Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11062007 - D.2 i TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY AICP '' ��.:,:._:: �- Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ``�' County DATE: November 6, 2007 SUBJECT: Hearing on an Appeal Filed by Save Mt. Diablo of a County Planning Commission Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to Subdivide 2.2 acres located at#570 Pine Creek Road,in the Walnut Creek/North Gate area. (Alex & Darlene MacDonald— Applicants & Owners), County File #MS05-0045 (Sup. Dist. III) Letter from Appellant Withdrawing Appeal SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion accepting the October 31, 2007 letter from Save Mt. Diablo withdrawing its appeal of the County Planning Commission approval of minor subdivision County File#MS05-0045,thereby allowing the Planning Commission approval decision to stand as rendered. II. FISCAL IMPACT: -,None. The Applicant is responsible for fees covering staff time and material costs in the processing of the application an elated appeals. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE �/ APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): , ACTION OF BOA N A/i�(l l .�dD .7 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED O�FiER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT/�40k� CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND A ES: NOES:- ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Rose Marie Pietras (925)335-1216 ATTESTED JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: Community Development Department(orig.) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Alex MacDonald Save Mt. Diablo Public Works Dept., Eng. Serv. Div. BY. ,DEPUTY County Counsel November 6,2007 Board of Supervisors File#MS05-0045 Page 2 III. BACKGROUND On October 31, 2005,the owners of a 2.2 acre parcel in the Walnut Creek/North Gate area, Alex and Darlene MacDonald, filed an application to subdivide the site into two parcels. After conducting a noticed public hearing,on December 18, 2006, the Zoning Administrator approved the subdivision, subject to conditions. Following the decision, the group, Save Mt. Diablo, filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator decision. On August 28, 2007, the County Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals, conducted a hearing on the appeal. After completing the hearing, the Commission voted unanimously to sustain the decision of the Zoning Administrator, and denied the appeal from Save Mt. Diablo. Following the decision of the Planning Commission, Save Mt. Diablo filed an appeal of the Commission's decision. IV. PREPARATION FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION The Board of Supervisors hearing on the appeal was scheduled for November 6, 2007. Notices of the hearing and a staff report on the appeal have been issued. V. WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL In a letter dated October 31, 2007, Save Mt. Diablo has withdrawn its appeal. VI. DISCUSSION There having been no other appeal filed on the County Planning Commission decision,the withdrawal of'the appeal causes the County Planning Commission decisior.to approve the proposed subdivision to stand as rendered. GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Board\Board Orders\ms05-0045-b.bo.doc "y1UC:1 1 E01-dY' '11 IYHM "CCU C;UMMUNI I UEVELUNMENT DEFT —"' " --NU•.124 H.f� r'IS 'IL yi: SII ,17'7+' a• F• �' •.0��: �p 1�L Y IY•` '` I • v- �L - I� �u,,r,'1• •L � -S Q ?7e • Board of Direerors Maleoli+l S(71"r�ui Prr•sidrur October 31,2007 Arthur Sunwi ll Allen Pr2ger Rose Marie Pietras,Planner it+cc PI'r aIrlPrrts Contra Costa County David Tmaer Community Developinent Department SCCIYKfl1)• 651 Pine Street,4"'dour Frani;Viirenchik Martinez,CA 94533 Tr easrrrer 9111,1 pls•lzr Re: Withdrawal of Save Mount Diablo's Appeal Dan de FFremery MS050045, MacDonald Property,APN- 138-230-028 Dr1na Dorn.gUc Applicant: Alex MacDonald Churla Gaben r Claudia Hein Dear Rose Marie, Sear;Hein Michaeltecock please be advised that Save Mount Diablo has-elected to withdraw its;3 eal of the David Hu;t..d pp John Mrretirio Planning Commission's decision regarding this applieatioq. Amtua 1\inrri�on David SaleenL Save Mount Diablo's decision is based upon East Bay Regional Park District's decision Sharon Walter; w open a trail from Castle Rock to Northgate Road. In light oflltis,SIAD initiated a new Dircc'rur•s Staff investigation into the amount and accessibility of public trails ill this area. Ronald Bruur+, Based upon that investigation,we be]ieve that this specific area has adequate public trail Execlrrire Wrec'rar access and that a trail reservation or easement in connection with this application is not Seth Adams necessary at this time. We expect to continue to seek a trail along Nortltgate Road,and O;rerron Land Programs one across the Mt.Diablo Gateway properly. Accordingly,SMA is electing to withdraw Ntonica E.Oct its appeal" Finance d. �Idn,;��,trirrrire Marrrrccr if you should have any further questions,please feel free to contact mer" Jnlic 5ccicn nr,alnprnr++r:1�r+,+.,x�� Sincerely, ffailing Adrlrcrs 1901 Olympic Blvd.,#220 Walnut Creek.CA 94596 "fel,(925)947-3535 Seth Adams 131:(915)X147-0642- Director of Land Programs lYehrhe �cu'n'.su�•enlu+,n/rliahJu rng; CC; Alex MacDonald Residents, Pine Creek Road Fua,rrlcac Jim Townsend, EBRPb A1'JpUr Rr,rm•rrll �Llcu;r L. Buu•rrnrmr . TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR `'' County ,r'a l'l1V` DATE: November 6, 2007 SUBJECT: Hearing on an Appeal Filed by Save Mt. Diablo of a County Planning Commission Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to Subdivide 2.2 acres, located at#570 Pine Creek Road, in the Walnut Creek/North Gate Area. (Alex MacDonald — Applicant & Owner), County File #MS05-0045 (Sup. Dist. III) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATION — After accepting any public testimony and closing the hearing on this appeal, adopt a motion: a. FINDING that on the basis of the whole record before the County, including public comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the proposed Negative Declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis; CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER 9�,� SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BO R ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS \ATTESTED THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: HE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: HE DATE SHOWN Contact: Rose Marie Pietras(925)335-1216 JOHN CULLEN, CLE OF THE BOARD OF cc: Community Development(orig.) SUPERVISORS AND COU ADMINISTRATOR Alex MacDonald Save Mt. Diablo Public Works Dept., Eng.Serv. Div. BY 'DEPUTY County Counsel November 6, 2007 Board of Supervisors File#MS05-0045(MacDonald) Page 2 b. ADOPTING the proposed Negative Declaration determination for purposes of satisfying the project's review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); c. SUSTAINING the County Planning Commission's approval of Minor Subdivision File #MS05-0045, as conditioned; d. DENYING the appeal of Save Mt. Diablo; e. ADOPTING the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution #19-2007 as the basis for the Board's decision. f. DIRECTING staff to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. II. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The Applicant is responsible for fees covering staff time and material costs in the processing of the application and related appeals. III. BACKGROUND The applicant is attempting to subdivide a 2.2 acre parcel located along the east side of Pine Creek. at the confluence with Borges Creek, in the Walnut Creek/North Gate area. The property contains an existing residence. The proposal would create a new vacant parcel on the north side of the site. To accommodate the subdivision, the applicant is proposing to remove an existing barn. This area in which the property is located is rural residential in character with several commercial equestrian facilities. Parcel sizes range from 5 acres to approximately one-quarter of an acre. Only a portion of the area lies within the service area of a community sewer agency, Central Sanitary District. Some developed properties rely on individual onsite septic systems. A. General Plan The General Plan designates the site Single Family Residential — Very Low Density (0.2 —0.9 unit per net acre). B. North Gate Specific Plan and Requested Exception to Sewer Connection Policy In 1991, the Board of Supervisors and the City Council of the City of Walnut Creek jointly adopted the North Gate Specific Plan. That Plan provides for development standards to control development within an unincorporated area lying between the City and the'north gate kiosk entrance to Mt. Diablo State Park. The Plan provides for a Trails Plan., protection of equestrian facilities and uses, design standards for residential development, and infrastructure development standards. In some instances (e.g., maximum residential • \I November 6, 2007 Board of Supervisors File#MS05-0045(MacDonald) Page 3 building height, minimum yards), the standards of the Specific Plan exceed (i.e., more restrictive than) those of the County zoning regulations. Along creeks, the "usable" area of a proposed parcel must be at least 30,000 square feet.' The Plan also allows for the granting of exceptions to plan policies where it is demonstrated that compliance would result in an undue hardship. The site lies within the area covered by the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan designates the site Single Family Residential — Very Low Density, which corresponds to the General Plan designation with the same name. Sewer Connection Requirement and Requested Exception The Plan requires that all new residential development shall be connected to public sewers and public water supply. The applicant is proposing connections to Contra Costa Water District for water supply, but is requesting an exception to the sewer connection requirement. C. Zoning Regulations The site is zoned Single Family Residential, R-40 (min. 40,000 square foot parcel size required). This zoning allows a single family residence on each parcel. D. Floodplain Management Considerations for the Western Portion of the Site The western portion of the site that encompasses a portion of the creekbed and adjoining creekbank area is subject to periodic flooding. In recognition of this risk,the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)has designated this portion (western third of the site) as lying within a Special Flood Hazard Area (Area "A"). Any development that is proposed within this area must comply with the requirements of the Floodplain Management Ordinance (Chapter 8228). Habitable development in this portion of the site may be permitted, but usually must be elevated above the Base Flood Elevation, plus a freeboard factor. E. Nearby Mt. Diablo Gateway Property "Usable"area requires that the area subject to creek structure setback and road right-of-way dedication requirements be deducted from the area of the parcel. November 6, 2007 Board of Supervisors File#MS05-0045(MacDonald) Page 4 The Mt. Diablo Gateway Property (aka Flood Control District's Pine Creek Surplus Property)is located approximately 200 feet to the northeast of the site. IV. RECEIPT OF APPLICATION AND INITIAL PROCESSING The applicant filed this application with the County on October 31, 2005. With the exception of the requested exception to the sewer connection requirement; the project is consistent with all of the policies of the Specific Plan and General Plan and complies with applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. A. Sewage Disposal Considerations In a letter dated February 16, 2007,the only nearby community sewer agency, Central Sanitary District, indicates that the site is within the District's Sphere of Influence, but outside of the District's service area. Moreover, wastewater utility service is not currently available to the project site,and service will not be available for the foreseeable future due to topographic limitations and the distance to the nearest suitable sewer. On the other hand, in a transmittal dated November 22, 2005, the Environmental Health Department indicates that it is working with the applicant to provide an onsite wastewater treatment (septic) system. B. Environmental Review Following receipt of the application, the County conducted an initial study of the project to determine if it might result in any significant effects to the environment. Staff concluded that the project would not result in any significant effects and issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for the project for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), and posted said Notice on August 2,2006, and allowed for receipt of public comments extending to September 1, 2006. C. Zoning Administrator Hearing and Decision, and Appeal of that Decision On September 25, 2006, staff scheduled a hearing on the application before the Zoning Administrator,and recommended approval of the project. It should be noted that the staff report from that hearing indicates that staff had received a message from Save Mt. Diablo indicating that that group had no objection to the project. The hearing was continued several times. While the matter was before the Zoning Administrator, Save Mt. Diablo changed its view of the project. It urged the County to allow for dedication of a trail along the creekbank of the project. Finally, on December 18, 2006, after November 6, 2007 Board of Supervisors " File#MS05-0045 (MacDonald) Page 5 allowing for public testimony and closing the hearing,the Zoning Administrator approved the project, subject to conditions, but without the trail dedication sought by Save Mt. Diablo. Following that decision, in a letter dated December 18, 2006, Save Mt. Diablo filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator decision. The appeal objected to the County's environmental review, that it did not take into adequate consideration impacts on protected species (California Red Legged Frog), or nearby park and recreation facilities, the public utility policy of the Specific Plan, or providing for requested trail facilities. The group is seeking to develop a trail linkage from Shell Ridge (to the southwest) to the Mt. Diablo Gateway property that is located to the northeast of the site. D. Additional Environmental Review Prior to Hearing of Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision In view of the concerns raised in the appeal, staff deemed it appropriate to allow for additional investigation of possible biotic effects of the project before scheduling the appeal for hearing before the County Planning Commission. The applicant submitted a biotic resources evaluation of the project that was prepared by Wildlife Research Associates and dated May 10,2007 that reports that the biological consulting firm was unable to find any substantial evidence that the project would result in any significant effect to the California Red Legged Frog. The report was subsequently peer reviewed by the County biologist, Monk and Associates who concurred in the review by Wildlife Research Associates in a letter dated June 5, 2007. In view of this additional review, staff determined that there.was no substantial evidence to justify reconsideration of the CEQA determination of staff and the Zoning Administrator for the project. E. County Planning Commission Hearing and Decision Staff scheduled the hearing on the Save Mt. Diablo appeal on the project decision on the August 28, 2007 agenda of the County Planning Commission. The staff report reviewed the various appeal points, but concluded that none had merit and recommended that the Commission sustain the Zoning Administrator approval and to deny the appeal of Save Mt. Diablo. Staff noted that while the North Gate Specific Plan provides for trails, including trail facilities along some creeks, none are planned along this segment of Pine Creek, and saw no legal basis for imposing a trail dedication on this project. At the hearing, the Commission received testimony from the applicant, appellant, and other interested parties. After closing the hearing, the Commission concurred with staff. The Commission indicated that it saw no compelling need to provide an November 6, 2007 Board of Supervisors File#MS05-0045 (MacDonald) Page 6 equestrian trail through the MacDonald site; that if trail connections are sought, the Commission saw no reason why a trail could be planned to go around the property. and neighborhood, even if the trail length had to be increased by 1 — 2 miles. The Commission then unanimously voted to sustain the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project, and denied the appeal of. Save Mt. Diablo. (Terrell/Murray m/s/c; Clark, Snyder and Gaddis absent).: V. APPEAL OF COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION In a letter dated September 6, 2007, Save Mt. Diablo filed an appeal of the County Planning Commission decision. VI. APPLICANT WAIVER OF DEADLINE FOR SCHEDULING APPEAL HEARING Normally, the Government Code Section 66452.5 of the Subdivision Map Act requires that the County schedule a hearing of an appeal of a subdivision decision within thirty (30).days of the date that the appeal is filed (in this case, by October 6, 2007. Failure to schedule the hearing within this deadline might compel an automatic approval of the project as it was last approved without any consideration of the appeal of the Planning Commission decision. However, in a letter dated September 18, 2007, the applicant(Arlene MacDonald) agreed to waive this 30-day deadline. VII. POSITION OF THE CITY OF WALNUT CREEK ON THIS PROJECT In a letter dated January 10, 2006, the City commented on the project, but the City's comments gave more attention to whether an existing mature tree might be removed or preserved than indicated any concerns with the subdivision. The City indicated that the tree should remain in place pending processing of a parcel map and development of any architectural plans for a new residence. VIII. REVIEW OF APPEAL The points raised in the most recent appeal are nearly the same that were raised in the earlier appeal of the Zoning Administrator decision. The appeal points were addressed in the staff report to the Commission. Save Mt. Diablo is seeking a condition that would impose a floating trail easement over the property to assist in the creation of a trail connection that would join the.Shell Ridge Open Space area to the south with the Mt. Diablo Gateway property(Flood Control District's Pine Creek Surplus Property). November 6, 2007 Board of Supervisors File#MS05-0045 (MacDonald) Page 7 The Trails Plan in the North Gate Specific Plan does not provide for a planned trail through or touching on this site. Moreover, staff has raised concerns about potential damage to the creekbed if intense equestrian usage were proposed along the top of creekbank. More importantly, requiring this project to dedicate a trail would be contrary to the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court (Dolan v. City of Tigard). In that case, the Court ruled that development conditions placed on a discretionary permit must have a "rough proportionality' to the development's impact. In this case, Court held that a County (or City) must demonstrate a "required reasonable relationship" between the conditions to be imposed on a development permit and the development's impact. The sought for trail easement that would extend across the property would far exceed the impact of one additional residential parcel (even if it were to become an equestrian set- up). As a result, imposing the requested trail dedication condition may constitute a taking. If Save Mt. Diablo seeks to develop trails in the area, staff would encourage the group to consider formulation of plan that may be implemented by legally enforceable means. IX. CONCLUSION Staff finds no merit in the appeal. The Board should deny the appeal and sustain the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission's approval of this project. If the Board is inclined to.continue this matter, it should exercise caution before closing the hearing. Government Code Section 66452.5(d)(2) provides that upon conclusion of the hearing, the Board of Supervisors shall, within 10 days, declare its findings based upon the testimony and documents produced before it or before the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator. Failure to act within this timeframe may result in an automatic approval of the project as last approved [Government Code § 66452.5 (c)(2)] GACurrent Planning\curt-plan\Board\Board Orders\ms05-0045 10-22-07.bo.doc RMP\RD\ RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 19-2007 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND COMMISSION ACTION ON THE APPEAL OF SAVE MT. DIABLO ON A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FILED BY ALEX MACDONALD (APPLICANT AND OWNER) IN THE WALNUT CREEK/NORTH GATE AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, a request by Alex MacDonald (Applicant and Owner) to subdivide a 2.246-acre parcel into 2 single family residential parcels in the Walnut Creek/North Gate area was.received by the Community Development Department on October 31, 2005 (County File#MS050045); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15102 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), County staff.conducted an initial study to determine whether the project. would result in any potentially significant environmental impacts, and determined that the project would not result in a significant impact to the environment. Therefore, staff proposed the adoption of a Negative Declaration determination for the purpose of compliance with CEQA. A notice of intent to adopt the negative declaration was posted with the County Clerk on August 2, 2006 and otherwise noticed as required by law, and allowed for submission of public comments on the Notice until September 1, 2006; Included in the distribution list was the California Department of Fish and Game; and WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing. was initially scheduled before the Zoning Administrator on September 25, 2006, whereat the Zoning Administrator rescheduled this application from September 25, 2006, to October 23, 2006. Whereat, on October 17, 2006, the applicant contacted staff and requested a continuance. At the October 23, 2006 public hearing, the Zoning Administrator granted the applicant's request and continued the hearing to December 4, 2006. WHEREAS, at the December 4, 2006 Zoning Administrator hearing, after taking testimony, the Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and continued it to December 18, 2006 for decision. On December 18, 2006, the Zoning Administrator ADOPTED the proposed Negative Declaration determination as adequate for the purposes of compliance with CEQA and APPROVED the project for two (2) parcel subdivision as generally recommcnded.by staff; and FOUND that the proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and North Gate Specific Plan; but granted the requested exception to the policy of the North Gate Specific Plan that requires that new development connect to public sewers. WHEREAS, on December 19, 2006, Save Mt. Diablo, timely filed with the Community Development Department an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the tentative map for two parcels; said appeal faulted the decision insofar as: 1) it did not provide for dedication of a trail easement across the property that might Resolution No.19-2007 Appeal of Save Mt.Diablo.on County Planning Commission Approval of a Minor Subdivision County File#MS050045 - assist in the development of a envisioned trail connection between nearby public land use areas; 2)the adequacy of the environmental review process was challenged with regard to the possible presence of the California red-legged frog; 3) the granting of an exception to the North Gate Specific Plan's Public Utility Policy requiring all new residential development to have connection to public sewer; 4) North.Gate Specific Plan policies requiring compatibility between new residential development and existing uses such as equestrian,recreational and agricultural; and WHEREAS, after notice was given as lawfully required, a public hearing on the appeal of Save Mt. Diablo was held before the County Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals, on Tuesday, August 28, 2007; -after accepting testimony, the Commission closed the hearing; WHEREAS, Commissioner Terrell indicated that he saw no legal basis for the County to require a trail dedication across the site, and that if trail advocates wished to develop a trail they may need to plan a trail around development in the neighborhood even if it means a much longer route; Commissioner :Murray expressed concern that the proposed trail along the top of creekbank could damage the creekbank and cause erosion of soils into the creek, and encouraged Save Mt. Diablo to find a more feasible alternative route; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all evidence submitted and testimony presented to the Commission on this matter-, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission finds on the basis of the whole record before it, including public comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the proposed Negative Declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission adopts the. proposed Negative Declaration determination for purposes of meeting this project's review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission SUSTAINS the Zoning.Administrator approval of the Vesting Tentative Map and Grants the requested exception to the North Gate Specific Plan public sewer connection policy; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission DENIES the appeal of Save Mt. Diablo; Res-2 Resolution No.19-2007 Appeal of Save Mt. Diablo. on County Planning Commission Approval of a Minor Subdivision County File#MS050045 - BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission FINDS that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan based on the following findings: A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated one additional AM and PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. 