H &B PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LLC
1306 MASTERSON LN 1306 MASTERSON LN 1306 MASTERSON LN
LAFAYETTE CA94549 LAFAYETTE CA94549 LAFAYETTE CA94549
F
�J
Building Inspection Environmental Health P/W Engineering Services
*** Interoffice*** *** Interoffice*** *** Interoffice***
Darwin Myers
P/W Flood Control CC Fire District Community Development
*** Interoffice*** *** Interoffice*** 651 Pine St., 2nd FI. NW
*** Interoffice***
Historical Resources Information
Sheriff's Office System Mt. View Sanitary District
Admin. & Community Services Northwest Information Center P.O. Box 2757
*** Interoffice*** 1303 Maurice Avenue Martinez, CA 94553
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Contra Costa Water District Martinez Unified School District City of Martinez
P.O. Box H2O 921 Susana Street 525 Henrietta Street
Concord, CA 94524 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553
Pacheco MAC Department of Transportation Loving & Campos
5800 Pacheco Blvd. CALTRANS 245 Ygnacio Valley Rd.
Pacheco, CA 94553 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Field Brothers Randal Bodhaine
11 Embarcadero West#125 P.O. Box 23366
Oakland, CA 94607 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
33 u5