2. Drainage and Flood Control: Condition #41 requires that the applicant collect and convey all storm waters entering or originating within the project to an adequate natural water course having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storni drainage facility which conveys to storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance. The parcel map may not be filed until the collect and convey requirements and improvements have been met. 2. Water and Wastewater Disposal: The project lies within the service area . of the Contra Costa Water District. The domestic water supply will be provided by connection to the District water lines. The existing residence has an onsite individual wastewater(septic) system. The subdivision approval requires that before the applicant records a parcel map, Environmental Health must pass on the feasibility of a separate onsite wastewater system for the new vacant parcel that is being created, Parcel B. 4. Fire Protection: Prior to the approval of a Parcel 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 7 located at 1050 Walnut Avenue, Walnut Creek. 5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station per 1,000 population. The small Population increase associated with this project is not significant. Prior to approval of the Parcel Map, the applicant is required to establish a police service tax district to mitigate the impacts of the development on police services. 6. Parks and Recreation: The proposed project will have a minor cumulative effect on demand for park and recreation facilities, and is subject to Res-3 Resolution.No.19-2007 Appeal of Save Mt. Diablo.on County Planning Commission Approval of a Minor Subdivision County File#MS050045 - payment of park dedication fees in the amount of$2,000.00 per residential parcel to mitigate impacts. B. Findings for the Exception from the North Gate Specific Plan Policy for the connection to public utilities. 1. Required Finding: The applicant shall demonstrate undue hardship as a result of the application of the regulations and the City or County shall be required to make the following finding :Project Finding — The Central Sanitary District indicates that the site is well outside of the District's service area, and that the District cannot foresee when the site would be annexed into the District due to its distance from the District boundaries. To deprive this project of a subdivision when a workable onsite wastewater (septic) system may be feasible would constitute an undue hardship against this property. C. Finding for Approval of a Tentative Map 1. 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. Project Finding: The project is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan. and North Gate Specific Plan. The land use designation is Single Family Residential — very Low Density, which allows 0.2 - 0.9 units per net acre. The proposed division of this 2.25-acre parcel into two parcels is consistent with this density range. The project is similarly consistent with the policies of the North Gate Specific Plan. 2. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a. tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Project Findin, : The project is conditioned to require both acceptable drainage facilities and access improvements. The.instructions by the County Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the County Planning Commission on August 28, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners-Terrell, Murray Battaglia, and Wong. NOES: Commissioners—None. Res-4 Resolution No.19-2007 Appeal of Save Mt. Diablo. on County Planning Commission Approval of a Minor Subdivision 0 County File#MS050045 - ABSTAIN: Commissioners—None. ABSENT: Commissioners—Clark, Snyder and Gaddis. HYMAN WONG, Chairman County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California 1, Dennis M. Barry, AICP, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on August 28, 2007. ATTEST: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP, Secretary County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California WICurrent Planning\curr-plan\Board\Rcsolutions\res.ms050045.10.22.07.doc RMP\RD Res-5 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE MAP COUNTY FILE #MS050045 IN THE NORTH GATE AREA OF WALNUT. CREEK AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON AUGUST 28, 2007 A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1: Traffic: The project will generate an estimated one additional AM and one PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a.traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. 2. Drainage and Flood Control: Condition 4417 #42 requires that the applicant collect and convey all stone waters entering or originating within the project to an adequate natural water course having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys to storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance. The parcel map may not be filed until the collect and convey requirements and improvements have been met. 3. Water and Waste Disposal: The project site is within Castle Rock District service area. No comments were received from the district. The applicant is requesting an exception from connecting to public services for sanitation. The applicant has submitted a letter from the Central Sanitary :District dated December 15, 1986, that because of the intervening creek and other topographical reasons, septic tank system should be utilized. 4. Fire Protection: Prior to the approval of a Parcel 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 7 located at 1050 Walnut Avenue, Walnut Creek. 5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station per 1,000 population. The small population increase associated with this project is not significant. Prior to approval of the Parcel Map, the applicant is required to pay $1,000 fee to mitigate the impacts of the development on police services. 6. Parks and 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 52,000.00 per residential parcel to mitigate impacts. B. Findim-,s for the Exception from the North Gate Specific Plan Policy for the connection to public utilities. 1. Required Finding: The applicant.shall demonstrate undue hardship as a result of the application of the regulations and the City or County shall be required to make the following finding: Due to the circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the regulations contained in the North Gate Area .Specific Plan deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. Therefore, in reiteration of Section X, Staff Analysis, c. 3., of the staff report: Staff has determined in review of the site that public sewer is not available to this property due to the property's location and it's proximity to the existing creek that separates it from the main sewer lines. In addition, the topography's flat terrain makes extension of the sewer line infeasible. Therefore, staff concludes that the granting of this exception will not create a precedent. The site is located in a relatively small pocket of the North Gate Specific Plan area, which cannot be reached by public sewer service. C. Finding for Approval of a Tentative Map 1. 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. Project Finding: The project is.consistent with the various elements of the General Plan and North Gate Specific Plan. The land use designation is SFR-Si! which allows for single-family very-low density development for one lot with a.remainder based on net area minus roadway (0.2 - 0.9 units per net acre) on. a 1.02-acre parcel, which complies with the density requirement. The project is consistent with the policies of the North Gate Specific Plan. 2. 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: Conditions of approval for the.project require Julfillinent of construction requirements. 2 CONDITIONS Or 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 Vesting Tentative Map: A. MS050045 — Vesting Tentative Map dated April 31, 2006 and revised on June 14, 2006. The approval is also based upon the following reports: 1. Creek Preservation and Enhancement Plan prepared by Environmental Collaborative dated March 20, 2006. 2. Review of Creek Preservation and Enhancement Plan prepared by Monk &Associates dated May 27, 2006. Indemnification: 2. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (.including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County its agents; officers, and employees 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 claim,.action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. Compliance Report: 3. 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$500.00 that is subject to tirne and materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit, additional fees will be required. A. Except for those conditions administered by the Public Works Department, the report shall list each condition followed by a 3 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 335-1216.) Residential Design: 4.. Homes and accessory structures shall be consistent with the North Gate Specific Plan design standards. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit building elevations and floor plans with color and material samples for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The materials submitted shall provide sufficient variation to enhance the subdivision design. 5. Applicant shall record a statement to run with the deeds to property acknowledging Condition of Approval #5. design guidelines for development. Archaeology: 6. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be .stopped. until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 7. if any significant cultural materials such as artifacts, human burials, or the like are encountered during construction operations, such operations shall cease within 10 feet of the find, the Community Development Department shall be notified within 24- hours and a qualified archaeologist contacted and retained for further recommendations. Significant cultural materials include, but are not limited to, aboriginal human remains, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone artifacts, concentrations of fire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations. 8. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent 4 remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Child Care Conditions: 9. The developer shall pay a fee of$400.00 per ]ot/unit toward child care facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. Grading: 10. The grading plan shall provide for balanced cut and fill on-site (i.e., no import or export of fill material). Trees and Tree Preservation: it. If grading is proposed to be in close proximity to .the protected trees on the site the applicant shall submit at least 30 days prior to issuance of a .grading permit or filing of a Parcel Map, a grading/tree preservation plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall identify all trees with a trunk circumference of 10 inches or more, 4 '/2 feet above the ground. The trunk size, species and approximate .drip line of each qualifying tree shall be identified on the plan, and whether the tree is proposed to be removed or preserved.. The plan'shall be accompanied by a report from a qualified arborist on the proposed development recommending measures to protect trees as appropriate during the construction and post-construction stages. The recommended measures from the arborist shall be integrated into or otherwise attached to the proposed grading plan. Prior to grading applicant shall provide fencing .or other appropriate barriers at least five (5) feet outside of the drip.line of all trees to be retained on the site in order to give grading contractors proper visual notification to keep equipment out of the area surrounding these trees. (During grading operations a qualified arborist shall be on site to approve any needed exceptions to these requirements). 12. To assure protection and/or reasonable replacement of existing trees to be preserved which are in proximity to project improvements, the applicant shall post a bond (or cash deposit or other surety) for the required work with the Community Development Department. The term of the bond shall extend at least 24 months beyond the completion of constriction. Prior to 5 posting the bond or deposit, a licensed arborist shall assess the value of the trees and reasonable compensatory ternis .in the event that a tree to be preserved is destroyed or otherwise damaged by construction-related activity. The tree-bonding program shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 13. No trees shall be removed prior to approval of the grading/tree preservation plan without the prior . approval of the Zoning Administrator_ 14. The developer and applicant shall adhere to the following tree preservation standards required by.Section 816-6.1202 of the County Code: A. Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on a site with trees to be preserved, the applicant shall install fencing at the dripline or other area as determined by an arborist report of all trees adjacent to. or in the area to be altered.. Prior to grading or issuance of any pennits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff.. B. No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dnpli.ne unless indicated on the grading plans approved by the County and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, an arborist may be required to be present during grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to require protective. measures to protect the roots. Upon completion of grading and construction, an involved arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expense shall be borne by the developer and applicant. C. No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, constriction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the dripline of any tree to be saved. 15. if no trees are located within 40 feet of the proposed development, the construction plans shall be noted. 6 Landscaping: 16. A landscaping plan and irrigation plan for Parcel A shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator at least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits. A cost estimate shall be submitted with the landscaping program plan. Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation Landscape Ordinance 82-26 and shall be installed prior to approval of final building permit. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be certified to be in compliance with County Water Conservation Ordinance. 17. Califonlia native drought tolerant plants or trees shall be used as much as possible. All trees shall be a minimum five-gallon size planted throughout the project site. Lighting: 18. At least 30 days prior to'issuance of building permits, an exterior lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall include details of location and design of outside lighting fixtures, proposed screening and hours of operation of exterior lights. 19. Exterior lights shall be deflected so that lights shine onto applicant's property and not toward adjacent properties. Construction Conditions: 20. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction,noise, dust and litter 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(Federal) Lincoln's Birthday(State) President's Day(State) Caesar Chavez Day(State) Memorial Day(State and Federal) Independence Day(State and Federal) Labor Day(State and Federal) 7 Columbus Day (State and Federal) Veterans Day(State and Federal) Thanksgiving Day(State and Federal) Day atter 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: FederallIolidays h�.:.//www.oi)ni.�-,ov/fedhol/2006.asp California Holidays http://w��v.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm B. The project sponsor shall require their contractor and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible. C. At least. one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a.list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and areas of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading and construction activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. 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. D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. Constriction work 8 shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted. E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing ricighborllood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed roads serving this development shall be constructed to provide access to each lot. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth moving equipment. F. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to weekdays between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. and prohibited on Federal and State holidays. G. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. 21. The project shall comply with the dust control requirements of the Grading Ordinance including provisions pertaining to water conservation. 22. Construction-related vehicle access to the site shall be limited to two. 23. Haul routes shall be. generally limited to those areas of the site which are proposed to be graded to avoid unnecessary scarring of the hillside. Hauling of material through an approved scenic easement shall be precluded. 24. At least 30 days prior to recording the Parcel.Map, the applicant shall provide proof from Contra Costa.County Environmental Health Department that parcel B can accommodate an onsite sewage system. 25. The applicant is required to comply with the Creek Preservation and Enhancement Plan prepared by Environmental Collaborative dated receivedby the Community Development Department April 5, 2006. A completion report shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 26. Pnoi to they issuance ofU=a: gxading-permit or, bjuilding pettntt wh�chcuer coines�first;�the applacai�t�shall.subrntfe�idence�rtl-iat :a silt fence Lias'becn'properly installed�liy aV ofessiOnal feneing iArp nyo!t§id&'.the iipaizan canopy 9 covered to deter any movemait 'ompl £ianfroacreek to - "lig 93F.t.. the subtect property; during protect', constructi6i OnceV,the residence leas been constructed and landpalte'ration activities at. .e complete, tlie.silt.fencingscan beKiemovedE Water: 27. At least 30 days prior to recording the Parcel Map,.the applicant shall provide proof that adequate water facilities can be provided. 28. The applicant shall comply with the Contra Costa County Ordinance pertaining to water conservation. Compliance with the Water Conservation Ordinance shall be designed to encourage low-.flow water devices and other interior and exterior water conservation techniques. 29. All toilets shall be low-flow units in accordance with Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code; sinks and showers shall be water conserving units, in accordance with the California Energy Commission Standards for new residential buildings. Police Service/Crime Prevention: 30, Police Service District to Augment Police Services — The following requirements shall be met prior to filing a Parcel Map or issuance of a building permit as specified below: A. Prior to filing a Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit two copies of a proposed disclosure statement for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The approved statement shall be used to notify prospective buyers of parcels which are not occupied by existing legally- established residences at time of filing the tentative map application. The disclosure statement shall advise . prospective buyers of affected parcels that prior to issuance of a.building permit,they will be required to contribute to the County $1,000.00 for police services mitigation. The .fee may be paid to the Contra Costa County Application & Permit Center. B. Prior to issuance of a building permit on any parcel that is not occupied by a legal residence, the applicant shall contribute $1,000.00 to the County for police services mitigation. The fee shall be paid to the Contra Costa County Application & Permit Center. 10 Fire Protection District: 31. Prior to the approval of a parcel 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. 1 IF the project requires fire sprinkler systems then a deed disclosure for each new residential lot shall be recorded with the Parcel 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 County File#MS050045. Payment of Any Supplemental Application Fees that are Due: 32. This application is subject to an initial application fee of$5,513.00 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 pen-nit effective date or prior to use of the pen-nit 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. PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION MS 05-0045 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 June 14, 2006. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO FILING OF THE PARCEL MAP: 33. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval 11 statement. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall. require the review an approval of the :Public Works Department and are based on the Revised Vesting Tentative Map reccived by the Community Development Department on June 14, 2006. 34. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this Subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signing and striping plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division. Frontage Improvements (Pine Creek Road): 35. Applicant shall improve and widen any inadequate portion of Pine Creek Road along the project frontage to a 20-foot paved road, in accordance with current County private road standards. Access to Adjoining Property: Proof of Access 36. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department 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. 37. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department that legal access to the subject property is available from the.public portion of Pine Creek Road. Sight Distance: 38. The applicant shall provide adequate sight distance at the intersection of each. driveway and Pine Creek .Road for a through traffic design speed of 25 miles per hour. Landscaping, walls, fences, signs, or any other obstructions shall be placed to maintain adequate sight distance. Maintenance of Facilities: 39. Applicant shall record a Statement of Obligation, in the form of a deed notification to inform all future property owners of their legal obligation to maintain the private roadway(Pine Creek Road). Utilities/Undergroun ding: 40. All new utility distribution services shall be installed underground. 12 Street Lights: 41. Applicant shall apply for annexation to County Service Area L-100 Lighting District by submitting: a letter of request; a metes and bounds description; and pay the current LAFCO fees. Annexation shall occur prior to filing the Parcel Map. The applicant shall be aware that this annexation process must comply with State Proposition 218 requirements, which state that the property owner must hold a special election to approve the annexation. This ' process may take approximately 4 - 6 months to complete. Annexation into CSA L-100 does not include the transfer of ownership and maintenance of street lighting on private roads. Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey 42. 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 a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the stonn waters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. If the applicant proposes drainage into the creek, a streambed alteration permit may be required from the Department of Fish and Game. The applicant shall provide evidence that required permits have been obtained from the Department offish and Game. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 43. Any new drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with specilications outlined in division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. 44. Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across any driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. Provision "C.3" of the NPD.ES Permit: 45. In accordance with the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, it has been determined that this project does not require submittal of a Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP). New or redeveloped impervious surface area proposed in this application totals less than one acre(43,560 square feet), which is the threshold for submittal of a SWOP. .However, this project shall incorporate storm water quality elements to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). This must include efforts to limit new impervious surface area, limit directly connected 13 impervious areas, provide for self retainin(y areas and include other Best Management Practices to the MEP. y National :Pollutant Discharge .Elimination System (NPDES): . 46. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, .regulations, and . procedures of the National Pollutant:Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) fol . municipal, construction and industrial activities a promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay Region or Central Valley Region). Compliance will include developing longi tdrm best management practices (BMP's) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate, where feasible, some or all of the following long term BMP's in accordance with the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage: a. Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. b. Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins. c. Slope pavements to direct runoff to landscaped/pervious areas, where feasible. d. Shallow roadside and on-site swa.les e. .Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to buyers. f. Other alternatives as approved by the Public Works Department. 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. NOTIFY 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 part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to ad 90-day period after the project is approved. 14 The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee of- imposition rimposition of any dedication, resen-ation, 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. Comply with the requirements of the County.Building Inspection Department C. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department — Environmental Health. D. Comply with the requirements of the Castle Rock Water District., E. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. F. Comply with the requirements of the Sheriff's Department. G. The applicant shall be required to. comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 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 — Regional II or Central Valley — Region V). H. The project is subject to the development fees in effect under County Ordinance as of June 14, 2006, the date the tentative map application was accepted as complete by the Community Development Department. These fees are in addition to any other development fees which may be specified in the conditions of approval. The fees include but are not limited to the following: Park Dedication $2,000.00 per residence Child Care $ 400.00 per residence An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be contacting the Building Inspection Department at 335-1196. I. The applicant will be required to comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the Central County Area of Benefit, as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. J. 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 15 f� i 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. K. 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 i('a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. L. A portion of the project site is 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 constriction of any structures on this properly. G:\Current Planning\curs-plan`,Staff Reports\MS050045 coa.doc RMP/dls 9/11/06 Approved 12/18/06/hl 10/19/07 trip 16 APPEAL LETTER - _ 1 i 11 _ '•°�'M.•r ";✓-- t.. i .._j,'asi +�' F•'QMS': d :.. 1ov tom .(.•, �i- •:: r '��a` Y.,v+ '1 T. •'1•;...r..�• x..4'L7;- .•_ �ikn'+ -*}- - b � ll t save • tj N T D IAB LO Board of Directors L=__ September 6,2007 Malcolm Sproul President Application and Permit Center CD Arthur Bonwell Community Development Department Allan Prager Contra Costa County LU'. 1 ' Vice Presidc,ats 651 Pine Street, Second Floor,North Wing ;;,, David Trotter Martinez,CA 94553 cri Secretar, Frank Varenchik Re: County File#MS050045,MacDonald Property 'r: Treasurer APN: 138-230-028 _—_._..._..... ... Applicant: Alec MacDonald Burt Bassler Don de Fremery Location: Unincorporated Walnut Creek, g P North ate Specific Plan Dana Dornsife Chada Gabert Dear Rose Marie, Claudia}-leis Scott Hein Save Mount Diablo(SMD)appeals the August 28,2007 decision by the Contra Costa County Michael Hitchcock David Husted Planning Commission—of which only four members were present—to deny our appeal and John Mercurio approve the subdivision of the 2.246 acres located on Pine Creek Road into two lots. SMD . Amara Morrison believe;:cc,^.diners recommended d-uriins the h,edriil process siloulii have been imposed but David Sargent Sharon Walters were not adopted by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission: The appeal fee of$125 Directors is enclosed. Slaff ,: The MacDonald property is strategically located between Shell Ridge Open Space,Diablo Ronald Brown Foothills.Regional Park, and the Mt. Diablo Gateway property(Flood Control District's Pine Esccrrrive DirectorCreek Surplus property). SMD suggested Conditions of Approval to ensure that the Seth Adams subdivision provides an opportunity to create a trail connection between these public use Director, Land Programs areas. Monica E.Oei Finance&.ld»,inisn•ntive The recommended conditions include a floating trail easement, a dedication of development tilanager rights along Pine and Borges Creeks,and a dedication of development rights outside of Julie Seelen building envelopes. Additionally, SMD recommends that the Department of Fish and Game .Special Events and/or US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Regional Water Quality Control Board be S. volunteer Coordinator consulted regarding the impacts of drainage from construction and residential units into Pine Creek. R'7ni�ing rlddre.cs SMD is tiling this appeal because SMD continues to believe: 1901 Olympic Blvd..#__��0 Walnut Creek.CA 94596 Tel: (925)947-3535 1) A Negative Declaration for this project is not adequate under CEQA given Fax:(925)947-0642 potential significant impacts, including impacts on Pine Creek; on nearby parks and recreational facilities including Shell Ridge Open Space, Diablo Foothills 17ebcitc' Regional Park and the Mt. Diablo Gateway conservation easement preserve; on i ru gin;s•rrnc nmunrdinhlu.or.S' traffic and increasing hazards to pedestrians and equestrians;on listed species such as the California red-legged frog as well as other wildlife(and a biotic review was taken at the wrong time of year); hydrology, water quality, drainage, rounders and downstream flooding, etc. Substantial evidence was not provided in the .1)Ibur record to support a conclusion of Negative Declaration. Llary L. Bon'erinan The North Gate area has experienced significant changes since the North gate Specific .Plan was adopted in 1991. Traffic has increased along with recreational use, downstream flooding is increasing, and several significant species have been listed in the years since; a 16 year old EIR is inadequate. 2) Project analysis failed to consider nearby public uses and changes in circumstance, such as the preservation of the nearby Mt. Diablo Gateway Preserve. 3) Project analysis failed to consider cumulative impacts of other nearby applications including the Gee subdivision application (IVIS 05-0013, APN: 138-230-002) adjacent to the NE corner of the MacDonald property. 4) The applicant requested an exception to the Northgate Specific Plan's Public Utility Policy—based on hardship—without significant evidence to support the exceptions, and relying on a previous subdivision as a precedent, and expense as an excuse. The applicant has not demonstrated undue hardship in requesting this exception. The impacts of use of a septic tank on Pine Creek were not analyzed. The previous subdivision's example in failing to consider.impacts on hydrology and drainage should not be a continued reason for ignoring these impacts. 5) There is no hardship. It's important to note that the MacDonalds have previously received approval of a subdivision proposal and have already received great financial benefit from their property. However they dropped one unit then—avoiding the conditions of a major subdivision—and their minor subdivision was subject to far less environmental analysis or mitigation than if they had proposed this new lot at that time. Each new unit has resulted in additional and unmitigated traffic,runoff and impacts to wildlife and traditional uses such as agriculture and recreation. As a result of their project and others, Pine Creek has been affected and despite the downstream detention basin, downstream flooding is increasing. 6) The project conflicts with the policies of the North Gate Specific Plan (NGSP) which would help to ensure compatibility between new residential developments in the area and the existing equestrian, recreational, and agricultural uses. 7) Mitigations for impacts were.not required including conditions of development such as a) a dedicated trail easement to meet NGSP guidelines and b) dedication of development rights to preclude further subdivision while protecting wildlife habitat, etc. Please notify us as to the hearing date for this appeal. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Seth Adams Director of Land Programs PERTINENT STAFF REPORTS Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY,AUGUST 28, 2007 I. INTRODUCTION Alex MacDonald(Applicant& Owne6, County File4 MS050045: This is a hearing on an appeal filed on December 18, 2006 by Save Mt. Diablo of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a subdivision of a 2.246 parcel into 2 lots with an exception from the North Gate Specific Plan policy requiring all new residential development to be connected to public utilities due to the location of an existing creek. The subject property's address is 570 Pine Creek Road in the Walnut Creek area. (R-40) (ZA: N-16) (CT:3383.02) (APN: 138-230-028) II. RECOMMENDATION A. Find that on the basis of the whole record before the Commission, there is no substantial evidence that the project will result in a significant effect on the environment. B. Adopt the attached Negative Declaration C. Sustain the Zoning Administrator's approval of the two lot subdivision with the attached conditions of approval. D. Deny the appeal of Save Mt. Diablo. III. BACKGROUND On October 31, 2005, applicant submitted an application for a two lot subdivision, County File#MS050045. The application was deemed complete by default on.May 4. 2006. Staff conducted an environmental review and determined that the environmental factors associated with the proposed two lot subdivision would have no significant. impacts. A Negative Declaration was posted at the County Clerks Office on August 2, 2006 and forwarded to the .State Clearinghouse. Included in the distribution list was the Department of Fish and Game. No comments from the 1 public agencies or surrounding neighbors were received. :Initially the application was scheduled for the County Zoning Administrator public hearing on July 26, 2006. The Zoning Administrator rescheduled this application from September 25, 2006 to October 23, 2006. On October 17, 2006, the applicant contacted staff and requested a continuance. At the October 2.) public hearing, the Zoning Administrator granted the applicant's request and continued the hearing to December 4, 2006. At the December 41h public hearing the Zoning Administrator took public testimony, closed the public hearing and continued it to December 18, 2006 for decision. On December 18, 2006, the Zoning Administrator approved the two lot subdivision on the basis that the proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and North Gate Specific Plan. The Zoning Administrator made the determination that the North Gate Specific Plan did not show a trail along the creek in the MacDonald's rear yard. Staff has included for the Commission use, the attached General Plan and North Gate Specific Plan trail plan maps as exhibits A and B. These maps are the single authority of the County's approved Trail Plan. IV. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK Alan B. Carreon, Associate Planner from the City of Walnut Creek, forwarded continents on January 10, 2006. The City's comments were focused on the existing multi-stemmed walnut tree near the center of proposed Parcel B. Mr. Carreon believed it to be premature for the applicant to request a tree removal in absence of a home design. The home could be located on the property to avoid the.tree. In the event that the tree is requested for removal, a replacement plan should be made a condition of approval, whereby the applicant will be required to replace the loss of the tree with 24-inch box size trees. If on the other hand, the applicant requests the retention of the tree, a condition of approval shall include requiring a financial surety based on the value of the tree. The surety or bond shall be submitted to the County to ensure the possible damage or loss of the tree. V. APPEAL On December 19, 2006, the Community Development Department received an appeal letter from Save Mt. Diablo. The basis of the appeal is the following: ❖ The trail connection between public land use areas; The adequacy of the environmental review process is being questioned in regards to the red-.legged frog; A recommendation granting an exception to the North Gate Specific Plan's Public Utility Policy requiring all new residential development to have connection to public sewer and water service. North Gate Specific Plan policies requiring compatibility between new residential development and existing uses such as equestrian, recreational and agricultural. ❖ No miti�clations or conditions were included addressing: 1) dedicated trail easement to meet the North Gate Specific Plan; and 2) dedication of development rights to preclude further subdivision while protecting wildlife habitat. VI. ACTION OF STAFF SUBSEQUENT TO RECEIPT OF APPEAL Staff requested from the applicant additional documentation in the form of Biological Surveys on the red-legged frog as required by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol. On May 22, 2007, the applicant submitted the California red-legged frog surveys prepared by Wildlife Research Associates in accordance with the protocol-level aquatic surveys as required USFWS. Staff .forwarded the report to the County's Biological Consultant, Monk & Associates (M&A) for a peer review. On June S, 2007, M&A submitted their review.of the California red-legged frog surveys. Wildlife Research Associates conducted eight surveys during the breeding season following the guidelines prescribed in USFWS'. 2005 revised survey protocol. Consequently, M&A concurred with the conclusion of Wildlife Research Associates that Pine Creek does not (likely) provide suitable breeding habitat and is marginal for dispersal habitat for the California red-legged frog. Based on the findings of the survey, the potential for this portion of the creek to support California red-legged frog is low. M&A agrees with the _ recommendation in the Wildlife Research Associates report that "a silt fence, properly installed by a fence company, be placed outside the riparian canopy cover to deter any movements of amphibians from the creek to the project site" during project construction. Once the residence is constructed and land alteration activities are complete, the silt fencing can be removed. VII. PERMIT STREAMLIMNG ACT CONSIDERATION An oversight occurred related to the required time limits (30 days upon receipt of an appeal) that the County has to bring an appeal before the County Plamung Commission pursuant to the State's Subdivision Map Act, Section 66452.5-(a); (c); and (e). (a) The subdivider, or any tenant of the subject property, in the case of a proposed conversion of residential real property to a condominium project, community apartment project, or stock cooperative project, may appeal fi-oln any action of the advisory agency with respect to a tentative map to the appeal board established by local ordinance or, if none, to the legislative bodv. The appeal shall be filed with the clerk of the appeal board, or if there is none, rti%ith the clerk of the legislative body within 10 days after- the action of the advisory agency./roin ,i)hich the appeal is being taken. Upon the filing of any appeal, the appeal board or legislative body shall set the matter,for hearing. The hearing shall be held within 30 days after the date 3 of filing the appeal. Rithin 10 days following the conclusion of the hearing, the appeal board or legislation body shall render its decision on the appeal. (c) If there is an appeal board and it fails to act upon an appeal within the tinge litnit specified in this chapter, the decision fr•oni which the appeal was taken shall be deemed affirmed and an appeal then efr or11 play thereupon be taken to the legislative body as provided in subdivision (b) of this section. If no further appeal is taken, the tentative map, insofar as it complies with applicable requirements of this division and local ordinance, shall be deemed approved or conditionally approved as last of the clerk of the legislative body to certify or state that approval, or if the advisory agency which is not authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the tentative map,.the advisory agency shall submit its report to the legislative body as if no appeal had been taken. If the legislative body fails to act upon an appeal within the time limit specified in this chapter, the tentative rnap, insofar as it complies with applicable requirements of this division and local ordinance, shall be deetiled'. to be approved or conditionally approved as last approved or conditionally approved, and it shall be the duty of the clerk.of the legislative body to certify or state that approval. (e) Notice of each hearing provided for this section.shall be seat by United States mail to each tenant of the subject property, in the case.of a conversion of residential real property to a condominium project, community apartment project, or stock cooperative project, at least three days prior to the hearing. The notice requirement of this subdivision shall be deemed satisfied if the notice complies with the legal regUirerrlents for service by mail. Pursuant to Section 66451.6 fees may be collected f•orn the subdivider or from pet-soils appealing or filing an appeal for expenses incurred under this section. In the spirit of the appeal process as required by law,this.appeal is now being brought before the County Planning Commission. VIII. REVIEW OF APPEAL POINTS On December 19, 2006, the Community Development Department received an appeal letter from Save Mt. Diablo. The following is staffs response to each appeal point. A. Summary of Appeal Point 1) Negative Declaration for this project is not adequate analysis under CEOA given potentially significant impacts, including impacts ort Pine 4 Creek; on nearby parks and recreational facilities including Shell Ridge Open Space, Diablo Foothills Regional Park and the Alit. Diablo Gateway conservation easement preserve; on traffic and increasing hazards to pedestrians and equestrians; on listed species such as the California red- legged frog as well as other wildlife (and a biotic review was undertaken at the tivrong tune of the year); on hydrology, water quality, drainage and downstream flooding, etc. Substantial evidence was not provided in the record to support a conclusion of Negative Declaration. Staff Response: Impacts on Pine Creek Pursuant to the North Gate Specific Plan, applications for residential development situated along a creek are required to provide a creek. preservation and enhancement plan. All new structures are to provide for a least a 50 foot setback from the creek. On April 5, 2006, the applicant submitted a Creek Preservation and Enhancement Plan prepared by Environmental Collaborative. Staff forwarded the plan to the County's environmental consultant M&A on April 27, 2006. According to M&A, the Creek Preservation and Enhancement Plan provided sound and appropriate standards for protecting the creek within the area of the minor subdivision. M&A had no recommendations or suggested changes to the report. Therefore, staff did not conclude from the determination of both environnental experts, that the proposed project would not have impacts to the creek nor was there a presence of endangered species such as the red-legged frog. Impacts to nearby recreational facilities; Staff has attached the Exhibit A and B for the Commission's review: A. County General Plan—bicycle,hiking,riding trail maps— Figures 9-5;9-6; 9-7. B. North Gate Specific Plan—Figure 8—Planned Recreation Facilities; By the evidence provided, staff concludes, that this application for a two lot subdivision would not adversely impact the County's future plans for recreational facilities. The applicant's proposal to build one additional residence is consistent with the General Plan and North Gate Specific Plan designation for Single Family.Residential—Very Low. 5 ILnpacts on traffic and increasing hazards to pedestrians and equestrians The property is located in a semi-rural area.. Staff has included the North Gate Specific Plan trail plan entitled Figure 8, which demonstrates where the future trail system is being established. Subdivision entitlements are conditioned to include a 60 foot right of way. dedication along North Gate Road to meet specific plan trail policies for pedestrian and equestrian use. The NGSP trail system does not include Pine Creek Road. Pursuant'to the private road standards, the applicant shall improve and widen any inadequate portion of Pine Creek Road along the project frontage"to a20-foot paved road. Impacts to Listed Species such as the California red-legged frog In response to the appeal on May 22, 2006, the applicant submitted a California Red-legged Frog Survey prepared by Trish Tatarian of Wildlife Research Associates. There were eight (8) surveys during breeding season following the guidelines prescribed in USFWS' 2005 revised survey protocol. Diurnal surveys were conducted on March 20 and May 17, 2007, and nocturnal surveys were conducted on March 20 and 27, and April 3, 9, 17 and 24, 2007. Staff forwarded the report to M&A. . A,peer review was submitted by M&A on June 5, 2007. The peer review concluded the following: "While the USFWS revised survey protocol reconunends that surveys be conducted during the breeding (January 1-June 31) and the non-breeding season (July — September ), M&A believes that the surveys conducted by Wildlife Research Associates were sufficient to detect California red-legged frogs if present within the project area along Pine Creek. Since Pine Creek is dry in the summertime, conducting additional non-breeding surveys later in the sununer would not realistically increase the opportunities for detecting this species with the project area. Consequently, M&A concurs with the conclusion of Wildlife Research Associates that Pine Creek does not (likely) provide suitable breeding habitat and is marginal for dispersal habitat for the California red-legged frog is low. Finally, M&A agrees with the recommendation in the Wildlife Research Associated report that a"silt fence, properly installed by a fence company, be placed outside the riparian canopy cover to deter any movements of amphibians from the creek to the project site during construction." Impacts to hydrology.water quality. drainage and downstream flooding The project planner had numerous communications with the Public Works Department staff such as a phone conversation with Monish Sen, Engineering Services of the Public Works Department on June 21, 2007, comments received from Keith Hoey on June 19, 2006 _and the phone conversation on June 15, 2006 with Wes Cooley from Flood Control of the Public Works 6 Department. Their comments apply to the appellant's points in reference to hydrology,water quality, drainage and downstream flooding. Hvdrology: The eventual development of a new home on proposed parcel B would produce minimal amount of polluted runoff due to leaks of automobiles, use of backyards pesticides, etc. This pollution would be negligible. . Water Quality: -The applicant is subject to all the rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 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-Regional III) In compliance with the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, it has been determined that his project does not require submittal of a Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP). New or redeveloped impervious surface area proposed in this application totals less than one acre (43,560 square feet), which is the threshold for submittal of a SWCP.. However, this project is required to incorporate storm water quality elements to the Maximum Extent Practical (MEP). This must include efforts to limit new impervious surface area, limit directly connected impervious areas, .provide for self-retaining areas and include other Best Management Practices to the MEP. . Drainage: The site will not impact drainage. Flood Control, DA85 has not been formed and there is no impact to the existing drainage pattern. Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires all storm water entering and/or originating on this property to be collected and conveyed without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse. Downstream Flooding: An unimproved earth channel traverses the subject property along the westerly property boundary. Apparently, the creek structure setback area was previously recorded on the subject property (164 PM 21) as part of a prior development application. The creek structure setback area is considered a restricted development area over which development rights have been relinquished. Construction of permanent structures is prohibited within the creek structure setback area. A portion of the project site is 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 7 County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2000-33) as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. Summary of Appeal Point: 2) Project analysis failed to consider nearby public uses and changes in circumstance, such as the preservation of nearby Mt. Diablo Gateway Preserve. Staff Response: Staff has determined that this application for a tsvo lot subdivision will not impact nearby public uses such as the nearby Mt. Diablo Gateway Preserve. There is no evidence in the NGSP — Planned Recreational Facilities and Trails shown in Exhibit B that there is a connection to this property. Summary of Appeal Point: 3) Project analysis failed to consider cumulative impacts of other nearby applications including the Gee subdivision application (AIS 050013), APN: 138-230-002) adjacent to the ATE .corner of the MacDonald proPertj• Staff Response: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an En.viromnental Impact Report was prepared by staff for adoption by the Board of Supervisors simultaneously, with the adoption of the General Plan Update and NGSP. At that time, all issues were considered that included cumulative impactsof the various land use designations in the North Gate area of Walnut Creek. This area was considered to be transitioning from strictly rural to semi-rural. Summary of Appeal Point 4) The applicant requested an exception to the North Gate Specific Plan's. Public Utility Policy without significant evidence to support the exception, and relying on a previous subdivision as a precedent, and expense as an excuse. The applicant has not demonstrated unglue hardship in requesting this exception. The impacts of use of a septic system on Pine Creek were not analyzed. The previous subdivision's example in failing to consider impacts on hydrology and drainage should not be a continued reason for ignoring these impocts. Staff Response: The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD). - forwarded a letter stamped dated received by the Community Development Department on February 21, 2007, which confirmed the lack of wastewater utility service to the project site. According to CCCSD, "The property is within CCCSD's Sphere of Influence, but outside of 8 CCCSD's boundaries. Wastewater utility service is not currently available to the project site and service will not be available for the foreseeable future due to topographic limitations and the distance to the nearest suitable sewer." Summary of Appeal Point: ?) The project conflicts withpolicies of the North Gate Specific Plan which would help to ensure compatibility between new residential developments in the area and the existing equestrian, recreational, (117d.agricultural uses. Staff Response: See Staff Response 43, as it applies to this appeal point. Summary of Appeal: 6) Mitigations for impacts were not required including conditions of development such as a) a dedicated trail easement to meet Specific Plan guidelines and b) dedication .of development rights to preclude further subdivision while protecting wildlife habitat, etc. Staff Response: a) Dedicated Trail Easement: The County General Plan and the NGSP trail systems do not include this property as referenced in the attached exhibits. b) Dedication of Development Rights: The Public Works Department has confirmed a dedicated creek structure setback which prohibits future development. This property is designated in the County General Plan and NGSP as Single Family Residential — Very Low. The maximum development on this site is for one additional residence. IX. RELEVANT POLICIES OF THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AND NORTH GATE SPECIFIC PLAN A. Countv General Plan The County General Plan has specific goals and policies that relate to the implementation of the County Trail Plan which is divided into three components, i.e.. Bicycle, Hiking and Equestrian Trails. The County Trail Plan focuses on non-motor oriented facilities in order to maintain peace and tranquility for its users. 9 The County General Plan goal is to develop interconnected hiking, riding and bicycling trails and paths suitable for both active recreational use and for the purpose of transportation/circulation. .Its policy is to integrate public trails facilities into the design of flood control facilities and other public works whenever possible. See Exhibit A - County Trail Plan attached to tlus staff report. B. North Gate Specific Plan The North Gate area is considered a transitional area between agricultural preserve/open space lands and very low density single family development. In order to provide guidance and detail protection of the North Gate area; the Board of Supervisors adopted the North Gate Specific Plan(NGSP) on June 25; 1991. The NGSP is the result of a joint planning effort between the City of Walnut Creek and Contra Costa County. The basis for preparing this plan stems from a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between these two jurisdictions. In the MOU, the City and County prepared the Specific Plan with new policies and regulations aimed at the preservation and future development of the North Gate area. All applications for subdivisions and land use permits within the Specific Plan area of the County's jurisdiction are forwarded to the City of Walnut Creek for review and comment. All of the City's review comments are.considered by the County. Creek Structure Setback: Pursuant to the Specific Plan, all new structures shall provide at least a 50 foot minimum setback. In addition, for all proposed subdivisions located along a creek, the usable area.of a new parcel shall not be less than 30,000 square feet and shall not include the creek structure setback. The MacDonald property is subject to the NGSP policies and goals that include the prohibition of development within required creek structure setback. On June 14, 2006, a revised vesting tentative map was submitted indicating the creek structure setback. In addition, the applicant's calculation of net usable area greater than 30.000 square feet per parcel was determined adequate usable area for development, in accordance with North Gate Specific Plan requirements for all properties along existing creeks. Creek Preservation and Enhancemenf Plan: Pursuant to the NGSP policies on creeks, "Applications for residential.development shall be required to provide, as a part of the application submittal,'a creek preservation and enhancement plan, which outlines the methods of protecting and enhancing the creek. 10 On April 5, 2006, the applicant submitted a Creek Preservation and Enhancement Plan prepared by Environmental Collaborative. Staff forwarded this plan to M&A on April 27, 2006. According to M&A, the Creek Preservation & Enhancement Plan prepared by Environmental Collaborative provides sound and appropriate standards for protecting Pine Creek within the area of the minor subdivision. M&A had no recommendations or suggested changes.to make on the report. Trails: Attached are Exhibits A and B displaying the County General Plan, Figure 9-6 Hiking Trails and the NGSP, Figure 8 — Planned Recreational Trails and Facilities. These maps are considered the County's authority on trails which detail the. existing and proposed trails for bike, equestrian and pedestrian use. The following is an excerpt of the NGSP recreational trail policies: ■ Pedestrian Paths: Pedestrian paths along North Gate and Castle Rock shall be constructed with the same materials as the travel lane. No concrete sidewalks shall be installed along North Gate and Castle Rock Roads. ■ Bicvcle: New bicycle trails are proposed along North Gate and Castle Rock Roads and through the Pine Creek Detention Basin.' ■ Equestrian: New equestrian trails are proposed along North Gate Road to connect to existing trails along the northern Specific Plan boundary and Mount Diablo State Park. A trail is also proposed through the County's surplus land, and the Pine Creek Detention Basin connecting to the trail along Castle Rock Road. The NGSP recreational trail policies do not include a recreational trail along the MacDonald's private property situated along the east side of Pine Creek, as a means to implement a future trail system as shown in Exhibit B, NGSP, Figure 8—Planned Recreation Facilities and Trails. C. Trail Plan—Planned Detention Basin Save Mt. Diablo's appeal letter included comments on the Gateway property. This property was owned by the Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The District listed this property as surplus in the North Gate area (APN: 138- 160-001/002/003 & 138-170-001). The District submitted the following applications in 1996: a rezoning (County File #RZ963046) from A-2 zoning district to P-1 zoning district: a vesting tentative map (County File#SD068039) for 34 sinale family residential lots; and a preliminary and final development plan for 34 single family residences with a staging area and a trail along the creek (County File 4DP063035). The Flood Control District withdrew this application and entered into a Conservation Easement to prevent further development with the East Bay Regional Park District (E.BRPD). The EBRPD 11 has future plans for a variety of recreational activities, i.e., an equestrian center, staging area and trails. D. Biological Constraints Reference Section VIII REVIEW OF APPEAL POINTS for discussion. On May 22, 2007, the applicant submitted a California Red-legged Frog Survey conducted by Wildlife Research Associates. A peer review was prepared by M&A dated June 5, 2007, which concurred with the conclusion of Wildlife Research Associates that Pine Creek does not (likely) provide suitable breeding habitat and its marginal for dispersal habitat for the California red-legged frog. Based on the findings of the survey, the potential for this portion of the creek to support California red-legged frog is low. M&A concurred with all recommendations in the Wildlife Research Associates report that "a silt fence, properly installed by a fence company, be placed outside the riparian canopy cover to deter any movements of amphibians from the creek to the project site", during project construction. Once construction is complete, the silt fencing can be removed. X. CONCLUSION The determination of the environmental review concluded that the whole of the project does not adversely affect the enviromnent. The two lot subdivision which promotes one additional single family residence that helps create a sense of community. In staff's opinion, the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the surrounding single family residential properties on one acre lots. 12 Agenda Item #3 Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 23,2006 I. INTRODUCTION ALEX MACDONALD (Applicant & Owner), County File # MS050045: The applicant requests approval to subdivide 2.246 acres into two lots. The applicant is requesting an exception from the North Gate Specific Plan policy requiring all new residential development to be connected to public utilities due to the location of an existing creek. The subject property's address is 570 Pine Creek Road in the Walnut Creek area. (R-40) (ZA: N=16) (CT: 3383.02) (APN: 138-230-028) 11. RECOMMENDATION The hearing for this project was rescheduled from September 25, 2006 to October 23, 2006. On October 17, 2006, the applicant requested a continuance. Staff is recommending that the Zoning Administrator grant this request and continue the item to December 4, 2006. RMP/mp 10-18-06 Agenda Item # Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 I. INTRODUCTION ALEX MACDONALD (Applicant&Owner), County File MS050045: The applicant requests approval to subdivide 2.246 acres into two lots. The applicant is requesting an exception from the North Gate Specific Plan policy requiring all . new residential development to be connected to public utilities due to the location of an existing creek. The subject property's address is 570 Pine Creek,Road in the Walnut Creek area. (R-40) (ZA: N-16) (CT: 3383.02) (APN: 138-230-028) II. RECOMMENDATION A. Adopt the Negative Declaration B. Approve the two lot subdivision with the attached conditions of approval. . 111. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The General Plan designation is Single Family Residential— Very Low. B. Zonis R-40— Single Family Residential— Idu/per 40,000 square feet. C CEQA Status:. A Negative Declaration was posted at the County Clerk's Office on August 2, 2006, and concurrently mailed to the owners of adjoining properties. The public comment period ended on September 1, 2006. No comments were received from the surrounding neighbors. D. Previous Applications: MS46-87- Approved four lot subdivision. 2761-RZ-Approved rezoning from A-2 to R-40. LLO1-55 - 138-230-024 &025 lot line adjustment. E. Regulatory Programs: 1.. Active Fault Zone: Subject site is not in an active fault zone. 2. Flood Hazard Area: Subject site is in Flood Zone A—one hundred year flood zone and Flood Zone C -of minimal flooding,Panel 0315B. 3. 60dBA Noise Control: Subject property is not within a 60dBA noise control area. 4. Redevelopment Area: Subject property is not within a redevelopment district. IV. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION The site is a 2.246 acre parcel along the North Gate Road, in the Walnut Creek area of the County. The surrounding area consists of large estate homesites, open spaces and rolling hills. To the east of the property at the end of North Gate Road is Mt. Diablo State Park. V. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant requests to subdivide a 2.246 acre parcel into two single family lots. VI. AGENCY COMMENTS A. East Bay Regional Park District: Memorandum dated November 7, 2005. No comments. . B. Health Services Department- Environmental Health: Memorandum dated November 22, 2005. Currently working with applicant on onsite waste water treatment system. C. Public Work Department—Flood Control: Memorandum dated November 225 2005. Unformed DA 85, Creek structure setback was previously established. D. Building Inspection Department-.Grading Division: Memorandum dated November 23, 2005.. No grading shown at this time. Grading Plan maybe required for development. Geotechnical Report may be required for. development of Parcel "B". Figure(s) shows a 20' wide driveway for adjacent minor subdivision. E. Contra Costa Countv Fire Protection District: Memorandum dated November 28, 2005. See attached_ 'F. City of Walnut Creek: Memorandum dated January 10, 2006. See attached. G. Save Mount Diablo: Memorandum dated January 11, 2006. Save Mount. Diablo has no comment on this application for subdivision from Alex MacDonald. X. STAFF ANALYSES a. Appropriateness of Use: The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.26 acres into two single family lots. The property has a single family residence on Parcel A, an existing barn that will be removed situated between both proposed property lines. The surrounding area has transitioned from agricultural use,mostly orchards to large estate housing. The proposed two lot subdivision is consistent with the pattern of-development. b. Design Review: The applicant will be subject to the design policies of the North Gate Specific Plan. According to the North Gate Specific Plan, "all new home designs shall blend in with the semi-rural character of the area. Exterior building materials of wood,wood shingles and brick are preferred and exterior colors should be in earth tone colors. Bright colors should be avoided." c. Public Utilities Policy: The property meanders an existing creek. The North Gate Specific Plan has a policy that requires new residential development be connected to public services. The applicant is requesting an exception from this policy since the connection to public sewer due to topography and the existing creek makes it impossible and will not set a precedent since it was granted on a previous project directly across Pine Creek Road,Mr. Chetcuti four lot minor subdivision, County File#MS010005. The applicant submitted findings in support of the exception from the North Gate Specific Plan's Public Utility Policy: 1. When the Specific Plan was adopted, the drafters believed that public sewer was available to all properties. The policy in-favor of public services did not address those properties where public sewer was not available. 2. Allowing this property to use a septic system will not conflict with the goals,policies, and intent of the Specific Plan. 3. Providing an exception for this property as allowed in the Specific Plan will not set a"precedent"for private sewer use. The applicant submitted a letter from the Central Sanitary District dated December 15, 1986 that indicates because of the intervening 3 . creek and other topographical reasons, septic tank service should be utilized. The property is subject to the District's Hillside and Creek Sewer Policy. The engineering effort and cost to extend the sewer system to the subdivision will be significant, considering the following: ➢ The sewer is approximately 3,200 feet away. ➢ There is a creek to cross; and the grade is relatively flat. ➢ A septic system is the only alternative available. As mentioned above,the constraints for this application are identical to Mr. Chetcuti's project directly across Pine Creek Road, making the extension of public sewer to this particular site not feasible. The attached topographic schematic originally prepared for the Chetcuti project, demonstrates that a sanitary sewer connection could not serve the subject property because of the sloping topography of the site and the site location. Staff has determined in'review of the site that public sewer is not available to this property due to the property's location and it's proximity to the existing creek that separates it from the main sewer lines. In addition, the topography's flat terrain makes extension of the sewer line infeasible. Therefore, staff concludes that the granting of this exception will not create a precedent. The site is located in a relatively small pocket of the North Gate Specific Plan area,which cannot be reached by public sewer service. d. Creek Structure Setback: The site plan has been revised to indicate the creek structure setback. The applicant's calculation of net usable area greater than 30,000 square feet per parcel was determined adequate usable area for development, in accordance with North Gate Specific Plan requirements for all properties along existing creeks. e. Creek Preservation and Enhancement Plan: Pursuant to the North Gate Specific Plan policies on creeks, "Applications for residential development shall be required to provide, as a part of the application submittal, a creek preservation and enhancement plan, which outlines the methods of protecting and enhancing this resource." On April 5, 2006 the applicant submitted a Creek Preservation and Enhancement Plan prepared by Environmental Collaborative. Staff fonvarded this plan to the County's environmental consultant Monk&Associates on April 27, 2006. According to Monk &Associates, the Creek Preservation and Enhancement Plan prepared by Environmental Collaborative provides sound and appropriate standards for protecting Pine Creek within the area of the minor subdivision. 4 Monk &Associates had no recommendations or suggested changes to make on the report. f. General Plan/North Gate Specific Plan/Zoning Compliance: The General Plan and North Gate Specific Plan designation for the site is Single Family Residential —Very Low. The property is zoned R-40 Single Family Residential. The proposed two lot subdivision is in compliance with the General Plan, North Gate Specific Plan and Zoning designation for one additional building site on a 40,000 square foot lot. XI. PUBLIC WORKS CONSIDERATIONS The applicant proposes to subdivide an approximately 2.25 acre parcel into two parcels at 570 Pine Creek Road in the unincorporated Walnut Creek area. Proposed Parcel A currently features a single family residence,which is expected to remain. The subject parcel fronts on the west side o a private road extension of Pine Creek Road. Traffic and Circulation A private road extension of Pine Creek Road runs along the eastern boundary of the.subject parcel. The road appears to be 20 feet in width. The applicant shall improve and widen any inadequate portion of Pine Creek Road along the project frontage to a 20-foot paved road, in accordance with current County private road standards. Drainage Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires all storm water entering and/or originating on this property to be collected and conveyed without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse. Apparently, the creek structure setback area was previously recorded on the subject property(164 PM 21). This area is considered a restricted development area in which no permanent structures may be constructed. . A portion of the project site is 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. 5 Stormwater Management In compliance with the County's Stormwater Management and Discharged Control Ordinance, it has been determined that this project does not require submittal of a Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP). New or redeveloped impervious surface area proposed in this application totals less than one acre (43,560 square feet),which is threshold for submittal of a SWCP. However, this project is required to incorporate storm.water elements to the Maximum Extent Practicable(MEP). This must include efforts to limit new impervious surface area, limit directly connected impervious areas, provide for self retaining areas for self retaining areas and include other Best Management Practices to the MEP. X11. CONCLUSION The determination of the environmental review concluded that the whole of the project does not adversely affect the environment. The two lot subdivision which promotes one additional single family residence that helps create a sense of community. In staff s opinion, the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the surrounding single family residential properties on one acre lots. 6 PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE • AGENCY LETTERS • LETTERS FROM SAVE MT. DIABLO • APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO SAVE MT. DIABLO • NEIGHBORS IN OPPOSITION • NEIGHBOR IN FAVOR OF TRAIL AGENCY LETTERS S tn C 1 T Y O F WALNUT CREEK January 10, 2006 Rosemarie Pietras County Administration Building 4t Floor, North Wing 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: MS 05-0045 McDonald Tentative Map 570 Pine Creek Road, Walnut Creek Dear Rosemarie: On or about January 5, 2006, Mr. Yeraka requested that I contact to you concerning the multi- stemmed walnut tree near the center of Parcel B (See enclosure). For the purposes of the minor subdivision, the owner can choose whether the trees are requested for removal with the parcel map or when an architectural review of a new home is proposed on the site. Since no home design is proposed at this time, and the fact that a home can be located on the property to i avoid the tree, I believe it would be premature to process a tree removal request in absence of a home design. While the parcel map is.being processed, the owner should consult with a certified arborist and obtain an arborist report to evaluate the tree's health, viability for retention, and appraised value. If the arborist report indicates.the tree can be removed due to structural or physical conditions, the approving body should consider replacement trees (24-inch box size, minimum) to mitigate the loss of trees in this area. If the tree is identified for retention, the owner should consider the house placement and incorporate the tree into the landscape plan. In the case of the latter, financial surety for.the appraised value and tree preservation measures should be required to protect the tree during construction of the residence. Please contact me should you have any questions at (925)943-5899 x210 or carreon@walnut- creek.org. i Respectfully yours, ALAN REON Associate Planner Enclosure Cc: Mike Yeraka Alex & Darlene McDonald H.IABC3(Carreon)1NonnGate SpedficPlar\M-Dona)dMS050045_011005.doc i '� Central Contra Costa Sanitary District FAX: (925)228-4624 JAMES M.KELLY February 16, 2007 General Manager KENTON L.ALM Counsel for the District (510)808-2000 ELAINE R.BOEHME Rose Marie Pietras, Senior Planner Secretary of the Distnct Contra Costa County Community Developmnet Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Ms. Pietras: REQUEST FOR SERVICE; TWO-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION; 570 PINE CREEK . ROAD, UNINCORPORATED WALNUT CREEK; APN 138-230-028; WS 27; MAP 76C2 In response to a request for information about Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's (CCCSD) ability and willingness to provide wastewater utility service to this property, I am confirming that the property is within CCCSD's Sphere of Influence, but outside of CCCSD's boundaries. Wastewater utility service is not currently available to the project site and service will not be available for the foreseeable future due to topographic limitations and the distance to the nearest suitable sewer. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (925) 229-7255. Sincerely, Russell B. Leavitt, AICP RBL/rlh - cc: A. Hernandez, CCCSD Alex MacDonald, P.O. Box 5147, Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5147 rte; N:\ENVRSRV\Planning\Leavitt\DevRev\LETTERS\76c2-non-service-570 PCR.doc C�Recycled Paper V L� Dennis M. Barry,AICP com m U n i}Ly Contra Community Development Director \\\°� Development COSta � ti Department Countyf _ County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wind Martinez,California 94553-0095 ,,,� � �Z •` . ;� . ;- . Phone: (925)335-1210 : \tea Date: 11/1 0s t' AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: Building Inspection \ ISD,Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner f HSD,Hazardous Materials '--,/P/W-Flood Control (Full Size) County File PAN-Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Number: AAS O S'Da1-f s Date Forwarded P/W Traffic(Reduced) Prior To: WCW&'►ti&E7'_ :�,n P/W Special Districts (Reduced) _Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs Redevelopment Agency apply to this application: EZ-4Iistorical Resources Information System CA.Native Amer. Her.-Comm.. . Redevelopment Area CA Fish & Game,Region US Fish & Wildlife Service o Active Fault Zone —Fire District LOX 50 L D _Sanitary District ALFlood Hazard Area,Panel# Water District PcSTZt� fl c—y—city �iPCl-OuT '64LT'C1L IVO 60 dBA Noise Control School District n/►"r.- i�►Pc(3La uNl _Sherift'Office-Admin. & Comm.Svcs. /•/0 CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site Alamo Improvement Association EI Sobrante Plg. & Zoning Committee Traffic Zone MAC _DOIT -Dep.Director,Communications CEQA Exempt CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical Exemption Section Community Organizations S•114, A � . -bi C 0 CVS-7 w 1-<� C,ts ifi"i. 4J%1 o Aim- 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: 7 �1cdti T 4.4 �ti1.'7.a l - Signature Giry/Ni �/�ii�A���.f//.f�Cd*�L� �l�D �`1//� C�N!/.•%l/GV19Pv!/////��/�� Agency 10, S:currenl pl:iiuiin,;/lcmplatesliorms/agency comment reyucsl Date Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. NOV O .7 2005 -Jfficc IE; ciosec. tnE 1s:. irc! i: .51h =ridays o� a cr.. mont REC,® "Eric Whan" To <rpiet@cd.co.contra-costa.cEi.us> <ewhan@pw.cccounty.us> cc 07/02/2007 08:40 AM bcc Subject FW: MS 05-00045 Rose Marie, Monish asked me to look at the email below and then forward it on to you since he is out of the office today. I concur with his comments. Eric B. Whan Senior Civil Engineer Cc ritra3 co.qta cats ity FLlbbc Works lj,e. g:a.:.r t,m, e t Engineering Services Division 255 Glacier Drive Martinez,CA 94553 Phone: (925)313-2242 Fax: (925)313-2333 e-mail:ewhan@pw.cccounty.us "Accredited by the American Public Works Association" From: Monish Sen Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 3:43 PM To: Eric Whan Subject: MS 05-00045 Rose Marie, In response to the appeal of the Zoning Administrator approval of proposed subdivision MS 05-00045 on December 18, 2006, the Public Works Department has the following comments regarding the potential dedication for a trail or trail easement on the subject parcel: • Any trail easement dedicated on the subject parcels would have to be located outside the Creek Structure Setback area, which restricts any type of development(including trails)within this area along Pine Creek. • The resulting trail or easement would be located in the back yards of the proposed private properties. This raises concerns from a maintenance and safety(Sheriff Patrol) standpoint. This also raises concerns from the future homeowner's standpoint with respect to.liability (the homeowner would be the underlying fee title owner and would have some liability if the trail user "public"were to get hurt), privacy, and nuisances since the trail would traverse through the middle of the backyards. o Since both proposed parcels gain access via a private road, there would be no Public Access available to access any future trail for maintenance or inspection. o Any potential trail would need to be fenced, on each side, limiting the private homeowner's access to the rear of their parcels. A series of gates would need to be installed to allow the homeowner access to the rear. m Any dedicated easement for a trail would only-encumber the proposed parcels of this subdivision and it appears that further development potential of properties to the north and south of the subject parcel is limited (or non-existent). Therefore, it would not appear that additional easements could be acquired by way of dedication from adjacent property owners. Therefore, it would not appear that gaining a limited easement for trail purposes would be justified based on the entitlement requested. If additional easements were required on adjacent parcels they would be granted by the property owners or purchased(or condemned'by a public agency)which could be very expensive. • The North Gate Specific Plan shows a potential Pedestrian/Bike Trail on the parcel to the west of this development(west side of Pine Creek). This parcel appears to be existing open space and would be a more logical location to develop a trail alignment. The closest portion of the subject parcel to the proposed trail, as identified in the Specific Plan, is southeastern tip, which is in the creek bed, and therefore could not be developed due to the area being restricted by way of the recorded Creek Structure Setback Line. It would appear that any trail envisioned in the Specific Plan would likely traverse the Diablo Foothills Regional Park property to the southwest of the subject site. Monish Sen Associate Civil Engineer PROMCunt a'Cos County Publ%.c Works. AMID epar `tm .e<.n .t Contra Costa County Public Works Department Engineering Services Division 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: (925) 313-2187 Fax: (925) 313-2333 "Accredited by the American Public.Works Association" Contra Maurice M.Shin Public Works Director Costa Public Works Department R.Mitch Avalon Count/ 255 Glacier Drive Deputy Director Martinez, CA 94553-4897 Heather J.Ballenger (925)313-2000 Deputy Director Julia R.Bueren Deputy Director FAX TRANSMITTAL Patricia R.McNamee (925) 313-2333 Deputy Director F E:8 - s 2007 _ DATE: TIME: DELIVER TO: I r7 FIRM: FL S /V'q FAX NO.: SUBJECT: N'�S �� y' 5 FROM: I_;�v9 [ PHONE: NUMBER OF SHEETS: (Including Cover) If you have any problems with this transrnittal, please contact L—A-\A r1,'� at (925) 313---Z,7--l-75 MESSAGE: TjfE IN PrLcv -� -�V AT j1-hC— PQ r T--t I.1/1- A— [)j Original wi11 follow by t� r�'`� '+��1 C f:51A L [ ] Original ,vill not follow G:\Grobata\Clerical\FORMS\FAX TRANSMITTAL.doc ,!-•,.,,,,v4 < OGPC ,a a d1! 30 A3A - C. p, _ 2 .. „� f 0 O3tW1$y]'lY]5 diYfS HMY Z I� S � O h i el " � 2 � W OIJllf/N/IY31Y° ON eM1630 Q - SNh'7d 1N��'V3/10?JdrV/ sr,olsln3NM °I� iw;; O LLI k� aim Ire cr� E lea 1+ Vzi EL Alo CIA ry u ll'I`y1 ellk 1 m 1 '�_1— m 4a Ij fio t. -a II`4 i= l ` ll yell Ya 6 0� e l� °mob?�j/�,,, 1 J b 4i w~p 7 4 J llil X1.51 LETTERS FROM SAVE MT. ]DIABLO y l�„ji q a u e •'"y,,r i�w°"'k,� i Iles t`I � h-- .� ,n ," ^ °�.-"'Y ",�' ti-f'(�°n I if 'ry - .0 4•' !,-_ t I^ s-s.�T- } ,} r k., 1 ti j� b{ 111 I t��i JI1-�J F� V, ��a�1fJ I�d�J I�YJ Jri$dfn/ r I-- 7^ •�a - Y 1�� u r 3]P3"' y��Y ll�-''S�{C . lir`' J t4 - I f;f''i• J f� p�y}111 I ! w 1 ., �- � a) -T r i��',pJ`�1�� J FAN Y Y•y r 1 5171 t 7 J tYl !1 J I I �+ 7 .-.r t r Y y "�1.'Gl� .�'l�t I , 'fit"• � Ilr -7 - .c15 f L 111 1 �� ✓• 1 >, -�'4t1 t "il n .. ¢AE• Jr J a J�e l�:i�( �� ru r.l h _ � w��. •�`'?1 a u�, � J �j�,'i� 1 I i � " t I1! Y 1 rt1� .r`.�I��t1 s r,�rtl}'`"�,It n ..lel. � d'gyp'' r:: � '� rr �f t-•) �lavi1. 1 �.�'.�'�i�JfrY°.9M1T.. ..c�t, �;6 .�..�..:;.__,....,_.r ...._ .. . ...1� ...._._ .... 6�' 'L•:11"RL�d?��y Board of Directors '.9alcoim sprou! December 18, 2006 President nnhur Bonwell Application and Permit Center A,Ilan Praaci Community Development Department :ice Presidents Contra Costa County )avid Trot,::r 651 Pine Street, Second Floor, North Wing secretary Martinez, CA 94553 rank%aronchi}; Treasurer Re: County File-4 MS05004'5, MacDonald Property APN: 13S-230-0''8 furl Bassier ion de Frernery App 1'cant: ,Alex MacDonald )ana Cornsi_' Location: Unincorporated Walnut Creek, Northgate Specific Plan 'i,arla Gahcrt laudia Hein cou Hein Dear Rose ,Marie,. lichael Hitchcocl; avid 1-lus,ed Save Mount Diablo (SIvID) is requesting to appeal the December 1 S, 2006 decision lin, I'viercurio n,ura Morrison by the Contra Costa County Community Development Commission approving the. vivid 0aden subdivision of 2.246 acres located on Pine Creek Road into two lots. The appeal fee Livid Sareenl of S126 is enclosed. ,anon Waliers irectors This is a ioint appeal between Save Mount Diablo and North.gate residents Shirley 'aff Nootbaar and Joann Hanna. ?nald Brown recutive Director The MacDonald property is strategically located between Shell Ridge Open Space; ah ,-edam` Diablo Foothills ReLional Park (DFRP)'and the Mt- Diablo Gateway property (Flood 'rector,Land Programs Control District's Pine Creek Surplus property) and could provide a trail connection onica E. 0n between these public land use areas, as well as serve nearby Mt. Diablo State Park nance& and Lime Ridge Open Space. bn nhtraiion Manager — Seelen SMD is filing this appeal because SMD believes: ecial Events Volunteer Coordinator 1) A Negative Declaration for this project is not adequate analysis under CEQA cling Addrgiven potentially significant impacts. including impacts on Pine Creek; on nearby ess ;1 ol;n,uic Bivd..= "ii narks and recreational facilities including Shell Ridge Open Space; Diablo `,nut Creel:. CA 94596 Foothills Re<=lona] Park and the Mt. Diablo Gateway conservation easement (925'`'4' '" preserve; on traffic and increasing hazards to pedestrians and equestrians; on i92 1 947-064-1. listed species such as the California red-legged frog, as well as other wildlife (and i,site a biotic revicv, was undertaken at the wrong time of vear)- on hydrology. water ,t..,�,Jrelvru;l+,Ydiorlc,.n; quality, drainage and downstream flooding, etc. Substantial evidence was not provided in the record to support a conclusion of Nt.21MIvc Declaration. Inders un-Bnnu'ci ' � L. i�ntrermcn; 2) Proicct analysis failed to consider nearby public uses and changes in ircumstance. such as the nreservation of the nearby Mi. Diablo Gateway Preserve. 3) Project analysis failed to consider cumulative impacts of other nearby applications including the Gee subdivision application (MS 05-0013, APN: 135-?30-00?) adjacent to.the NE corner of the MacDonald property. 4) The applicant requested an exception to the North Gate Specific Plan's Public Utility Policy without si«nificant evidence to support the exception, and relying on a previous subdivision as a precedent, and expense as an'excuse. The applicant has not demonstrated undue hardship in requesting this exception. The impacts of use of a septic system on Pine Creek were riot analyzed. The previous subdivision's example in falling to consider impacts on hydrology and drainaL7e should not be a continued reason for ignoring_ these impacts. �) The project conflicts with policies of the North Gate Specific Plan (Plan) which would help to ensure compatibility between new residential developments in the area and the existing} equestrian, recreational, and agricultural uses. C) Mitigations for impacts were not required including conditions of development such as a) a dedicated trail easement to meet Specific Plan guidelines and b) dedication of development rights to preclude further subdivision while protecting wildlife habitat, etc. Please notify us as to the hearing date for this appeal. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely Ron Brmvn Executive Director .Co. Rose itiiarie Pieiras; Project Planner a���, -,�. : - 1 A•{ - , � � sem,•. 1�v Ir St. . :.x•`i,-"�, ye''� 'y �r AG r r r} saz ,. ��•.. o i ,,ia `�",•�a�' a,��' 'f {' �,� � + i rl1•r S"�v - - tri'.' r 4ou.f �9' .�r, .. r t '.T re;ary ,�� i j f 'iS'i' r•tj•:� ' :irt' - - t a•-�_1`•� � '¢,,.•;6..�,•L $ avL' • • Buurd af'Directors \lalcolnl Sproul Pres'ideAl December 4. 2006 nhur Boaawll AlLu, Pr,em. Rise fvlaric PICIms, 1'1.ojL:C( Planncl 17ce Presidents Carttlrlunity Development Depannlcnt David Trollci. Contra Costa CoLmly Seerela,•1• 651 I'inc Strcct, 4'I' Ilooi Martinez, CA 94;;3 Frank \rarcnchik Treasurer Re. 1gS050045, NCIC )onald Property, SMD Comments lit Burl LLIsslel APN'. 1 38-230-021 Don de Prenu;ry Dana 'c. Applicant: Alex MacDonald ClIx-l;l Gahcl-I Localion: Walnut Creek, Noith­ate Specific 111�m (111.1dNI FICA) Scow I Icin To Whom Il May Concern, 1Aichaul Hilchcoi:K David Ilustal John Met'c:urlo SMD and a number of Northoatc n6olibors h- VC cclnccrns abOLI( d i` application, and ghoul the .amara Morison nearby Gce Subdivision that is also proposed for subdivision. The t\vo applications together provide D:roid o ds" several Opportu111tics to benefit IhC public, as well as help solve and mccl additional goals of the . David Sargent Niorlh Gate Specific Plan. SMD's letter-of'Sclit 25'1'has much more clelall as to these oppollunilics. S'Nlron wailers Direc'tm-c Property Description/Str;ltc�,,ic Locution The fvlacDonald property Is stratcr'Ically located bet\'ycen Shell Ridgc Open Space, Diablo Foothills Ronald lirrna'I' Rcoional Park (DFRP), Iwo trails anti tic entrance. to Shed Rid,,c Upon Sp;lcc, and the Mt. Di�lblo F-vecurive Dir( fol, Ciatcway properly (Flood Conlrol DISlrlcl'.S Pinc Ortel: Surplus property) which was recently `;cih Adam:, priacrved with a col scrv;llloll casement by SMD, the Mt. Diablo C;atcway 111clncc, the Oily ol" Direefor. !-And Prr,,;,nlsIIIul Crock, EARPD, and sc:vcrll other arcncics. The property is also nc;Ir the Nilrlhl,illc enhance MomL:;l G. Ori to Mt. Diablo Stair Park Lund in close vicinity of'Linlc Ridoe Upon Space. I rhninich•rrliun S 1-.711a„ce rblr,nt er M-11cDonald and the Gee Suhdivi ,l<ln M'-, W-0011, adjacent at the NE corner [if MacDonald, could IuIIQ tid_Icn provide a trail L:orlrlccilon bcl\.vccn these public land use areas, link with the two trails, as well us Spethd Elcnn serve nearby Mt. Diablo Stale Parl; ;Ind 1.inlc l:id 'c Open Splwc. A wm)connection between Ihcsc .l• Firlunleer Cnurr(uurlur public land LISC areas could provide part of ;l s;Ifcr;IlIcill hive route 1,01.c(lucstrians, instc;lcl of_Casllc Rock Road. Equestrian .tialcty has bccn an issue in this arca for somc time as development proceeded, 1/ui/ink.-tddres> .Ind has been identified as an inlporlanl Is;uc by tic F30a1-d of Supervisurs. In 3004 a hol:sc on 19111 Olvnlpc blvd...- 3�s�inthr,atc Road \'\gas hit mud killed by ;I spc:cdinu nultorcycic, as one c>;anlplc. \'V'dnul Cr�2cr..(.1 ria,,QO Tel: 19'>)947-3,53,5Addilionally, Pine Creck crosses the property and is joined unsitc by Bor-cs C.rcck. UI1Ill tCITtlpted !-,is: r')''�I 947-0642 riparian woodland borders the. crock ;:lore!, the property. The creeks provide habitat for many species I'li'hsitc of v,11dilfe, including I'ar at Iccrsl one tipecies ul'speeicll concern, the Caifurm"I rc'd-Ic�_gcd frog, and . ',,v+u r,ufnrrv;lc%r,rhlnrrr�til'rvc as wlMlltc coll-ldoiS. North Gate Spceific Plan Policies WS import;int to not(- th.-1 the \lacl_rin;dd; htivc'. hre.vion lv received ;Ippro\al of a ;uhdivision proposal :Ind have already rc'CCIV(:d ' ri;lt !irl;uleia! bellelil frons their properl), Howe\rer (heir minor vrundr.'r\ :,W)J!VISWII V Lig �'Uhlccl to al CI1\11011lnCllt;Jl ;!ml1y.'.;1S or 111111,;111011 111;111 II lilev h;lO proposed 1111> i new lot at that bile. Each new Llllil IliIS ICSLIItCd In additional and Linnilligated traffic, runoff and impacts to wildlife and traditional uses such as agriculture and recreation. ,.As a result, Pine Creck has bccn affected and despite the downsticam detention basin, dow'nstr"Cant flooding IS incrcasmi_,.. Area roads have also seen increased traffic and conflicts have arisen hetvvecri traffic and recreational uses. Subsequently the North Gate Specific Plan (Plan) developed policies to ensure compatibility between new residential developments in the area and the existing equestrian, recreational, and agricultural uses. S1v1D's request of a dedicated Trail Easement and Dedication of Development Rights on thc.MacDonald property is in compliance with these policies: Thcy include: • "Gncorrra, Castle Rock Road, Shell Rid e Olen Space, Diablo Foothills Rc,nonal Park and the Mt. Diablo Gateway/Flood Control property. The Trail Easement,exact alignment to be chosen at a later dale, shall be located %vithln the restricted dcvclopi-new arca alone either side of'Pinc Creek,starting at the property's southwest corner, continuing north alon11 Pine Crcck., to the northern property boundary and then along the northern property boundary cxtendlny cast to the north cast corner of the property at Pine Creek Road. The Trail Easement width shall be no less than 20 feet, to allow for construction and maintenance. • "Dedication of Development Rights, Creek restricted Area" - Bcforc approval of a final subdivision map, the applicant shall execute and record an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of Development Rights. along the Pine Creek and Borges Creek.corridors in favor of Contra Costa County, of no less than 50' From top of bank and no less than the existing restricted area, whichever is greater. The dedication shall prohibit improvement of the areas of the lots within the easement, except for mitigation, restoration and/or.recreational trail use. This creek restricted area shall be fenced with open wire fencing. • "Dedication of Development Rights outside of Building Envelopes" -The developer shall execute and record an Irrevocable 0ffcr of.Dedication of Development Rights in favor of Contra Costa County for the remainder of the parcel outside of designated lialf acre building envelopes. The "Dedication of Development Rights, Creek restricted Area"and the"Dedication of Development Rights outside of Building Envelopes"can be consolidated as a single dedication. • Consultation with (lie Dept. of Fish & Game and/or US Fish & Wildlife Service-Prior to grading, the developer shall consult with the Department offish and Game and the Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding the impacts of drainage from construction and residential units into Pine Creek. We appreciate your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Seth Adams Director of Land Programs .=i � 1, '`"'w ��„ -i+� +•.; I z� ":'6f ' 1+r 1f •I�4, ''r'r 3 � '4�,it1' Y -,� - - — -c:x�ti���+h�F d� f•• , � J„ _ "H kL tar'. ,i, �� • }" -.L f• •��' s a v em, • Board of Dir'eerm's September 25, 2006 \•Ialcrilm S1,rou1 Pnc�;d`"r Rose Marie Pietras, Project Planner nrlhur 13on+,ell Community Development Department nll;n, Pr;ic' Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 4"',Floor Martinez, CA 94533 Set mrrn.l, r,;mk vmkr nclik Re: MS050045, MacDonald Property Trewalr`'r APN: 138-230-028 13u11 13:1SS'lb Applicant: Alex MacDonald Don(1c Fremery Location: Walnut Creek, Northgate Specific Plan Dona Dornsif' C'harL•1 GAICI—1 Dear Rose Ma Claudia I leis Mane, Scott Ficin Alichuel Hitchcock Thank you for giving Save Mount Diablo(SMD) the opportunity to provide comments on the DM'id I-lusletl proposed subdivision of the MacDonald property into two lots. Although SMD previously had John MCIUurin Anaau:l Alorrisrns no comment on ibis proposal, we have been approached by several neighbors with concerns'and David Ogden have received Anew information about (his and another nearby proposal (Gee Subdivision MS 05- D:,vid sar,en+ 0013, APN 1310-230-002) that is also proposed for subdivision. The two applications together Shuroi,Wahers provide several opportunities to benefit the public, as well as help solve and meet additional goals Director% of the.North Gate Specific Plan. .Srgll Rnnuld 131nwn Property Description/Strategic Location Esecwire Director ticih Adm,,, The MacDonald property is .siratcgicaHy located between Shell Ridge Open Space, Diablo Director; Land Pro;ro,n.,Foothills Regional Park (UFR7')and the Mt. Diablo Gateway properly(Flood Control District's IM(Imca E O.i Pine Creek Surplus property) which was recently preserved with a conservation casement by rdn,;,,i.,vrario„ SMD, the Mt. Diablo Gateway Alliance, the City of Walnut Creek, EF3111 D,and several other l linrrnce:l9onq,tn' (9acncic.s. The property is also near rbc Northgate entrance to Mi. Diahlo State Park.and in close 1uGc Sedco vicinity of Lime Ridge Open Space. Special Erenis +t I hl,,,dccr('r,rnd;notmI acDonald and the lice Subdivision MS 05-001.3, adjacent at the NE corner of MacDonald, could provide a trail connection between these public land use areas, as well as serve nearby Mt. tial/in iddre+, Diablo State Park and Lime Ridge Open Space. A trail connection belwcen these public land use 1901 Glvmhic t31,•d.u__(I c:as could provide part of a salcr alternative route for equestrians, instead of Castle Rock R.oad,. Waluw Crcck.CA 04�0(,Equestrian safety has been an issue in this area for some time as development proceeded, and has Tel: >1 047-,535 been identified as an important issue by the Board of'Supenisors. In 2004 a horse on Northgate I91-�l"a'-t?t'a' Road was hit and killed by a speeding motorcycle(Attachment A), as one example. rlirh.,ife Additionally, Pine Creek crosses the property and is joined onsite by Bones Creek. Uninten-upted riparian woodland borders the creek along the property. The creeks provide habitat for many species of wildlife, Including for at least one species of special concem, the California red-lesL,ed frog. and serve as wildlife corridors. undr•rti Attachment A (August, ?004) North Gate riders seek safer equestrian trails By Theresa Harrington CONTRA COSTA TIMES As Walnut Creek hasgr own from a small town to a thriving regional destination,development has transformed a sleepy side of Mount Diablo from ranches and pastures to-neighborhoods of million-dollar estates,where horses like Redwing Chaparral Vendetta risk their lives along busy streets. North Gate Road,which has become a major thoroughfare for,people rushing to Mount.-Diablo State.Pa.rk,proved fatal for Vendetta,an I I-year-old Arabian champion endurance mare who was hit t by,a speeding motorcycle. An accident like that was bound to happen,equestrians say... In the months before Vendetta's death,her owner,Pamela Swartz,and other equestrians had met with city abd county officials to request siums along North Gate and CastleRock roads,warning motorists to.slow do'n:f6r W horses. The group also advocated for better trails in the area,to I buffer themselves and their animals fromitraffic. "I said,'What's it going to take?A dead:horse?A dead.personT." Swartz recalled. i"A.1ittle more than:,a monihiater, my horse gets killed." A motorcyclist skidded and plowed into Vendetta's'liffid,leas on Aug, I Oas the horse walked along a-nar-ro,.Arail`-.` beside North Gateload in Mount Diablo StatePark. The rider,aTriend of Swartz,jumped off and.was-n6t,11ift.:but Vendetta's leg was broken.and her body lacerated by.barbed.Wir Unable to stand,,Vendetta stumbled and fell down an embatzl~ment into a rocky creek bed.She was so badly: mjiwlred . ., that rancher.JohnGinochio,used his.gun to end her rn�sery,4itht,Swartfs permission. % "It was just horr ndous.!":Ginochi6,said. "She hada broken leg.an d bones stickiug:out.-.1twasJust the saddest-_ thing Swartz is determffi�ed to prevent such atragedy from: appeqmg:agaui. -canTb6licive she's actually go'ne, Swa rtz ld like to have thdre-be:a cause for her ea: said somberly. "T death The incident:has.6dd6&ferv-or wtbe cam paign or,., safer eques,triamtrails and traffic warnings 'ui'Walnu'i.Cree'k;,on'.u'nincor-pbrated county land and in the park At the urgingof Supervisor Millie Greenberg :the cou'u 'eispeedliirfit-on i s,po ion o�t- 6�h�.G-Afe.' tv_hfts,�O.Weied1h rt, Road from 35 mph 10':N,mph,afid'interids to:posit signs warning motoristsAb-watch Toilorses The.public.:W-brks-":' department also is looking at.propeTty along North Gate:Road f64,detcrruM- e where traii:easements maye.,available. The county niaris.to work with equestrians to des]M: andbui. trail.s including a continuousequestrian pathbeside thead. Greenberg said. TO. North Gate Specific Plan,developed j6intly by city and coyn y,requires dbvePpers in the areato p'r&id6 a'bike tratl,pedestrian path,°horse trail and landscapingaiong-.-NbfthG�ateRoa:d.'-',B�'�'�i'same �": property owners pay.fees,:.or d6fer.iiriprovenicutsuntil."sev.er.a:l�-p'g.,Celg.hAve"becn-"S'Ubdivid6d..sotrails can be built allat once, said,Jahice Stem,Walnut Creek planner. This means very little of the trail has been.completed, i.complded,'.c 8usihe qutstrians to ride dangerously g on-or! :clos&to.the.­. road.This wasn't so,bad -howto, 20 years ajo,when traffic.was sparser-and oplqdiithe area knew -dfiv&',ar6u1i horses,said horse*trainer Dav&Wilson. At a meeting of about 70 equestrians in April,Wilson:said nearly, 80 'th ,"h' asked, iiercent raised� eirliands when ezas ed "How many of:you have almost been:hit by a car?" Speeding.moto.rist's often spook horses,..causing them to jer of slow down'when' passing horses,and shouldallow a wideberth,be:adVisea.' Walnut Creek planners are also looking at:ways to improve trails and signs'as part of the general plan Stem said. Geheralplan steering committee members recently identified the need forpublic education as,paft,of ' that effort.While equestrians are encouraged..by those developments,some feel that new development is squelching the rural roots of the area, 'Even the Equestrian Center of W, Creek, which has entertained audience; horse shows at'Heather Farm Park for more than 30 years,is looking for a new home. The center is slated to oecome a picnic area, according to the recently adopted park master plan. A group of Northgate homeowners has formed an alliance to work with Save Mount Diablo and others to purchase a conservation easement on 36 acres owned by the county Flood Control District near the North Gate Road entrance to Mount Diablo State Park. The.deal would-bar development,but allow construction of a small equestrian center and trails.Swartz said equestrians want to live peacefully in the community,but they hope newcomers remember that they were here fust. "The horse people are not asking for others to,give us what's not ours," she said. "Just give us some.room and put up some signs." i Save Mount Diablo Requests As a result of these issues,SMD requests: 1) Dedication of a floating trail easement within the restricted development area from the property's SW corner along Pine Creek to the northern property boundary and cast to Pine Creek Road): ; 2) Dedication of a scenic casement along the creek corridor(to protect rare species riparian habitat) 3) Dedication of development rights over the remainder of the parcel outside of the half-acre building envelopes. (to protect rare species upland habitat) 4) The Department of Fish and-Game and the Regional Water Quality Control Board be consulted regarding the proposal that drainage from the property is conveyed into the creeks. In the absence of these conditions/mitigations being approved, we believe that a biotic survey should have been conducted, that the project may have significant impacts, and question the validity of a negative declaration. c '•,;. t 1 y t r, vy r a k t- '1j•+'. s t x r iasz4aDDa t y N! �.° .. _� t F.•S x,38230029 � t - _ � ,�N,,: r _ ���i � r -' �a 5 s �'�K7{ 7;►P K„�br 6 i-..-rY + 3.�' +3Dz4D662 ,i i f: 1 : Al �ti L � •Y '�w..7t r ,,.,� _ 5F - � , ` It 1 38 2 300 3 7y 9 f Y 5 .,r � ' i $,r. � �� �-,b`4i , t3823D030} a''i�10• 9 tL nl t: s rr , it Mrac _6'n l ' �:- jtsez4Doo, �L�`� l'!b`�y 1'.C' ✓� r� 1 �..�t. r^ A:t- w�"' - t s ° Y 1 38 2 300 3 21 !�. 5 ; �yft k.� [�3 4i �, #',,..t�,t ;,... � �a'�k' •" < a� 4 L}:.A r� '_yly.,,.r'sas.• ..7;,l r�'�"",�� ' -��' 1382:A004 r+`• n �3821DD78'ry,L.air � �� �'�_�\� ♦4 y.. ,� �� +�} '1, y �,38230073 � � � i�•y C k � � - (/'x 73823000'! :`s �.°�� t7 • 4':.•"� .n. �� ��k� Sx�� ._� •L!I k`"`�f ,�•r -138 30"0�t9 �.I�� i: L.r� w .�9t40903 l ,. •B��C`.'i + r }i A "-r�Y �a�j�e`i'% ;,F:;:Wainut:Creek•.} � �*t ��, 4 ,� c _ J��g '+`r. t3azsooa 1 r_w30"I M23002 :rrr,,:'�'•me:s ♦Q? �tl'S .. :.:•u�•:,il?". .>?�:C��F _- 'its';' ,:,,�:.....p?�:.:',Tr.'..?'.fir;•.-•'-;ii".;kiu:SWTy7;:_' ">_1381700t1�r73877DO1Dtl • (� E LYJ� �G11571�{ �!t��<� .r',�P� ,38150019 • r.IYly'+ - �4..I. ' llC f �.4��'7-OtF_A ''S ..ftX�r r.- ���4t'A�1 . �� .. :f �w�v yt39ie600tFy r i3 ,s0007 ` 'a4 ' re s '76 ;F r ` oz 130150003 Lt3,t1.A018t �•3F7sa .�o-';F s fa k ,. ' ac 1_• 4y �, t tl ,-I u - r�� �b ✓;0 3 � P1/atLN ffj'�{,�i f 38,100011k ? t �.v ri 1�. ' •sacvx, " ,38 401HLG � A 1 '� �4 z. f� a u� k�-�.�•T•"""..r.t'•`4""."s ,r 5.�r-�.•c s F "?� Y m r i 'Sszs6w2f r1r >& � t Ot 1< '-q •s.� "�s rl. .N^` ..r*c r,s� 4 t� til ft yi.,i t .l�L',..5f +y� r3aznoo6atr, yw. i s n� t �• r ft 2 �2r4 4 -__k�;�"y.:Qr] 1302700'9- p Y.>•5 tl I ] 5?�r �_ N';� A(Gll� I k Cta 'tet 6 - t3824i1t11)2�"��r Q $3 ,3aza6D3D, ,3023DDt3823DOt<�t aid 4 ' x �� � � 11� ¢ . i�Sn y 5 �� ?��� Js tasz7D6az>, nsxs� a+* ,'''4 .90 M. x 18240007 t l 138230032He F x 71382300231.. ^j' N "c+� > ;7'4'Cfi �1�,stt, kltl`j i w' y, t. 1.tye$` '� ..•}i"'��'p 'x 4t` t.m`i771y5_'<k: g".; �ns7,�y i 5� ?1!i }y�P�b .lay L ay''�. 1. 1 p y (rt I y ,fC ti'F �11T1 ,382 ; owl T 138230013 ,38230005 S t ` S / S,w -A(I � 7 ,y7A 1302360 f9 -T fi, r ins d 5 r 1 6',t t of:rx ��i ab230002,ti3 �yt ut382]OOMJ ' 3 ••„rtj ��I -t 538220003 z r 4- y. "'' J..eurss 7%C+ 13825W0,•r x'.1382300-0.! :.s Shell Ridge Open Space O Proposed Trail easement Pine Creek,Borges Creek & Significant Species Pine Creek and Borges Creek on the property provide habitat for several species of fish,migratory birds,reptiles and amphibians. Among these species, several are species of special concern, including the California Red Legged Frog(CRLF),which is confirmed in Pine Creek,Borges Creek and other nearby streams. CRLF utilizes riparian areas and wetlands during the winter as habitat and breeding grounds, and upland areas during the rest of the year. The potential construction of another unit on the property could impact the frog through loss of habitat, pollution of the creek, accidental fill in the waterways, and the addition of domestic animals that could prey on the frog. The riparian area and creek on the property are also potentially used by several species of migratory birds. The impacts to the creek could reduce or eliminate these species from the area, Based on these concerns a biotic study should have been conducted on the property. The result is a forgone . conclusion,however,given nearby records of the CRLF. To ensure future preservation of Pine Creek and Borges Creek, the development rights to both creek corridors should be dedicated to Contra Costa County, and future subdivision should be precluded by the additional dedication of development rights outside of half acre building envelopes..if the property is preserved in this manner,SMD will not request a biotic survey. MOUNT DIABLO GATEWAY viclrar�rrM n �. (L S oX ::-6FFNTIO '- y t WALNUT-CREEK S " _ 1 _ ":9A S I N.�I'YcIkC3 , J SPHERE Or In FLUENCE ' . .'!.''.=^:;� c:,;_ - (l 6OUNPA,Ry OF NORTH GATE 1 - .Jyi f._y._.`:. SPECIFIC YLAN Wv. w,:•. ' 'h�� :�'' � •-•,. ,�� /-. ,:rte:. T-- ., .,,�\� tee►;i 46a.�i\ �i•1 T. O I A B L O PARK •-i ^`i*-�; - wee �: ,,�, � ..�;`KIO51•C ENT RA NCc �'[i� MTa maid ._Py',.s�'r _�.,.` -G Pr erty `'t 'IV✓r�3U5J=J, -� �`vZ. RANO H fl�:k C VVO DE .Jt, :� f r � i•� l rl ,,S 7 y �{ til I 'LIHL,L� y "> Y ii GINOC'il0 �' J R,4.hI C Fi o '1. , ��\ \- { 1 fa sa a`•} 'i�i3' V l'? trf1_OO c,J Trail Corridor As stated previously, the MacDonald property is located between Shell Ridge Open Space, Diablo:Foothills Regional Park and the Mt. Diablo Gateway property. The property's southwestern corner almost reaches Castle Rock Road, almost directly across the road from the entrance to Shell Ridge and the Borges Ranch historical area,and the boundary of DFRP. The property corner is just a few hundred feet from and could connect with two different public trails,the Castle Rock Trail,and the Borges Ranch Trail, extending hiker and equestrian uses to the Gateway property and further. A goal of the equestrian community is to remove equestrian traffic from Castle Rock and Northgate Roads..In the past there have been incidents between motorized vehicle traffic and equestrian traffic along these roads. A trail that circumvents the need for equestrians to use Castle Rock Road and North Gate Road when traveling from the Castle Rock Trail area to the Gateway preserve could reduce these incidents. MacDonald's Northeast corner is just one property(the Gee property)--also currently proposed for subdivision—from the Gateway preserve. Dedication of a trail easement through the MacDonald property could almost connect Shell Ridge Open Space Borges Ranch entrance on Castle Rock Road, and the two trails,to Pine Creek Road,bridging half the distance to the Gateway propertyboundary which is adjacent to Pine Creek Road. The Gee property could bridge the remaininj distance. The suggested route would be from the property's SW comer along Pine Creek to the northern property boundary and cast to Pine Creek Road. gst9, i{TRAIL ' r f ft-Tra,l to LIME RIDGE t c .i7 "� 4i im ha { 7 Sh R d � `�' u1 tal i'jygdq �•at� '�9r5 f 4� �y R a X r ri zlis� t \ <r 'fir ��1 Gatewa 4 r Y F 1 t Pres erne r n - i '�Z ! 1 '� lNorthGatol w . eO Lys�r r�lrld�C�ORaf� -•t ?cY.x;,r � �,� .p LC 3.ti �i b/o Footl;til s� Regional r�.�d` �YY� ttyiurs;sVnrlSp O r Ft Y r"\ seq J �nL a� Q �.. A . e FtgoP �^ 7. >> z n ?ros FA a�_DJfJ1Q, rQotli �s Ttld GPSE R Haystack 1 A t r °al ti Y,tilt$R� fis k�i r i �9 (� �rrk f 114d— r r C Co$.iq m �' • q ' �" RECfiEATION � *:p��' �•,�� , � AREA ., eon t below gh 4 �y (goy + 'P ;KANCH Potential mail co?lnections from Shell Ridge Open Space and Diablo Foothills Regional Preserve North Gate Specific Plan Policies The North Gate Specific Plan (Plan) developed policies to ensure compatibility between new residential developments in the area and the existing equestrian,recreational, and agricultural uses. SMD's request of a dedicated Trail Easement and Dedication of Development Rights on the MacDonald property is in compliance with these policies and helps ensure that these policies are honored. Below are specific policies regardin'o land use,recreation,and open space and conservation included in the Plan that support.SMD's request. y "Encourage, to the extent feasible, continued operation of the equestrian facilities, riding academies, horse stables, and private ownership of horses in the area." A Trail Easement on the MacDonald property could be the first step to establishing an equestrian trail between the Shell Ridge and DFRP areas to the Mt. Diablo Gateway property,Northgate Road and Mt. Diablo State Park. This trail could enhance the existing equestrian trails in the area by allowing equestrian traffic to bypass the use of Castle Rock Road when traveling between these areas. Additionally, eliminating the need for equestrian traffic to travel along Castle Rock Road could contribute to increased safety along this road. • "Preserve and enhance, to the extent feasible, creeks and riparian vegetation in the area." The property includes two creeks,Borges Creek and Pine Creek. These creeks appear in outstanding condition given that the riparian woodland bordering the creeks appears uninterrupted and high quality. These creeks provide habitat to many species of wildlife. The dedication of development rights along the creeks and outside of the half-acre building envelopes will ensure these.creeks continue to be preserved in perpetuity. Additionally,any drainage from residential units into the creeks represents a potential significant impact on the creeks. To ensure the drainage does not impose a negative impact on these creeks,the Department of Fish and Game and the Regional.Water Quality Control Board should be consulted. Proposed Conditions of Approval • Floating Trail Easement-Before approval of a final subdivision map, the applicant shall execute a floating Trail Easement in the County's favor,to allow for the establishment and construction of a recreational trail connection by an assigned party of the County such as the City of Walnut Creek, East Bay Regional Park District(EBR-PD) or other recreational agency to allow a trail connection between Castle Rock Road, Shell Ridge Open Space,Diablo Foothills Regional Park and the Mt. Diablo Gateway/Flood Control property. The Trail Easement,exact alignment to be chosen at a later date, shall be located within the restricted development area along either side of Pine Creek, starting at the property's southwest corner,continuing north along Pine Creek, to the northern property boundary and then along the northern property boundary extending east to the north east corner of the property at Pine Creek Road. The Trail Easement width shall be no less than 20 feet, to allow for construction and maintenance. • "Dedication of Development Rights, Creek restricted Area" -Before approval of a final subdivision map, the applicant shall execute and record an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of Development Rights along the Pine Creek and Borges Creek corridors in favor of Contra Costa County,of no less than 50' from top of bank and no less than the existing restricted area,whichever is greater. The dedication shall prohibit improvernent of the areas of the lots within the easement, except for mitigation,restoration and/or recreational trail use. This creek restricted area shall be fenced with open wire fencing. • "Dedication of Development Ri;hts outside of Building Envelopes" -The developer shall execute and record an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of Development Rights in favor of Contra Costa County for the remainder of the parcel outside of designated half acre building envelopes. The"Dedication of — Development Rights, Creek restricted Area"and the"Dedication of Development Rights outside of Building Envelopes"can be consolidated as a single dedication. • Consultation with the Dept. of Fish & Game and/or US Fish & Wildlife Service - Prior to grading, the developer shall consult with the Department of Fish and Grupe and the Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding the impacts of drainage from construction and residential units into Pine Creek. SMD's mission is to preserve Mount Diablo's peaks and surrounding foothills through land acquisition and Preservation strategies to: protect the mountain's natural beauty, integrity,and biological diversity; enhance our area's quality of life; and provide recreational opportunities consistent with protection of natural resources. SMD includes more than 7,000 supporters throughout the region, including hundreds in the Northgate nciohborhood. We appreciate your consideration of our corimcnts. Please inform us of any hearing dates on this application or the Gee Subdivision (MS 05-0013, APN 138-230-002). Sincerely, Seth Adams Director of Land Programs . APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO SAVE MT. DIABLO ' - . • • - • . . • . • . • • - . - • - 11 • '''�•' �,. s- 'h .� r tz'r �',a� "�i; c rtz 4 h- r� x'.e 7 el 151df+ * . . L•�_ , �r� t�4�'S �•�,,r 2.ru } 4a71 c ,, sh.,� ti 2��+ pct... „-„•�yv }i r- -r>y ,F^'•+rt� .4� _r� , `!',.yl '•" _i 9r - - -�+.- rT t s} (,- ;.i T 1 'z . er' AA C-a,f`�• �,�,y' x.•. � �f� �^}t'^��a � .r L ��, .}�t?�, � - `-�.Y Ztr-' � _ � :� j. , - Y v,S:T:Ir•k��"��1 �. r tT� � _�•t.�t'� ..F ` r r� � -, - .- .. 4`µ'jt•1.Jv+(r 1 ., , 1•r'Y ✓ �+i' 1:� ``,r ,, r� r 5r +s�-r ti T+s,,�,._» •ry y.C` `�4„'(��.�.. �'' ��S,1t"rte '�,"r. _-. J. r y�f.Wit. tti'P. � �r 'q. � Alp N 11{„x;Si -�N�c +? +r -� 1 ns�{I r�1,i '1 _ ,}�_ •lryr ` .-. . •: ;3�t ��n`` G J,�,,l�i`�'+��u. 1�'� �r V r �I �. � �1 �a ' � Ksv. � ��8r� 1,� 1`I'•;\ a,�.�S'� �� I'.J � ri:r Fi R � � (��'/�+ 3'' '2' •� a• 'i' =f � � .• �' A�. JSLdt S �- ` h .,f -SC �'+t T,j :��� JET, . ❑- r' - LI 'y�iF rr ra,,, :,1Cr•�-#d�'.�'�"� !r�F6 !r t..�a k "ti.c r�'• Fr`�.,ik �lx,`i 4' K ! � �'"'� ,.If'h.' !,.• � -f"� if ,..5.Y1 d Y1J' >•„,�i�.r d- =a.�j+��{ �,��� z} q•.-..(z��}''�• - �,,p i.�b-t1��;!'u 5�^ M1��'L:'-r•1`_� �`tiaL1 1 f� "'1;- iq� I,r r a','k`.� � �Afk.�y�.y-Fi`1�A�,pf ''�`a�,,�t�.'5ic��L'�����t (- tS 't�-.��=.� ,F`�.:b,.:r�'.'''L•.�'- _ )`r.�• CTI' ."..,}7( i4 :�7�.4•�d^. p •Y'J ,4 a: ?�,,, ,�,� %4g {�.,: as��_•,4.�a Jl�,_,rjh'+ 'r.5 .r y. t• ..�:r,�.� r _i.?yy 9' fr,: n i s `? 7,-X,4% 1,�4'1t� .;};t to L ...•r,¢Y '� +'r�� afyr.4� y dy� X s `, ��� 1� `w ;1 �. , 1 -ti�s"� 'r�"��r•�.t'q.J! g 4:.�Y E-i.dFte '�+�� .S �� ��""pF�'t+'i7 !h; 4..y � -,��Y r-6 r� �r� I�.�j- '=�cr'G. � -.�-J' � ,� �.� ?�'' i ;`-�g�-`4F. 6 ��,t 1. �a r r°.•4 r- �+N i r P �: IW J `t Z c '- .����.f },� `-.�'� � � 'I.t� �• - t :Cr � ' ..� � {,r- 'ti � �Y� ,f.��LY�• � .� f�'". � , � t. •:"°f•. -? 5rt�.ii..P,a1^`� �„+; ""'r.l,� , E y �. `�'�r yl �#�'1�,� r'�. ��. ��1 M'',�`'' {�� (� "b.-. - 'cam'•' t,l �'.i G ;' �».s yw i.� 4�p,� j4y^� r ��t�, �-'r � z ,4•R��rb r i� t F r,,}'L t, er •:r�r.�lg� u ; yd'; ,� k } },_^1 ,.�: F' _ y `tiar ,. 1 �,Y''�i � r y' Z �t 4 � '�4�{t�`�' y 4'r I I h •�}a Y� r '' •, 4,Af� .:t ,i`; i'.T, .{r•4 �,4'�,( <_h y(rj c, r� � ��� �h �Y3 rt..S M( r i�4Yk fir• t. �, µ` ,tom min � �4'. ,� Y k f�-' .!, +, 1'ca� "' y �� �� p' �a�'t� � � 'y e ' w� �e .a.° �,;� �� •-.j�'4S't.t�l'S 1t„r. , r Y October 23, 2006 Rose Marie Pietras, Project Planner Community Development Department Martinez, CA 94533 Subject: Response to Save Mount Diablo Proposal of September 25, 2006 Regarding proposed subdivision MS050045, APN # 138-230-028 From: Applicants: Alex and Darlene Macdonald Dear Rose Marie; We are writing to explain our opposition to the proposal submitted by the Save Mount Diablo Group (SMDG) as represented by Seth Adams, their Director of Land Acquisitions. The SMDG plan has many inaccuracies and ill-conceived assumptions that make the proposal unacceptable to the applicants. These inaccurate statements and assumptions will negatively affect the outcome of their stated plan. The SMDG plan's good intentions would be better served if they focused their efforts in other areas. There are existing trails that connect Castle Rock Road to Northgate Road that are ready to use and are a safer alternative to the proposed SMD plan presented. The expedited opening of the East Bay Regional Park Land bank holdings presents an increased tangible benefit to the equine community. If SMD is truly interested in their stated goal,they should focus their efforts towards this end, not burdening land,which will be demonstrated to be unacceptable for trail placement. In this opposition letter we will explain where the SMDG has proposed inaccurate, ill- conceived and potentially illegal demands. We will discuss the unaddressed safety concerns presented and the inevitable property right infringements that are incumbent in this proposal. Additionally, we will discuss the effects on the neighborhood and the residents' response to the proposed plan. (See Attachment B, `Petition of Opposition' and `Refusal of Right to Pass' on the private road section at the southern end of Pine Creek Road). Most importantly; we will discuss the report (submitted as attachment A), by James Martin; B.S. (in Biological Resources from UC Berkeley) Principal Agent at Envirotune.ntal Collaborative in Emery-ville CA. This panel before has accepted the opinions of this proven and experienced biologist and, in his opinion-, the SMDG plan will achieve the exact opposite of its stated goal. It is our belief that the SMDG is using their position as a public charitable representative to further their own reputation at the expense of the individual property owner. The SMDG plan has been verbally acknowledged by Mr. Adams as potentially never coming to fruiti,on, yet.he continues to seek out easements and hence burden the property owners for access that will never-help any of his stated beneficiaries. In this circumstance this easement request is an unwarranted burden on the property owner and is beyond the expectation of any goal listed in the governing Northgate Specific Plan. The Save Mount Diablo Plan contains inaccurate, ill conceived And Potentially illeLral demands. A. Applicants parcel is not near Castle Rock Road, it is actually+/- 150 feet from Castle Rock Road. Also problematic it that there is a+/--25-foot height difference between the road and the Creek at the proposed bridge inception. The SMDG proposal envisions a connection between Castle Rock Road and the private end of Pine.Creek Road, which could provide a"safer alternative route for equestrians, instead of Castle Rock Road." (SMD Proposal,page 1, paragraph 3). Unfortunately the proposal fails to address certain geographical hazards that would preclude such a trail, not even addressing yet the severe ecological concerns that the trail presents by increasing traffic, both human and equine, along a creek bank that is very sensitive to erosion and pollution concerns. The proposal implies that the property up for sub-division abuts Castle Rock Road. This is patently false. The property line of the parcel in question ends over 150 feet from the �s�ric`�'�l a�� "'`��k••��+�V 'fbr:s{'^}'�tt � ' by - L. a�y.�?� it.r!�'t rs 4?,t( •w� ,t'Y'?s,� � v t ��� f .,��'�p''+�."`,•�` 7"��'� ./�•. r b .. n � 'a. �I -7 C M ••.� i."y'� },° !'- � ? s '�. +t^ �tsr'r�t �. �. .•a f.. _ ,�.} aJ � .�: a 5ht ,. t•, -� lr ,-.r-� � �y r� t.�r?.�: .r%' av r e i � .'`� ; ,,, ♦ f t�"7��Sf-.�(L�^.:''( 1 Yt.. •S ,,?'r e t �i�t�v�'m,� r r�'r�.,�a �� 1}:� s+,„" ; 'Y+, *' At ibis., +` 4 yY x�u5 ��.��� rti'+3t;,f'j� �� �;h! '� ,v� �' � �,��X ��c;'�•` 1� j,r` f �L { NaKf i� T1s�Ji,.= y � Af v � �r aT-:r . �r �• •"A .� �.AR1 fC� XYy;w• �"-�a'�, f�c ��� � �1-[�*7 �{.r�. `� !s.' `} iL?�a t•-1 t,�� ,� �• p' ''m�-r' yr. ti Y� "R.•.. rx'.'v. .'d''.} �ir�«'' �s ;'. it,\ ' 4, „��,"��� •;� .S 1 � � 'dt -eF .y rim t.'sa'�t�;�S��Li�t.��- � :� ''•, ._?�s�+*vfl ,�^•,ay`r.' v tiiye,�� '+ ! (.t,'�,�`�,y-1�, .%�7 '. 'j!, .. k�f �f "'-t,'�.� ��� � �..y•�. .!}�..yU{�� � (:J L(�r ff+' � f, �.5�-u.�a C A�,�: t - � ,�fiay.7 K��Zn�.¢��t,•• � ," ,Q,,,l.. 7F ja`.J «b �`^) ;s?+7 �S.� �Y v <: i lw�"r p�y'q'•�.N '��r��']1`ta^��^. ,, «t y .' b^* i :t• ,r�, r7 1��+ ;i 1. C `Sfin ! i-^�'''.r ' -•• �t '', a:• -'}^ `71ti-' \Qr•R�?^'•=,+ti'<�J'9ti�"� .?' ty_lI jam.. y - w "Y�! 1-'.�5•,.... :'SFnc�+l2 � :r1a r',.`at�;"7....,v"*'' 'S {•y# v".�. `4^` : . .J;. +;T7��d'.4{ .��.e����•��Fx�y,j ���y� { ''? -�`i', V.i 77 yt..„- .�St "`�'s'H c ',�`Ti'>' w r a`t�i£'�A:-., *7` �'.ty,'�•�"„�'."" ',�• N'1�y'j��'�-. ^(yr-"F�K'�t 7—X, e('+ l ,sT..'t'��`,`��h 4?'' `-'�?' r• ! ••a acs`.'-"r t'r <.�.•'7. `P '� tf+':. }';3' ht � � ,t,-' xi Y 'T � }�j { y�,. F'r' ;,� a ������r'�, 4'7 :.7,"<+T .I"':' ,�.y.. ."L :i�V�.• �{it �.A'�y*r=3�c vr� iT ��..t�-5.�� � , ,� ',(.y�; 't`'. � ;f' �%c"� 3�` b✓ .^ _� '!'.,�....�. .1• ? •jt. �` ,t.,r r rfE S: r "�.°• �t.. ., �' a( •«•d'�,` -; < �y•�, �� 't -r) 7t t Y.t `��. �Y�tv�� Y'�~t•". 2 i�).f.•?'d"� ~ rrysx����j�1•-.��dB.eM `` �,td;,�,,�""f�: ��'�z}�.a1�•1 r! , ,`:S S f } yZy,,7� 4 fy,.' -i1�;T.l"" 4:1'�,�t•. ,''' '' mow". �'?`"t `'r`' v'y P �,•• �... ! ^t' a`li- t, yc \ r `'lr'" �`'4, �� tr° x f7 �'`r�',-,',��'r •n�, t.:{ r r' � f.-•�a,�g ,\,,,�i� d e.':'r'�JSMt� ,' t '�T rfl '',`' 'l •ai,�`•, yY •*' `c' , r1'v+ ,� , •K 'S�'t' ` '''`�..co i'�•t Xv ' 's:: s t� -+er'` -y+ ,,i lS .`1, � '�Y� `t4•a��r���"��C' �`��h�, js:. �'��.5 t�_-^ �<^, •r*.'1�9. , J' -,.t .a,< h �.•�ti�L `. " ;N.71AC ^.,,�''.rr 4�i""r -0-,si�X'',�, L:•.✓d .?,`j,�.uf.. �-I •i..+�?�".,'�h' �'7u:�'^���P' <.y T`'��•'.'vy i�t�1. �'..}� y ss,>�-''` ,..+� `U.'•K`�'�.: 'h" '�1!.R• 4y F a3'• 21 �'xi `�t�J' 'j i•r.'-'`''``�•,,,,45���..-,`nti•''r`��+�4.�,:5�3��;`.•-.4,'•._ ••.� ,y� i;f' � ��'���tj�}p', , �+;•,•t.. .�✓,�'�t r��'< !y��e�f�c��',n 7S � t4�js` 'a 1 'f t��`}r�'�' Y•{�'.�,�•t� _ i< ,;`- ,. `7-.� +}y'1 , r "4"��'.��3 1 ,•FF,,� jj��,,s ���t�S'��ll '-•. � '`t`r�"" -�4 ! 4�f.�i�i�.a. 1'-;'.� � �. ..;5-'�.�•�+r� r.� �.. Yl.y t a 4` �v' t rS• fQ.+F. -�a<+- X "' Yi..a._ -sF �_*'�. .J <Y^i.`fM1y�-+.•� •,1 ,i ^�.-�, •. .:� ;,�.. a } .;1, { � ` � i,� .�a. {�'. r`•t-1,�< r'r jrl;.�,��, ✓L3'�+�+`'.F't ,j.s. N' �t�%41 >, r;-f 3 t r �"•'r' S',ka��Tt�• .f ti';yy>t` •r.�ir��qq�'` 'lam L x. ' • r • .1---''::.v:•.;.L:�,'.-• { ;_{Fa`a7.L ��a.':,�. �� M iszt;x � C F• i � ),-lJ,�p11s{�41` �.r n }��, t 'a- r- C�• rt:2 ill 9 i •LYS' J} -0 ]� ` '�. �91 r r� >� F' •ir'�5��-`"Tc CsJs..�.1-�r+7�.. ��- v �a- � 7 �p j t r rr �,.1�.'` ,.�+�' -,`-,�.'r��. ��y��L"t.'� �^p�p�•1'S'. rti�fir `� '! 1. :•-fit ':i-�1_ r1 S �`,, ���yf.`ti 'U 1���y 1'•. _ r�.� yr� �y��j� p �'� -.e r • - -,�' } i P �� ,�� ,fes dy 'kf F ���•� ms's` �_:�a1',`Lt�� "��L_}r_ r� � � _ t- ri r 6 :, -x .•24.i S'G,kf.y'�' .,` ''Sa.' ti= ,t' c. ;77 .i -'4h^.-.SF. i_YiTt!EI'x�'- f:... +,�'ili", � '•ri - - � V�� �7^Y tr .a1��;M lit. ,�' ��k;�',` _ Frt.j., _ 7�•A LP ''�,� + �' n.. .f�ir.-.,:V+"3' �Y�S�!_$fh'�_ �i`�'..�• .�iY.` ry-l},,. �.—3y?� •_ .+,j 'T'. ij: - .F:f',�,-Y F.i �1°.' �+ 1!-,..r^1L•;.y_ �� r�• ..��'•..� l��'y. 1111 -'y v.lf'' �'N���� ���. �'' -.�. .� - �'� �-���� h..�y ti'S"ri.-�°lr�' -� -< � 3'A_y ��` ` ,dl e�1�'� �r� a�-� '' y5... "".3��. �♦� �t ter,"'- _ fi��- ' � �dw ��•'�1 i ,v.f '"L''i � c4,+b2� -y .���1'_i}S,��Y7s�3y YJ yp•- _ �.,,•',, rV4�:f11 �` - t ��r i'4."q"' ��i.r.Kw:r .. �'r -�'?W<'t �. .�, '�•� �-�'.4t�' F+7 .c�l�,�ia,"�--•i E'r"�.t{�r 'el, •' ": y,A": � z},. ,.€�!, ,•- S-..-c t>� ++"�uy,�,w °r -ti•'y' A- , - . ,c ' rr yM f n - `�. .y`�•.?,�w^'-••��,. 4''.r"'�."..x .1�k i�4'�. ��'+fir *L y �� . 4 FVj,i e_ i„` r. r.'-Z'1' .t? tip.. - .,. �i �`'• ,� �,P/L ,✓.��`..'_r��'.t�'/y4� .RLy'�'.Y: i�j#� y: �:•'''"�-m r1;.,.,ya,� JC"'i` aT 'r`';-.'1'pf,y=•..u�• '' � � �.� .r.�•.!':'--�:',:�l'�- � - ..•su slu T '''..t"^�,::; r v! 'L b'• r-�i r� s ?' - r' � ,i�► _ cM�� "': .Y.�.� '- .� ��I"•':' ..irsR' _ =�'`QFC .�F�, ..�}..�_':,,:�. S"�t Jdc r �a as r.' z� yJ� u 4.1 -{,� 17, 04 VIEW DOWN INTO CREEK FROM CASTLE ROCK ROAD +/- 25 FEET VERTICAL DIFFERENCE FROM CREEK AND LAND EDGE TO CASTLE ROCK ROAD. END OF MACDONALD PROPERTY +/- 150 FEET FROM THIS POINT IN CREEK. BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED FROM THIS POINT; A BLIND CURVE ON CASTLE ROCK ROAD .:� ••J � �� �JJ3ad;r � la��gll. j` � t .� r• �r.I,S� 5t{}'r� W VNU-� ,,�•; �� .'''�,�9c����*��t}C � r,,� ..�. it �.p xe�� �r�.�7..- �C. '� �1R,:.9'�..hY I. �s 1 •L�t 1 a v, � �1, �f A �� a 1 S t� � ,<Y�--: _�`/ tC��`,,�: .'C :v {� ��� � '�--' ��`, $1 .t fi� +• � 11^,y<�. �fi 's`• �.� t'+5t, a'� �;1 - ' .>t iy+7• �F �� .�!5�,4 rSr� � . .A 1C'�I �•�ai' 1 �+,,��77,, 5r ts•�S�L-� l �. t t° �t,�- � ,r� �i iyy' .�y"rl! L`,t(,y''T�: M tr'Tie! �'i �• � i { tib, 4. s�Cl � 41 � • •'' ¢ 5� !- '` -s ^'..: K''c �y .-'rr 'tomi .f� 7''� r ?,h'�i' !d �rl �r !� _�.�" � �.,x L�1 i r x r- J � ��� �"' �f �.lY�'',y5 s•i11-�Z�,S7.{t ��.:.dk ai"+'r,T^•..4_-_���«dt.�i� t .��'t c �. f � ,� 7 ' ,��'f•:7F '. ���!`i'�i,>�ki 1�Ni��•1•S'3' `� 2 !r'+C `--k��•-s +F - c•ft �ify�w��'r i� �Z" rs� t l� lilj ,`5��v1 ! r'f r ,�' S-8 ,J�•�'�w����-�+ik�"'r T r F r'±Y� ���� �� T Y`-C"- t,� � � y��j..+y.�j� ,:c �< rr T. y, �r� W", 5��f�`1 �rpJ' y' � ti Yt L P r�r�4,� a••n f�1 �•y 5 •� .z +-�_ 4,�,. � �v�r'!r�`ri..,i�u`�•=���� „5- �-� n� r "L f`•.�+ '` �c J��•! �r 7--P L; bdrrRrd �.� = Y � t �.�4r r � ' r 4.i .�� 'v ti� ''`"•i [,�.:�.��-��"�';� s F''�_�-"4�`'�3f ' c 7 Y.�• 1 r-r • 7 s'.� " ..��.� s9�tf`zP 4:f-�.. r�� fstt. � q�i �jti " 'w� _ - .••+��� i•. �.}'C� '�^y�� '�.�1. ' y`S .,5.•-} .�.r„—y�f`�'P� iT.,. tkSt '.^G. 1 •)�}` � �a""+:' d � t� i�_ i'lt h Yi. '�_�` v t{{t TT tj�y} •t •� ' t �l 4 i 4• �'{ '4�I � tiC."_4-S ..��,'�' `r ,� } .�•-�r.;�,.•, �+r'-``�- �y �.�,..'� nt,-- �, y�,'7,L��}���� ��.; r c '° '.� E - •r� - �7 }1 it `ti'.. rp' • ' �1Y �. �� i�e(4,n ;� ryµ'p4 1►}h L. 1.ST "orf' z yi�vti'' r' ' 7, r�;p�.• ` f ` tf��tt�'�i!.��yrY��h ��t�f•.c.]��,-��+�F�:+-{�14' - I t� , •1 71 �qqJ� �i'7i{�'A�}1 J '��� !' �F ��, L 1�l; t:l:Fr4 �5,7.�` ����� Irl ,-h+:�`'+ni'��� >�� ,.�,.� - x f" � _�Wiz- 5` 7"i`- ��r efjk��•^a�. `"�� '' �+ �y-�ra�_ z��-'i 5�'.`�_ t�.:fF� �:t«-•. it•�;.J t ��'#.J� .�43C-,'S. 1,�. ' � ..��'�.1- .�'.?� '.ii. .} G. PYRIt '15i `lt4L`{ _ � T1,F �`Yri-��r�c - its '�g�j ��,.'+• I 1. .'A€' � M � �t rj � -itj'7 r, r �.?•' t °'� �' .rL tc5o. '� "'L.yC#S.—.mss. y 'd s`\t .. .6 i k`�e',t�`� .'t'r,,�*s'gs'P`s{, r"C� r 1 �^.n'� t-,yy�kaw� + 1, _✓ f • u } f3y4 sf �,z ." -,•`rr.syR -`�L�ny,�'�(�-.M� � � 'ayr. +"3"rk..,, ��1'i�S � L` s�ll � r.^♦i � - c� �F'..�, 1 ,�p°5. '".}� "'�i✓+�? y:f _ - .:. -,;p , A ''1`t 9► y,, �:v`� `".+r'"'� �}�7 t ''°mac'. �� �`, �.'t� „ `-n y' { ,i h i a creek bed in front of the Castle Rock Road area. (See Photos numbered 1 thru 3, picturing area of creek at the Castle Rock Road abutment). There is a privately owned parcel that does come closer to this area of Castle Rock Road (Knapp Parcel, APN # 138- 230-026), but they are not requesting or planning any future sub-division, and as such are not vulnerable to requests for easement donation. The Knapp's' residence is entirely landscaped and maintains the required 50 foot no development setback according to the Northgate Specific Plan and the City of Walnut Creeks' "Creek Preservation and Enhancement Plan" (CPEP). The photos' provided herein, (Photo number 1 shows the view from Castle Rock Road down into the creek,photos numbers 2 and 3 show the view up from the creek bottom to Castle Rock Road).that document the+/-25 foot change in height from Castle Rock Road to the creek floor. These photos' also document the beautiful flora and fauna thriving in the creek today. There are old growth oak trees throughout this area and many wild creatures make this creek their home, a fact protected by the current property owners. The entire creek ecology is highly valued by the property owners and any threat to the creek is a serious concern. The SMDG proposal describes the parcel at issue here as "almost"reaching Castle Rock Road and hence the Borges Ranch Creek and the entrance to the Diablo Regional Foothills Park. We take issue with that description as inaccurate and misleading. To reach these areas as discussed would require the construction of a substantial bridge structure. This bridge would necessarily have a vertical height change of at least 25 feet and would be over 150 feet in length. Our planned evaluation of SMDG's proposal by a structural engineer is still pending, but it seems logical that the resultant bridge would be a hazard to cross on horse back unless it was a very substantial structure, a fact that increases the hazard it represents to the delicate ecology of the creek.area. The length and height requirements that result from the geography of the proposed easement area would make the bridge an unreasonably expensive idea and significantly detrimental to the creeks' ecology. B. Equine related safety hazards present on applicants' property makes a potential trail a bad idea. There is a +/=40-foot vertical drop to the creek floor from the western border of the applicants' property. The SMDG proposal describes the planned trail as starting at the southwest corner of the parcel and continuing "along Pine Creek to the northern property boundary" ... (SMDG proposal,page 2, request 1). This projected path is unsafe for any equine passage as it is a sheer cliff with a+/- 40 feet drop to the creek bottom. (Please see photo number 4 attached). This sizable drop represents a lethal hazard that any intelligent horse lover would avoid. The risk of a small animal spooking a horse and causing the horse and/or rider to fall over to the bottom is too great for this to be a reasonable trial placement site. The SMDG proposal also fails to address the potential of future liability for injury and or death of a horse or rider if there ever is an incident on this proposed trail. Who will be financially responsible if an animal is spooked over the edge to the creek bottom? Of a larger concern is the unaddressed human and equine toll if such an accident does occur. The applicants are very concerned for human and equine safety and would never advise any rider to follow"along Pine Creek to (their)northern property border". (SMDG Proposal, page 2, request 1). 'Would the SMDG be responsible for the liability of what is. obviously an unsafe plan from the start? It is unreasonable to subject aprivate property owner to large potential liability for injuries to unknown future users of an equine trail that the owners foresaw as too dangerous to permit, C. The SMDG proposal would result in substantial infringements to the neighboring parcels property rights. The construction of a bridge to span over the Knapp's property, (southern neighbors) as would be required to reach the applicant's parcel, would be an unlawful intrusion onto private property, and as such would constitute a `taking' in violation of due process rights afforded by both the US and State of California Constitutions. It is an unreasonable expectation to believe that the adjacent existing property owners would ever consent to F t y$r Jfi F' t•.�iy�*y r 4 s�Js�''.` `r"4>�'� ,�/'' ,r•{,A' ;�etL . 1� �':+�ri �t�.rte �F�I fl� a. � '�ht�"T•�� � J ` f y'"fEl�i ' ' x"'�"3�'lc *t �,. ' y(S�JL r71� t"Fr • f �t S1 rt57tr,�, ti� { '�'4* q i � Ilt �L�75��i'.� 3'L MjJ �� -} .:li�'�` rl pa I t�ki��tT{G a1� >"..y..�r�,y0ltjC��J •.( -�� Rl:�n�,,;�"� � yy Fd v 5 Ir+.• ''�'� �g'` � �1 nr ,•.- h Y ttip ��11 r7 .moi�"tl fid 1•�!�rw " � 1 �„s ��! �Ln.ila� •1.-••qq�j � x 1 � `'eS� r i •e `�R .�t� 1 {� 4 t '.Ir �' t�' '�'1_J�"� a�'k `• t�7��t ' ��� r4^�++''t (�i1'�F k y �r�� .•.1tt S�^ ��J{�'!� �1 Ah ( 1'r 11{'''�t� h_”}' dl rt N ��'. �i} h 1'c yl� `� �(�1-1'?'3n� 51 � a,_ -1�J�y r r�•1 '`•y I.i./y 33r+ }�' jJp •,4 y'4N1. �..`yr; i f' tj•� ,A1. ,il :3t, k- V;, � � 1~ y��1.7• 11�11' Yj •II" .� ..."" �F '�n�� tn.d- �1'•/.` � rJ�y i 1-*=,1! r' ,1' kk•.� 7;..• T�y 5 r l .�y � v 1:.� 1 r Yr�s.d' �i}� \ �'Y,4-1 415'/•''"I J1i t7a��jfl>•�rh .x. t .•.1I � , : r �t„��, B �+�t ”y� k7.sr +y�Y�' -4EY�J :�d{ti��'..1': 7,4:F1 �r I��k� •t!. ,x, ` f r�{ ��" r,� b� r�i>�i�I'��ti `L�'��� 1r I '`` i+ y7 .r'..���e�f��r � ti��n�� ;�b�� Ji�r♦/' 4.1 /".r+ ir�+y,,��T, -,,�I rr�• y #`�.r 1 ! At� Si{( ?Pr� �S.¢`ti's 74•. yttj`hyrpYv lyt. �.t + i t`i� r H, r�o5r r'AF��' �•. r Y 111 r� � � �t' I. �, � �.' �r Y 1' 1�f �t 1 7 d I Ki' Il v. �. � �L � >7 �I 1 1..•. � if �Ct,r�rr§�' ,�• �I ��1q l7( �j`�`Yf.l•rY;� tp r ��yS:y„ �l�'�'�r �!� F+ ti�y�J .�'t 4 J �'�� -t ��d.( �i �yf�r/'L f h� 1' t x �l I1}\ 1 C• � � 1 t i�J' 4 ,..1•, 1� vi ra x� �'� r-�+'r-�4 r �S r�t �• L�tF�l;���r :;x"ir 1','�"�}r� k 1ti. iA 1 ,�� i I . i tj � • 1' r11 �''` ,p..'" fr' at �1t •--•rFr'r 5, ^'• r Y L � , k .11 l��� ,��.�r,•1n. ,ao-f ,) .+�i'.' , `a'�`3+r 1�ri i tx.. I — 1�. 1 ,ft ... '•q y 4C..+I �{-�.. �') ,Ji4 t+ •l. � {•I�! a 5 .�Ct c��i�sj-q, ".4;.r'J ' �t�., }' y; •-E'jl�' (7 r ,i�]�F]� f; ( _}I i �1'�'°`•`f�. ?u �. r Y.l�y/5�� . r I SS � ,�•4.��+ I ti I u .k Y A':..; f ��a�-''l��`!l` {� y y.� � y i. '.,,�t;`}i y. 4 tiµ i %' , t r� ui 7! 1- 11 ,� >_f �� ,.r ��ra' Z;, i-• ��,. ,j ���.' v a t`'''''t�.'�n ^r y.,,.._ I •_r^� �}�'�..: tY y Ccji ✓.��' k ���'�.'yr>:�. ,r J ttti r yt�r �It ''�kr, -N,i,�'� u. n r'-�* 1•_ d�-,i -+„ - 1* y "• 5..s X y` ;" � .� vl.. r.'ylt�,p +'`Y ,a� x 7 aiy 5 �g Y SIr- •.,, 1 • •; �y-�.p ,�7 ii I �'+%T•'• I� ` {J"� 'r .1 � '�, r v v 1 i .i 1�4Y��uc�:t .� F ��tf�" 4�' '�.1 5�+�,r• 1 I>r !'-, r1 a�, - _ Y f�tiYr- �_ • /i�7•n,.i�7'�: .'I�1�yt i t '' � .:{lib�� `yI Il�w� 1} y f;�➢- �-,�i"(s/���,. 1: i5 � -; > P�/}14�4 Edi• .�.:,, � ., ,r• {` `r 4x �a A �, o• �i tii.•. r .li :,v ..k.4. e �I-iyf I J�,�-�`; :fk r M t 1' the construction of a bridge (with the required engineering support) to be built on and over their property. As such, any bridge construction would require legal intervention and payment of just compensation. The SMDG proposal does not discuss any resultant effects on the private property adjacent to the applicants parcel. The Knapp's represent just one of the affected adjacent property owners. On the Northern end of the Applicant's parcel is another private property owner who will suffer a depravation of rights if the proposed trail is ever constructed. The Conaty parcel (APN# 138-230-029) is a fully landscaped parcel with an in ground pool positioned just north of the proposed floating easement path. The required existing open wire fencing in use (as per the Northgate Specific Plan requirements) will present an unobstructed view. of their pool. This is an infringement of the Conaty's privacy rights as the pool was placed with the reasonable expectations for private use. They reasonably relied on an expectation of privacy afforded by living on a private road. i. The points that make this trail unsafe and unrealistic today are not likely to change or be any different in the "future".envisioned by Mr. Adams. The applicants will continue to protect.the ecological wellbeing of the creek as they have for 32 years. The proposed sub-division is for an additional home for the applicants' family, and as.such they can offer a further guarantee of future behavior remaining unchanged. The applicants' family has been on this land for 32 years and has done well in protecting the creek environment. Continued presence of the applicants' family offers the creek a stable future, something a development trail cannot offer. The architect for the applicants' project is Mr. Greg Collins,the chief architect for Saint Mary's College, Moraga, California. He envisions a design where the view from the new residence will include the creek's woodland border habitat and also enjoy the Shell Ridge Open Space to the Southwest. All future landscape plans for both of the applicant's families residences will conform to the recommendations of Mr. Jim Martin and the CPEP. Summar- of Recommendations bv Ecological Expert A field survey of the affected parcel was accomplished when the required Creek Preservation and Enhancement Plan (CPEP) was completed as required during any sub- division process by the NorthQate Specific Plan. Attachment A contains the report of the opinions of the ecological expert after reviewing the SMD proposal. As explained in detail in the report,the SMDG plan presents an increased risk to the area when compared to the existing plan of one new residence. The historically established compliance with the ecological standards by the applicant over a 32 year period of un-interrupted occupancy are a proven success at preserving this riparian habitat. It is illogical and arrogant of SMDG to assume that their interventions are necessary to preserve a section of creek that has been successfully preserved for a long period of time. . As explained in the ecological report, the SMDG plan is inconsistent. They request that a i trail easement be established along the creek corridor and then suggest if they are unsuccessful in obtaining this floating easement that a biological survey is warranted because of the impact of development on sensitive areas. The proposed development to accomplish the SMDG equine connecting trail is a much greater hazard to the creek then the construction of one single family residence. (James Martin, Ecological report page 2 paragraph 3). Most disturbing is the SMDG inaccurate claim that the California Red Legged Frog (CRLF) is a resident of the section of Pine Creek "on the property", which is patently false. (SMDG proposal page 3 paragraph 1). The closest recorded presence of the CRLF. to the applicants' property is approximately 1 mile south. (Martin report,page 2) Due to the lack of suitable breeding and upland foraging habitat necessary for continued CRLF inhabitation on the applicants property, the claim that the SMDG.makes that it is a "forgone conclusion"that their easement requests will be granted shows their arrogance and distain for the rights of private property owners. If this were a court proceeding the applicant here would be eligible to receive sanctions against the SMDG for abuse of process and filing a patently false report. Refusal of Passage on or across the private road section of the southern portion of Pine Creek Road is attacbed to this response. The residents of the private road section of Pine Creek Road have expressly refused permission for any.potential trail users to pass on or across their road, at any time in the future based on the easement requests by SMD. These residents own this section of the posted private road and as such control all access. The future nature of this section of Pine Creek Road is planned to be closed to non-resident access by the use of a remote access electric gate. The easements requested are in direct conflict with the residents' plans and as such are an incompatible placement for the SMDG's proposal. Alternative Trails already exist between Northgate Road and Castle Rock Road, Demonstrating this re uest.as redundant and Not in the equine communities best interests. Attached photo's numbered 5 thru 11 document a trail passage already in existence between Castle Rock and Northgate Roads. This trail has a flat short stable bridge across the only creek and could connect with the Gateway parcel if only two gates already present were unlocked. The East Bay Regional Park Land Bank owns this land and additional considerable amounts of land in the area. This EBRP Land Bank property is a safer, quicker, cheaper, and more ecologically sensitive alternative than the SMDG's. existing plan. The SMDG's efforts should be focused on the alternative that best serves their stated interests, not impossible unsafe extortion from private landowners. t Conclusion The applicant would like to thank the staff of the Community Development Department for all their kind help during this sub-division process. We ask for.a fair review of the enclosed information and an equitable result to this dileimna. Thank-You r• r Alex and Darlene Macdonald Applicants wwS'••� �.VA,LsT � a ;;-._,: •`- _ wownK .plqrcd,,.,Y..': -'3± `', : •• - a _ � �. !•"`rr„}�� jlrt,-Sn'a ,� r:2!-: r -r �. ',n=w�"{ a��y, 7��' i�`,+^.�=�`'�f _`-;y�'r:, 3:+tr+nn� 5._i - 1 c! i r _ '"''��r�.�J_t,',;tea.r�,•l; {' ��`-_'} ,� � ��'.��j++ .t � b. .1.�_l.:rte.-.•—�,�,.�—'' ry �" - _ =Vis,-,�•.1.�� ti� 4P:�.'�i :r.:�1J• �,. ��`'1M`.-ill:,y.yc --Y..- -`•[ �q,1` _ -,��.;':.,�'•:'1i-x,,.:r, _�]:_,.':.VJ,'.�_%1�;.. •p: Qw y +r �r .Je r'r_.' , .: �S ,J T, 11"i<�' a d 1.��' 7 �•r':..`K. 'Z � e1T�,r3: mss ` :1sa �iwo la", 5�° t}: 3t.: ?tzlJ.- la"� -^i.. .+: .t :i.`4� it tri; .-•.aI' .y' L 'y :J= r ,.,' "Y T�'"t-;� .!•. .9.;t" Y�p7u`,Jr+�''sT"u�. s �i y'ts,?+�'i�'�, rr_L •r. �.:,L•y � {,�'%fie.t `�,r �,3er� � - _:..•_ A,''•11` �+a, �e c. !�rC'i::r'M1�:�.` -,rrt. .c;• �. ->� s4 �':' -' 3,F•-• at, .�.�.�wk'•Y_.�5• i'"47�yc=.:R�rr. :33-..;.___ - -,,:i;;Sv�`�d•,�'�..,�..^�`�.•�_ S-��:"4"��s! '''_..�Er�,-`:�'�r-r.i' `�_.ri,��^'�'si, `vr, �- !.s' -x' si..:t .?ri_.y„gr�_ u.:�,�:W = - '.,.'+'i"--`s„>�u^�`. ,.-lG.. su:�• �,�?�,,ssc..'�1..4;.,:�,�_',:n''��.:.� f�.i:+,.. ;':i= .cf•: i ka• mss'_, a :Ls�"l��`S ?kt? d .• tr. 1 s�` •`��„+r� r -'`. �,> .a._ - � .tial:�:; ..�• y,:.�`•_:,al r� ( Y ahcl •fJ _�, ��._ t r.,•P-F�: `. `•'f'.,a-:�t ¢� 'jam-�;-"k�GPu-"`.'L�'�'.'� •y ,�•°:i' . ¢�5�m rrr ��[y�. a,7,` '' i"r•.'x't`xv: �y �1�r ='•1.#.v�„v _ e'•'�13�f��y''-�}�irr'� � °�'-trs -'J;r .,7.s 'Yfi, c .,� 'k �.u..+•.%'f ` 9y' t 'c �.i€-i. `' ,•, ti.q. ,:n E'e. u A !< ..y_ ..1.-:., :z�''•�f•'1"rr4 2"-:r�.. •ti: �Ir ,.4�. r,.P,Cry S ',« .JI�•ri..r' - - }:: et•N "� .;r::•:.f� i.!.--" �4..� rr[: '�., •F, .w•i �� � 'a�; .�” t -s? .^:,:ty'rh.•a.�.Ygy`. .�.e.�; '„R•.' .8:s: '.a -.L• r.�'c�'•:� �-+':_.�-..���a Sc�'k+. •�-�_.,'.: _ '•+ -r'i: - :C y„a.' ,': - ..;w..[c'K.l �:,.,;,;:e,�� , _F''x�.� ;rte .y ;? _y,.r..r`;:r r.4. ;;u.` r,-i ��. ""W .a �a^r 'o-'L^C�''!.�•�,.. ter-;�. r, Mit-;ilN .. .. .:A gr .,z :A•Jt ` '• rY.t^J�..- _�•=, ' t,a _:s _;[+�,,: '�'''h Ya ��ry A $fi.77.,: r<? �r'',"7.�i *1•`° t".2;;,;r .rRyi: ,y .w- ARM .,,�__ i+I"•�:� �'�`�.�. ;. :.SN 5:•r"�% r. U':J-_.-'rah. '^w-:i°. v`�.' _ ' '.S.,r.''i.�,�., a:5% -'_.ny ,`' l :.r:r`=.:5�-.,a'•• 'u.;>."M.� '. .y r..�l.:ri.'.`a..es',":;' -3•';�' 'ri'_' �."�•:•'ii�••�".+ ,,:q ,r+>q_y,T,a� °�i� �.f'.:. ��.. ar.'-E_ .t.•>�y�-'.�p'S�}':^ ':i.:a%'t-ii. -:a.• ::ya+�=,J�' "�'! �� ".'!L�-ii•E. ':R�ti���'£�:, .�,`�(.L"3= ..1�5.?-�;,-,�..•"s,�"�::y=;'r•.,�!'..:a�'' }_7, Ti � Y INN, b' r cW-:, y_`._,{' � i� .,•[ �: .,I vvim�,--�.L,.- _:rt.iC[r..� i 3 d'•.'A 'lf l,�.j »_ +I..._. Owl _ £y' '.:MS �f. 11��•1 Com. 'L'h �f. �'�_.'�•1-v 3•' --".�,!s - ��-. �.o�,'S'j^`r-.,:� ._FF.;k+.i�i:'•i.^�;T•,;vs���{{�1�rrS6Yi-+q' i-�:r•{.Y^r'N i" � ;'r 2:w � '"}_ - - ', "•a Via'':-'~-> -h A t' #' ;tir fi ty N: &_ ;`•;4� ,a+: t_#" - .X.:�: .i,.�}.^ � . . ;:'s •=c+� t''..ry=;�;;.��,'-.���-t`r?..:.'M:ate:`-��>,�-� ��"��-�# `� ALTERNATIVE TRAILS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. THERE ARE TRAILS THAT ALREADY CONNECT NORTHGATE ROAD TO CASTLE ROCK ROAD. THIS VIEW IS THE ENTRANCE TO A TRAIL STARTING JUST NORTH OF LEAP OF FAITH FARMS. Via' ?FT •rte ?�1g '.:.2 •''MM.h$ 4�':',."3"��y"3.•-�i^ ;q•.t.'.,,;}af. -n`,. "+s .• ',i:.t,' g _ -14 - 'L.d.1.. vv 'i:-ir*t:'•c'�=' *,,'L3 ..JY - 'r"i5'rirP.%�•n .�7i •• :liA '.. .:9:,�,F•n;;Y(ir�f�.,.:i�,�.�ICtY's �y��; _ S '3a.,, tT'.-,�, _ .5� ' •�'-. •=��: .;�:�'r,:; : � aJ:TIt I�-+�•..4'i'5-,. $:,":K' •1 ?. f`'J° •i _,, •.., ,'w^-'S ' i . • +.'+ � t � afi �� f:•��t 3:����GGi/J:' .�..�I t�f�n�~ if.,. 'qJ�IT,. Yid �+•A ? c I...,` '�'{4Y: ,1 J: J '.�.� 1._t e-a, y.IL.:`'�-U`1, i •]-.wryv.l'v_ {.� `i -Ji y�• ;?I'��},� _ h'l �' ''.'.LS.rf�Sa.I.v.-��:.-, rrc'�+:,,�, 3: '<A�.t-`�,,�,ta,�,i t.: .: �� _ •�.: a ., '.� •'t%- , �t I'a','c�'�"'�-�F y�T'�r^� SSR 1`-�• �� s1� ` r ? r � � . * � .-+•, St, y�} ����'t�y.larl` .�'} ;•¢,j•7 ��t d'3re�{ �w Wr �• ` 4L' rr,.�'. �e� r! r �.'": - .� r+7'r•, t• i r•- .:?_- 4;' Y t{S`''311 ti �.; r F++L� jYr .rdg:."• ,�r. •i :� .1 v ~' As�.,-. i,F"k"i y-� ,��I •arr���Y� ,,�,,s�i r'��r'�"3r";,<�i�� h �, U'r }`.ASS 4�'C''~�. :,�ir::�4:..-grA�►,j3^ �:..--. ,:..•, 'L •1.��'y�. +ir: h y�Yd. 'sf: ,tia,�.t,�'���� •4���!-4`�:r-;,'>si��'-, ," �:r.'�-3:: ,t_ .�.�T'�'^^:- v' •a. �s-�3r-'•`���:.a:,'c,- _'�: 3s �c' 4•. t t s I _ r , p .tJ l`n'' f' i':�yP�t�: �3r-.�.��.�s�c�J,�.:'i, 'Y.r.:,.i_�.,tiJ�-!� `-y. '..1F,�,,,_,^.,'��._-�,n- '•' t - _ i _�•e - ;; S= 1,:.'ji e•4r• o;�'-,e`•7 }-r"'a.�4°" r •+dt Ley- k ytit •il'k7. �'" S, �:+ t� R'• ' ..:.'-e.y ? ,..%tl J�g.;. �3P!� ;s �_z_"�st+<� at+ e� -x�_.r+,�,. % - •` .• `�,�( c'7-•�" ''�-+�,y;(.;y . :• ?'..r - r! .y R'.. ',3r ..(�;. -'n:i FIS y}:�- 7 ..r' - h.,,� •::91�"_'!�-e•.`r'w zkv- L, 'yF;,1.+,y:.' �.'?!` 'fY.'b 0.' , _ Lf__ - ��'i +�. .'^...; ._,•y,:F' ,M,, `'l.e."'J .0�';.,1%,J:w'. .4.-i.,',"-_ _ F.` .r .1„. t _ _ .. -'4.. '„1'SP _ '1w'"..5 �E.{,.sit ar. -�'� 3��' L�� '(��� •1 :L. ..tl- 1, •L. �+y"li�?. ..�.A:.;4 ..F .I.. _ �i.. �L'L 5.... $-4.-'.,'�'>>L.�..'r^l r:...�+. �" ' ".•3'.'.•' �.�rn:�ti+;?u k)�, .: •y�yVl': >�.4,' :P, J.� '.�'�. 1^..4 41,1..7 I>~]:: 1:^_ - '•�OL'�!" - .�� ,�'' ;�;•j,� .7,-c9'y'J'"�•.ill� e:.?i'.`..:::',;F'`' �.e. -x '•4�,+-.`;- '-'.-t-r'-. Vii,^;`:;��'L.1'� e � .�,. ,,. l �3�`shlys4. y',1�ti. :;•J•��. ;t�:'.�- :v ? tw.•�;....�V:'. ;:1,:r.�,: yr:.r.`Z-�-'�:--t:,`e �} ,-�hs: ��� ��r�y..�.. - l���a� t I,,:1'"it'-:`r.- �•�. -F•ti�:]'."r-..}�i�'J,--r�7" i}!rc •4.;I:-.,.a... - _ '� � ?�. .�i I •S� . ,.,I �y'..7 -lYr �,ti•'r,:..a'I Mir+,c... _.,hr ,y� F va; i!1: �S;F;f s� 1:1:7.'S .Yi' .�..., .,..sl_..s..!: _r :._ - •r'. f.. Y, `+•.:r i�E..', ...j':�'_'..: �S1-,'. ., •}':•: }7-fi=nv=. '.--t _*'zs�",:R: :.fi e:. a";,ti�:r,_.- �•!r' S i' - I"'-es4 ?IQ'�,SL+I}-���rrLF" �: ': �sti.ftt�-,a:-:iS.i:.. ,-$`�:� .•'Ft,�ir ,rK; - •�}q..ty F.: ,•�' �1'I, � .:�n.,t,: :J:•'w.r ,.1': - y':, ":c;'.,. r"r.r .+�-,`•-T '!c;y�.j.� ,�4w. ^�7T• t} A�+ ,ry}n�v� t.p* 1r .� sr a:fiz - �� r +� rf1 .c���Y!r ?' _x + b53 '. v"1}4,Z:-s 94R` , e'k-x z+��I err..;�' I.�' !i,3� '�,.�_'11 '•}''t -' I �'l,-,t iF�"_r'�m.Z �P�;.:;,�15 ...�„�.' -�•' `,'Qi t'. u� .7Y, >AaY������.7vfi�P ���:1�:'.S'ra' a ='''Y5"r�Jly'�.-.5..� c,i,f Ar 1': -cam. `s; # -cS'��' •:;•_3 vu;.�3 �f���Y'-'•'�`Yri, �r.:_f ;lf!""•I�� yi`i'M1"``,''.-. K 7;+�` 1�; s.:-t-�q .-r. 1•.e',: - s• �+9� r•,C-+�:'.,`' t_ _ h ,y 's°��+J.� r '�.`�i'I.,','•r�'•,=;' .r _xLF.r J F• 4rSt J h '- -r,r ., r" :i• ''" Y �6' O •[� r:i(�i �S:• 7 a4r <r f` 'a` r }x aa�,`'+:ew,71;w<,,[r'k -Y` a.. e�•'- 'N,'.T�;-; e•3 :_,rt, 'rxv - :<,:;•.r:..,-, -r r r �.- �":' , .:-.' _ Js- ' t4'i'' ,y-- ••++,,,, d`' .;�--`t -z' moi•"• - yl .e_ f'• filltae_� 3'rf rs -�r x - wd• �. ti+q;,arx• iA -•.t <.,.#_�•' . -s r. Ir •e.• 'Y l .tia=` 4'_. 4 r Mei �, 'f e(> ',�'. �'h.� r4�at F;.,;�'' 'H ..,-mss,S::.'•c£ =-•"#. 3 my Y �,�wZ -�.a•'1 a � v, - µ'Pr ,. „ ��`+ •�a } A'•� Frr=t�',.(•.•.'y, ,�uy,.t�S��r ±'t�r:v Y�yCj„n�•s t,�.3. .'�'I�Gt ,e,7:_s ._[�'Ri:' �r i.;.r i.,:ir r�:i f"'• :•t'��, ..�-:+� �:i-'u ;;.,� , 5 �,.ar;•c,t. ^_'',"ti FtRki rt! ..� L .[t"•U4,f' ?9;1 r ,.:�:}.,bt« �,�;+V -J. FE �i•F3.a- --k l L :.4 J1 I cil _:�- -�`yY it '3k n y:Y� _•. a'.^ .r �'�Ys•�� kT; a�.��i'� :�=-':.%5•�y�.J�4rt yam, t y� 'Y`+� _=f •'.T.�� +i,•s b-�:,�, +�r'j.,� L3, {ti^ t9 .:�r1�• ::h+� , rtt ¢.fn l -net ,5. i [ s �s. r' :.5 " •� {°P ,'•��'1•7'�-7A .� �,r1r�+,.`�r-�;rL �10 s`ti � C�,�:'.t�taf���' e,u y '. �i l �+r j- '-R��5=,,•�L ,ka' F`�r'- yy.,,7� =4 ; , .. '-+•:' 7pi7q.�.^ F"�+rc„�'•itr3�'sbe w--c �'Vav �'� JTxfiJ r •R.0 ;';A..''',r'_ ,a.4' -,y-r 'r a: :?fry- ,n;"�4��;'' G�.@, t �...'. � -01 .tr �_�:�- i�•:¢ wt.•. J� '� '=•4. �'t.•.�.. �W �:.'���•%,i .�.�T'.l`•�`�'tc. : ='i;a. ^.'.-. _�.-r.'.;'"y.:.� "`"' - ••ew: �tV _�"J'1rt1. _ .-f:°'r....�a `�tF,.. v�:4<r;�: s, .�.:,: �.15�,r,,.•.ert...� '.e-�3r_, y s<'.•�h..... a1 � '��'= +• ,ry � ,} 1 ';•„�-��?'•.���" �w�u�.-x F�, y4"0.r 6i. s}y°h�" `' 'pi`}5`tak�R�. R '1:�� '� v�sy. � S`'EY'�'Vya+f"�.�'.�r�.:.- �i33.t4 r ,,� 9,i�', •`3 r�Grw t4��,'j_N1s`�.ai.r,'-ire''t.4 .c q rr r .i�"',+ � r i'�+"y� a,.�r T -Y 'c. ,21,�'+',-f�T,i d raffia�' ,�^ `e!�� ,�SAi `,�-..`,^u�',i. -�:.,:'a^.h�. ..r�.v.,��. w=F�•�,}x_'.'h•.TJ:�':�" - >-r�N.7 ai: �1 � •�•�..arYr' � '�`•~ t, . ..: - ice•."a. ��sT,�' ":'��'�."Src-;�..�.� ..:- :.-v�.'- .� BEAUTIFUL SAFE TRAIL IN PLACE THIS TRAIL VIEW SHOWS THAT THERE IS A SAFE TRAIL THAT CAN ACCESS NORTHGATE ROAD. THIS LAND IS PUBLICLY OWNED BY THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK LAND BANK. EFFORTS TOWARD ADDITIONAL TRAIL ACQUISITIONS SHOULD FOCUS ON OPENING FURTHER THIS EXISTING SAFER ALTERNATIVE. � � }�e sq*;lti: `. ''�;F4�k}h��a`�.+''f}'�-�'v �:l��� �i1���t„r ,�+''�.`?' •Y+''zt,`.f+�`.�`u,�ts 4i�',,f7'+r - • h "-l�"*3"r r. :.'S.+�,.$,�? .+}-.�• � a I p'r�, ,�,+�` v'Y..,,�,.� �!�1`•.1SL*n. .'�'�^'_1 '�, r r.r�,C+ _ ,s�",:,�va 4 trtiC4. �'` .. ^�'� t• � 4::.. "_, �'rr �� �3�=�-,�. .� +..:.9'�•e- !fit +l�„'i��a*: ��+ �•1j�' 1. � � ,��,,{.,4 Yz 'x t� ,,� '� yf "*` f..i-.. `?' � r £����c. ,P��,��.i�-..t;y., �.�rl, r"'"�7rh.!'.f•'3`.:c.��`: - 'Ya7• R.. 7 r' [! t�?� tom-*tcu h, .a'a• l •+ 3�2 2 °•r ;� 'ef.9• '��'t w?-=rs ^ '�b�,a ; S;�r. ir' s :��:.:f�f.i`r} .,��,�"��-`%}-a�'-'�r� •�rr`�r+.'a r" •'r �:'����y`'� ;�F�i{ �•itl�,�k� :Kr f. / „/`-�f� t,11 d � c� 1 �.' •.• -:: a�' �� ;7''--•^i.+.��.. '.._�”- ?y,, n"�' � ,k..U•.,� �, r.. .tl-! ;4 } � r y jtm� � ,.ear :t c ,'k.-;t•,.• Y Y �^��`. �"�- 'z,: ++,,„. � „s' � ,�`','F�y��-�3a,1;C��t�s••�" �-'=i�C: 4,��. � �* '�`ry�- r 1� � t 1 i b C t ,l.e. + t.i r�"= r :.-'' 4 �'j"y{„ `�nr._.y dx��yy '> ✓�j,�•`� i k,} •�.{wq' .�� 1'�a^�}',i►e R +' c , �Fr'�.. r• �"�x t•• r.._ - rq y aft. ct-'" '.K �v 'L�'` t 'M� -3�y, s,'t : �` --cam. � t•r ^� asr ,�j,�� �r SS�� �iNH fi c„ ..�w-.�(! '�'�'r��,S .'3t�• .k.�.✓ i. /' A la"r' i .,r-,} t_ 7"i.i'y +. :=.fi>�a. ,ik7�[ � 't5'irt '�'� %�r'i W t," a. '�. qr +�aN=•S7��iCtira.- _z., t '.� .' „r /�... - ..�rr ,, w� .aL_' .r �,•fir � { s r ri a L. ,�• ` t y�rs,7�i .,,f�"+ :t'� rY a � ' ., -=�d:"�''`� ..�d' .ti i"d`.i=,}« IJ F'.i':�`�f "'•'4p r' �}����'�f _ .- y. �~ � r��„,� '�,,y` r.?,� rc"NidY',� .e7 tr•`f r� r,�}y- .c116F Y r �i•"`l�+*! '�`• „�,;'�a t 5''. '�r n}' f - �• - rs 1 '�.' {” -:i' �! 1 K :'i,,,r. r �i ,, �'tti ;,•; t+,'r''•t, 4'.i /! 3 ri (ll:: � y ' .r�+yam i � �?j •� , N; t` m`' 3 r. +.\� .. t�-.= --r� '•r ��if Lt.... =.., 1 1,i; i b PPr.. ki l +.�r a` ty � _.+{� ?, ear:."._2 '�”4{ �. � +ti• � Tf.fz st- Y;,�a rr r.'.i'r,�.utY�t, "a c �� •_f" � ��'! ._� ' r -�-rr r K • � �� fit.. `.}� tr�'d.E 1,� i �' �7``lly.�' � l-.�7 ��N ra• 1�'•�'�p'+�Cr„yo,'^ti�'d'�tD�' ,y �•,..i. '�'�' .qi`{i� � '�A' J,fd��"�' j�}=? t._."Y'"` -. .vim _s•`�tT��'t''."'�-•n.���'-�?ne'"!a-',i"�'.tt-mac^'+'"ru ��-` �_ �} r.: ...._ ° u 'fir�, ,'.Tl,� i1:*�',•'.+� "t=g1} '�.y. " "l .��n • :r�^,p> - .y.a. - - .{. - ` '- �., ..rte„.-r-,!� �' f�,^�;-t:-`>rfi r;. G ,iL, T-. ..L•p,..,..y a3c r��"•7':•"=i�-1-�"'*�i� a n• � s'Y �-:....^.. + �jr�.._.:��..4;�t +� ,� "+.=� `�,�,wn i �SyY,a�r�-s�ki,'�''� ..��.va-''.s+`+���'�"i�'.c. 1 .����y�..r•.�„ � ,F. �_;.^ '?�c s �•��� - ,�,r.�".m';rte_ ';i.� - 1 a Vii, ,v �t4 °�• " � t- �',4,•_�� �'i'.'i�.-•z,•�•�tom` � �w"•..L��. Tit, �� _ �a_�`y, � �C t,r>hr•F•,,-�y�tl„� c�' r it'+/t�.A`1�,�;� ��- ,C^� �Y t+'.R .�'t?'t•^}`{ r 1'y`3 t1��,.`'1 " 'ht s,�ml+ Z' r�. r :.. .�1t •:.t] ` - cwt•, 6 r. �i �''r-•s+, y. � dt`�::'R� F'S�'3,G��,`:h,Wr 7., `�zri'+ 4> i ''`-�`�ti r 4x'• i x ��,' q` �,"'.��y* � ' �:c• .c t>; r ` ' �'t, ` ` `� �' Ufa' yyr K q r r I ri :ht "ab.� rt �} ,�` iytL 7�i�� Y' r '��'F'..', t ' 1 •R:�pi;�-:;?. cr. r°, - �,� � y..�S u� �• t n (,.-. 'F� ''. z•• , .},; � .` ,,Y g h k"i v y,:•�.. 'Nr° ..A '' t,. i. 1. -l� t. + .�y, �+,• "+.-sit\ .`' �^r.,k :.�ytr ���� µ� '�-„irk•.��'�' T,�ip ' ` 7 �3�1' r�„s,tv�.•,s!r�- I I "i t t t •�;�{r rf � �..1�?"_ -� �+�.�. ,a �-� `i`"�R�t`P t � `';�Gsi�Y�3a h 1k��X .�/`'ttv��x�.%,+ � re_ '� �l. ,p1ry..+. 1.��tr�•{•...^>'o„' _�'��� .+�. � �'"'•��� xp+�`'2y�'�-�.•-t;������-Sa-�j,MiY'� ;k4{ k`3 + ,t `'� sF t�� IA, rl �. �� \ith_.�Y ` .c•" l �'¢c5,tx,. 3�.� y� sr•' '�� '"'s� e,y+j��. qar 1�,�` 't t. ,._,--^ �v..r"'Si_.S�r!,_�i t S.t,`t�7Y � _ ` V �i(t..ne 9 y _a,' ,f,���yl� '\1R� li��.k4��� ,'i1� ,..` .�.�,�-�'r✓'""r x i, � ':,� `�"`.` � � _�;?co-,G rk "���", •�,`,f1"' kV 4 1�ISLt r,k,,l:� � ..� �- :. „` �t:`` .:.+;q-,- ,.yt• r+, 'if ..e: +dye ��r '2 !� K� i` �' \ ,l�'" R ,.5�'�""` ' -,t.s .t�i�K� ."'' •.F „sP a ,-.�ti�••¢�,. �£��:� "tet` t�.'t ���" �-t;' 'c-.J- m_ � _. 4��'� _•. ',. R"�a�� _e-���!������'Y� cite �.�::z*.. ��� � �L� .� �-.y .�,k'-r'�''”""�'.'•-'�'<:3"ys „s�'—r`�,s••~- - —�.yT��E.T r�� „�>a-...4� ;' ��jF,y,...yr�.< r m �"r}- ,.tp 1LYlTA �i3t �,Y -G`'� M f.fe� • +i .1y..�`.��j�11�V��;a�,'Y,�,•c.,T•.�,m v�� .; �` � - '.�•�x�.'„ �..r_ �.. ,�,,,&,�'�'�:'�?t�a Mnk� ,�4*r4. .eSLs�'1� e'tt `'x .-W'.;.� :.� --"• � 44yy /� + +S ft"� ata ,�F:2rt�= afi r• '� h lx` �,,c l ��. 'J �-�c�'y%L} r- l�'1�..•,.. t a f a � r );1,1ti.•..y -:! I ._.�4� 1! i`:;,.'+.1. �� s 'bs-i`� �•?.U1 NY art Fr -1.s••S�i+s'• - '4t '•`'�'l.iM •: •l`�+r c• r .,y�� �} .v 7T, i ! ,•l ::r `f-'. t rFt4' �-+��'i•`.51+ic*1 a W5 1E c•Y7' E ; k .Srrr sly- P'-7 �+'+7�+� �` }'T t �` i t a i"K y'ySr 4 0,.• '� ,. �•;,-�erP _ �' ?cgrt ;�'�'r}°��o"�` �?"�'�yc� 'is s��,r�•� t,•x �'- 4 e����'` jfr+ ' j M i i1r, _ .�-ti . � �L 'fr�i�' j�c4��1`l}k.•c .� .i. I �,�jT_ s%y.�ra l �.- fs<.'�, _'�� r; ,w3• {f�� 4S .f -}.Y. ate{, d �..:r, yaL-h�ir•� �7�'P 'J ' y. •1 S ] ;f��V"1�1 d ory ' \ '."���{?.r � _ " fik•y R�� r#_'�1.ti � l'.T 'r �' �'F-s"�: ' r ... rl'L`+cv. �r .+� �' y''�}} � .. f`i ' < ' '^ r �` ra ' .L"' S:`T.Rafi' tif•4�,jtt- c: E.. 'Tc�(r � }" r'�ii•'�,+f a'•. .�'�U'/� lo-, «F.. '�Y�Ur i,, h4_ xr ��'�'d 'w'y1r ` � �€ .i{F� ,r l• 'r-.,'_.: rt ..3-; •�'i�r,� ��., r•4 ,i t ,.,y �-,.�r,�75y �. t } 7'�: �• e'y,��Y.J..��A'.. 'y A�`'a .(�1',(,c 4 y:Y� .('i iy » S 7� 0.-L4.I4+.�����4� reF �a 1 �•y } F�,4: >...Ik:��y ` 17 ��^�- +J' a sl+ s :'l+ v, .Y r. �'I H- ��rb..� r� 3 6. c'a a.,t r h p,y,� t. r �'.�,.�'."�•'�1� :�7�R' � ;3••F y�a,.r �. r � �' `• _ '�- �'Tr.'Y r�-d'.�J ' �^ '1-rF L �X 'll �i t -Q t a 5j t"I •9 c-n + H (r h. ' J zL titer jt�' 'Y•r ` 1 +L �.t &^it. r r y ti a �! .�}y t am z T u 4 �rr• r{. s � ..• -a '* y tt. : - Y � r � _ 5 t,�• r z 1 r �•SS K Gi� r - I+ '. t �' i ry as rY' q �+c�'t3z1i! 1, + �ti rr �dl'. + i r i 'Z7";4 ^•k �SG' , ;�SY,r�� � t: �• r � � a t i r, �1� { P �� rx, �'s4,,i "4 y .� .t,'�n. rn.•'4:C��1.� �4Ff' Y.. � h'.tt1,§.C' •2�h .+�,�1 � t -'k•1 1�•' �1L f 1 4.*A . '� �'" •��- t=1 llci' r y 4 c ��' '�i: �_IL •.b''.'j. `�r�`' . '�r�o l 13`. ~ k� 4 ��e,£ r�.�• ,f ... "Cy} 5 Y31ti:�'.Fr ` �' to�t' n3fJ '�1 ^' jiCtl(+ir.'i��� ;'.T]L� a*, ' L tyv,c. r�) "a 1 tqS`)' rq f°• L�f�-:11Y J nom''`. _r7�t 2 �•b'S+ J/,� r'..,y � - yr y• _'I N Vv . �.!�''a'{y 'S� � t+. rC,��.� �''" "� �'L�...' c,�`...�'Z'�b"'� � i�, � �+ r� .1 r. o l#'1 ..1 Q�'•!Y '�ti-t h1_�* rZ l`"+,rf� �,`�,�;,r L It o-� � '� - ..r,'•.c13 ?S: -.c��t�• y .1' N=( ,ti�c�- 1 � g,f" u aaad� - f•`, °���� L r ti:ti{�s Cr,r;< a ' 7ri> 't .,• � `r. rL _ ,gwr P �r T. j�•i`,+,, ICA , » r�}:." �����3 •3 �L�`^}.. iY>`"'�vc{.T _��+l�'•�''t' 8_ '�1•• ;�1�f rx -�C t 7.++= A 7';�' _1„•'__ —l- r:� r •7_,7.r. '. I rti „a'{'1't� _i Q,'OR ftll %s� r•. 3 � :. . . / i • ' ' 1 ' ' ' 1 <�- it j: --- - _^"" _ - z' -+.x-�-•- .;'crY = =`�%- -' ,'+-� +.:.f.+, +.: .'r: _ :':Y.+':1•C.`�._• fir-+=,'7i�a�-•-_n=�r:La,- _ .J�' - - __ .:it_':Y :;.i: :y,-.:c: ':r+• ti'= �';��. •d a�`: - -_•''i,`�::r":'�''ir i.•"�.':� :+ _ ice._.-s_ ":Y��W� r..:'•• a.';`"moi°•''`c _±' -,;�I.1 3k'ru;�. _ .s.r2:,?,.y�y2. _ -- - -_-t�t.i _ ,_!-.,rc r.i.,2a. _.<,C..•.• -- - i .ig•� •ei .t - - wL�. _.�'-" _:fry." •is t. p`'� .^k• t..« ..1.:'�'�• ::f:.v}{�:L�.,.. yl- ::. �br-�=-?'`- -�_J'7�.3-`':A^• :'`Y:�,� .'�.rlrS.'.P7 �'W+ qr}.M i:,;, fir'i'i• I 't�• r•1,t• 1C'' IL'- .4'l�•.••:'. .'f''rl{r-:w:. _ �_Q�--!"_.']tZ •fe .y:_ ��.... - x:•l . a -t3=A ',r•-•• a.4. Y;:. :_,s::. _ _ _ :•.:t'� .9 .-Y�s':t.. ^;.r- -':-:1: - -r"• - �_:. �7�:;.� - - :'ca. �.•-S' - -s:. " 's." .`A-...,a... ;s+ - ':Y' rr»:.'r. ��. ..i':r'�"" �'�_���.- - - _.�^'S;Y�� .".�_..,_--=;ti�,�^".;t'•� .f...� ,._,..;.. ' '.i4�� ,v/. !f" ;:,'�Sp '� - _!!r'.is •1,,.i...,� ':-+- �.9-G 4siJ:� =^.!-,i t-::,•. p•kl;-•.:� -,P:k' }?^.,, .. -`�._ ':'�`., r. »'1cr: ,��C ��'i,z',;:,I. .`.iti�•::atiR-at�";!�. _r .�r,::Tt-.�-.._�._,_ ,.y,.� :.�' :'`�i': _4+":+. •e'.:. :�'�_. k: ,;rti� ;�'!':'i:, �•?l;fdiu ._•r..t"a,.[:-s°=§.r�.Z.-` r:�a'`��1- - "�-4!�x';-�,�., _ �; ��•4'�:Ts'S'�a.7c _�'r.. �:'a,. -:.e,.�w.c,#:.i.. _ - _ir_: 3� '�.:-��".i..._:_.:;•r -�. 'r _�P§.,y4'T�A'-� �;.c- _ _ _ ._..w.0 I .. •'+{.. `'y.!•.a=.'f'.4."`�,�,`:.,...(!, ..�..«. .;,� _ 1;Y it .,r :.x.'c:'•'--.'-• .r.'tc'. `::``L - -- A.-� '3'� - - .P:'-;C . .�.,...... - ^..x'h+'..- r;?. T �.?t,,: F-fF.,.a-r.' •.rvr-«. _ _IFw _ -•.r_ #�` -.:?_.>'' i;.}!t'`c r4:;ei'S_;.'3.'s�:.l'_sti',sc•:.,.' ..'. .�..: - i-dl.>., -„'r.:.•:tr: •.r-'�:_..a•;?�'°.<=,- ate- ••:"r^+'-t'•�T`:Z.c:,r., ,:;r= _stkssy.;; :,r1R •+!ST:•• .h:L'-,az,..."s,Y::y•r _ -. _ �f•:s;;rr "}=' -'y; : - - _<.-f-.moi-�".:7'._�`"S''->_i .-.�,.•'x�..l'';'` -�Y-:• ._ - '4T jl:tll,i-F '.�1 '�C+•"�-�5_�� Ti.lC•1.� Ci�nh •�fr..+•�•:�;�-t- 1�� �. r ��r!"-�t' ���•�..,,T� _ :4"7•f..{� i�!� �:y� ...3!5�fY93e`4`?�?e- '�'-�`� �5.... t_ T�•�'�_��n,_�� ,^'+�Y!���-�-s'i,;.Q �'{- �,.; ,P-' x,' � ::a"r,' .�:r.-,+y-,.�"'.:��. y f :I�. r.•r✓�+'-Aid,+.eT:..,�t'-�t'� `'7AR.. .'rsi mI`i rTF'�..'-'z[..'rlt+.sF��.�'Ta=+$` ���'I t�_••'F`:��.+ i-��•.1°�,4t ,+?�� .,._. L'�'.J+i=;7.'r `� -{� �C^!T�'.�._.-s�•} iY".-,�•i^_ _-_�` ^ _ _ - _ .:'f��i �}..' � 1 2 "`[ � r3,'_F'�� r'.� � � '1-n. i. .•;l'�:.:�•'i'r?�''` "fi�n t�"r�- ``-"w'-?'a' _i^..1 -L`.i' •,. �-I--•' ,Pa..".7Qy� -4�i�l_ f 2•. Ur �W`., 7 L it � '��5. -.. t¢� Z' '�] tiV t�.5' S:o.�`'�:r f�,'.�9'>_ I ._ •K, yc a w "+'Kt :ry=+- 4r - '�'.r-*'` Vii+]y, •'y�Tq,P'�-',,,•�? k c U tFTyt_a �_��` r s.+,�”-r-:�°-•,ter,:..''`t "� �?�%';aX'� ^ �f.��+ k+4 �,r� 5 T `' ,5�-•,t•�� _ °'i•:::� Y-s'r' �z1 yy:4'�-i rCj �i'Fft� c:_ F�.. -I .��.. le+ t�:. ?` 4.'I :P;§✓ i.f.`-.' -Via:_. , I :�,,;�7;r!�:; ra,-i:�r"r.�'es'.s•,• :�`.:1,. A� h.v.W � :R'-f':r. _ .y-'�_'? _ - �lt "r '�.4.'•_ `L�z v�'J.�r�.L+-•"�, - - NL.�._� 1...,N:.!1��..�hl�,' ?'•d': �qi�++G 41 P ++��..1't'' ..•1 �:n� - T': Pifi::,� • =2.' Y. !' �'--p�:ti _ �_ : is pp,�; :.. y ;t..l_^ .;•• ^>R:?'_i'�. o -F' 'M.�r ,a<` __``�' :.tyry:=:L ;;`.i -s; „a,•_3C. i. _ - '7i:1 •n. µr r_•r•n.4J,: �:,x r= xt��•• ' I' r:;:g ��.�,y-^r�,*,;�;.4 .r.. '��°- gf.. -c-,..' ::.� f'•4 UN- -±,ty,� STm-'°ir•-. k a` .+�. � � y_�� � _ .��s�`Sj fS� ..-,-i-c r�_:•F'=-•Y��� �., � r, .•'.�••.,yam-'+._s�.v+`.� '�' •Li. "Q-="x t C -`1 1 r ti - y'-S i�1 t 4 h�se�a= r '•�, a •� r �.,:,,I�I },c: y,�7i9k-:fs.::-i+�2' _ — ...fJe� ,S�i..,h. f.. � .-G_. I �_ w- ,:f"`•_,._�,�:t y •..,*'kms .x �.. �Y: __ _ '�:.-.,S=�r•� � '�1'Q•r••. ��t. � 'v''�'='�f�.:�.,�GR - .µ _ :. _ _ 'di•t'.-j. S. ,.1f L.P,ti�ly;l�•^ x� � 2 •If�+r,; ,�. �w �ry ,k'.P"' 'y.•r. �:f:c•: _ ::��.vv' .;,�,'7�#w.-f`%�!f1.'-`k'{' �� �: F �4`�!. • ,..- rZ.� 'i i. C-,.��.�-J-.�. .- -� �:L- 'i� �+��i u�+� � - .i�a_n�":-= '.4 t�•.,iper_�.i.�..' �i�r. .��, '�.,^4�F, ��'"'� t ;;'�`-:?,E'.,y� e� - �•+ _ ;�,�s?°'. .�.s `i4` �+f�if"•- >�:'n.. ..� �' ^"-c4r�l:�"i,`..��I. :..L:r-� �� �l �r°i �.��''��I�t: + y � .i_;-. L.... ..•.�:_::7�-_ 'y�,-, F��rt•:P:C:..n..q_ •.f •'_ Z"=a,��� ..,Cak• � r+.. �r='�`1�,N '"°Au� ���, a {K.✓ �� r r 4$`' y" ''�_1{fi2�A. �t' 3�+ + 1VNI �v. _�r�;Fr+e.`:5•.y ?.'$'+�- ' p �.?K l's P y,€.i;+y N,.e.� tt r 'ct�• �-. -!c4^� �G•�;i�' �;'r c�"�r:u; }• ,a`i r `Y1• '4'`T •� - _ �I ti;t`; �3 ''`�'- ` '��7�� � i���''aarq�r�`�sss^�- `�•t•�,'K�L T- `1' '' di' -< � 5`� .F�'QL. C. tu:-�S.•".Lr =�-6r^s"��•`i. q5 �s� 4a 1 �r?. - •`T �._ fi+r= r`.ta'i,� �ti 7 :..�-� +A•c,,,,-+.�•._.�_ !_�I:i s'.° �'�;,}�:.,'f L 4 _ IIr . { 'JI•a}�'a �� ��f � dR•l�T i •[.� V. iy,^;r Al Y,.4 � �f: •;. s •; .'��. �_� �}i#� �'Se�" y'�d •' ds ~.�.'.-+ �,-'�.�.aaa��.:sa4_ �.... "Sti TZ F�( .s_' - .._.. ?'12+_ F'Y�L •g5rri' ."x!'•.=. r�`-.; _^ :k`? ' ^t.•_ ... '.�u'�':;R: :i�,.•:..' .. a:'...._ ....'.'R WE NORTHGATE ROAD GATE ACCESS THIS GATE IS INSIDE MOUNT DIABLO STATE PARK, JUST PAST THE FIRST RANGER GATE. THIS TRAIL CONNECTS DIRECTLY TO ANOTHER SIMILAR GATE BEHIND THE LEAP OF FAITH STABLES AND ALSO CONNECTS TO THE BRIDGE TRAIL. _•~. ..RT�:�' `ru 1 ti. �o. .a i L -•�.'��z �C��; -z 1,, r �-'r i �}• W.V�4,�1•.err _ __ ,,_ r �fi Eo- "`'\h CS.�" '- hLi��c �t�`1 ♦ £"n.- ''M�3�Tr'�J. �}" G. n. sr • � T ro � 'lk �L. C, � k r l•tr�'' � '� j:9 ` .�; � t'•J q t, ��'•^ 4G .rte. � i_.ls �i U° " n�1• � rc�k '*�t;�� + r>.r •l �� 6'rj �.`t. ri `..•S'r y��f� 'h F�y��}'.f��. r d�fi`�Y! •+�` \ k�r- �� s'�t� Y �`ir'' � .•l CF -(' . ri. ,`�°5 Y, 'R -' L��t�S,��6� i. r'��-0g���k I 1 ��'l ;E y� ,' L\O tt•'� 1,l•�. ",�`:•m"t�• L. r-,� M°' ►< j.!-.i�.4 jtk7,l 41 .;t 'L� j r• ct, i, . n r • YI r•�,r',�'k4.�y ''1�.1 �d`< 'a ti. yCir��, •.4°y - r> ..+„ ld`r �T N :, 1•. . ��n � _v� 4�4"t•� �C�� .v q }rr'' £ t '�,aA�s ~E fir' ��.. � '`i 4 .. r� a, h, ,°��� �� �yp[ F °q i• I'LL+� `; a yr ;��q Sr `Javt� y, /r s'( �i k 1 c.�''�f�`�4� .i7tY�. F yr w nh 4- "� i RJQ�'�'� � � {.-• -�rk�'s�,,,�•c� + a4� g' *�{r., v,�:� �'' `.' T'kt_; .;. ��.�i� � r .''� �fi �'�,C :s l ."�4,s �1 Y.bail r ��' {5 {a_,-� ,+X I � J' ".�'• - ' � ,}i, ,,r r^' 1 k+C�J+`r,,•r�, �� iL �,�^� t. d -., u��R� .1¢ I asZ'�f' � ,;•�L i r •1 tk ,� �. 1r : aR ��� ( �i�i: 4' IiF4 � Tl � ><�.^�y.... E4 r' • �y' � r �Jll � 'd k y-JAWh �cL�� �t �^'�:'c�c /' f� .t Ar- 'LIT �✓• r4,.: c�ti y .•+.i "`T' rl V {t1 •'vr)t4, h 'C. y4 5 �{ P K 4.r• n bP t ' w _+ F. "'°'xw 'F h" fy {_ J'" , ,>~ S•� -vti:.�l.•k a a�/F��:4c,,� ,� e 1 �' ..�;t �' C:���'d � I� : r� � 'ti ci>< �•t ti �•- i r�u r K,,LC` 1 ~�• �• �kyC, v i r Fr I 7 ��+ '.� � �j �'� a r �t�t.:'h�_ �.a�i.,I ''4"5• � k^' •y �u f- C �. J �bY' 4. `,�., I�aE.��?;.;� h� ,. 'ti►•y' ��, t�t�' �03t'rti'� ��' � �,� �'�, l N, ;Jc � 3. �. � , � . 7 ���•�' �'i '� 'i`lt�?`1�� 'l w � is ���}�""����', i� •��. *s ¢� + C �•� �'1 7��� Lw �`QPy �.S�i f � p!�,��'° • 7 F, ` t,,�Fr °�Y. �F• ac�,�-.,�4. L` r?r°y-;. rcJ', y r' ` 1. } '•'`.O k3T't'•L{�.` r �i. +fi.lj%�SPa~ f',,+-.'C 6,��vT'�rzi •. '! �.. (-y ��� 'bi �.! Y C �' ti n L1t y {i �{r "� +,v� 1TA+T e�j•A�V, "'t.;c-:Ffk+e F � •+'�-.yip lqy py.+.N.: � +�; S k• t - � .5- 11 -++•3.r � ` t K '}� �. Y y�S G— �6 y,.et 1��•`e�*'( 5� y v'���,,,,,+1y�v'�Fy'� "I� scl a♦L`.Pa cfi,;.��rgi �,5,4�"-�� 'tr, =L`r 5 t`'t '; � S_ F y �'''.)v'..},�tiJ"A'y(Lp _�'^'��t•+�� �S 4 1�tiiAr`+�6•L`ar�� �.ar_„`' ��Se•��" I.,�'�} 'Y .� •'`M1.� �� � t. 1 F."' {�'' L- � 4 �t �t f' �„ �' ( %/'�i' /.'• L' y •C V.� rt Y-Jti�fT �. ♦ 1 + 1 H �. fJ }'. a fi• 5 yet y .•^�l C'�1 1� 1��'4�.11G t Ij � C 4 a �E 4� �a �=KE t .moi ;.�'.. {•t -J' 11 �— r-a1. T}"1' ., �,+ �. -1,r1 A ��,,,''���`t� 5•� �.S i!G'y :r 1� ..J'J't i..T �J.LJ "g'(� I1��1 W' �fS' ♦ �J,.' � n:. �� � �- 1 1© r 'nt'v-}'F• '• '�d/-�`' y�``I• .h�" f �F[tC�'`'Lh •1-*'.-A. .J.��e •.�•l'Sx,li/�lki�. .. 11 4- l M■ NEIGHBORS IN OPPOSITION To Whom It May Concern: October 22, 2006 We the undersigned homeowners on Pine Creek Road are in opposition of the building of a trail along Pine Creek at anytime, now or in the future. Our concerns include the ecological effect of equine and human traffic along the creek side and the liability exposure. AME ADDRESS � J Gz°c- (c- ' rPCG Tj A�r Utd,a�4 ap, V / To Whom It May Concern: October 21, 2006 We the undersigned homeowners, expressly refuse permission for any public use on or across our private road. The southern end of Pine Creek Road is a posted private road, owned and maintained Exclusively by the residents. All equine and hiking use by non- residents is expressly refused due to liability, privacy and associated increased repair cost reasons, NAME ADDRESS . - a /.��fes. ,�z ,�_: � " .�� �-v� L'��.� i .•t3-r�c F C42'- -.Y _ r7 1�f- �.��/`t �'"�-f-�-f� �`.-�^`'--�-1 � Com_G/.�1..2,�{„ (.�-'--�'��!y✓�L �'l _.'c'r--`-r . ' -P�i''V;�� t� Ft1SA�50CfTI��Rh'-£'1�}D"Ph\�E�REEK-R3frB-F�SfDEN�'S NAME ADDRESS - " �N CC ,- lc- 1 PRIVATE ROAD EASMENT REFUSAL,SOUTHERN END PINE CREEK ROAD RESIDENTS NAME ADDRESS is aECEIVEC - �= i AGENDA ITEM To Whom It May Concern: The undersigned property owners. do hereby decline to permit any encroachment, trespass, or easement on, across, or over, our private propert (APN# 13 8- '230-026) located at 580 Pine Creek Rrt 4d Walnut Creek, CA 94598. , We object to any use by�pt� s r anit�nls, other than those of the owners1 eneral y and cificall the Equestrian trai-51the Save Mt. Diablo Foundatio novaI: aid=, it the future. , % , Signed,:. �RudV Knapp I Signed': r Tami Knapp Dated: PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSE It is our position that this"wait and see attitude" is an unfair burden on the . property owner: This amounts to holding the property owner in easement limbo, unsure of what their building or even landscaping rights are. Then North Gate Specific Plan, the governing Document for this area, does not empower this type of attitude. The lands in question here for sub-division are zoned single family residential, very low density and comply with the stated goal that all new buildings match with the surrounding environment of the neighborhood. The North Gate Specific Plan documents the creek preservation efforts that the current property owners have had in place for the last 32 years. The current development plans for the new and final Macdonald residence will be completed in consideration of the natural riparian habitat of the creek area,maintaining the required 50 foot set back and removing no trees of significance. The SMDG's proposal failed to consider the neighborhood's reaction to the proposed trail placement. Included in my discussion notes for the October meeting was a signed petition, specifically excluding permission for any and all easement using horses or hikers to cross or pass on the privately owned and maintained private drive section at the end of Pine Creek Road. FINAL NOTE The SMD proposal of September 25, 2006 discussed at length the benefit to the equine community that will be realized when the easement requested connects Castle Rock Road to North Gate Road and Mount Diablo State park. Currently the Castle Rock Road equestrian community has access to the Shell Ridge Open Space lands from several gates placed along the west side of Castle Rock Road. This SMDG's proposal discussed the many benefits that their efforts will have for the local equestrian community. It identified the unfortunate accident in 2004 where a horse was hit and killed by a speeding motor cycle. What the article didn't make clear was just exactly where that accident occurred. That tragic accident occurred just below the ranger gate, directly in.front of the new Coveted Gateway parcel of land that as vet is still not open to local riders trying to avoid crossing North ate Road. If the Anderson-Campbell Subdivision had been approached for an easement, a direct . access trail would already be in place to truly avoid future tragic accidents. Long before SMD obtains the funding to complete their"Staging Area" li A September 25, 2006 RE file:MS050045 Dear County Zoning Administrator, First I want to thank you for letting us fax this comment in. MY husband is recently home from 5 days in the cardiac care unit of Kaiser and we have so many visits from nurses, physical therapists, occupational therapists,etc that we could not make the meeting_ We would like to state our opposition to the dividing of this properly. The County has been very fax about all aspects of the North Gate Specific Plan, On Pine Creek Road they have already permitted an orchard to be made into 4 McMansions(these are also 2 stories vs. the one story stated in the North Gate Plan). This developmant has turned an absorbant area(orchard) into almost total hardscape,of roofs, patios, drives, walks. Hardscape results in 17% more runoff than ground. Across the street from us the County allowed almost an acre of hardscape this year for a yard.redo(on a 2 , story house that the County had granted an exception to the 1 story rule) and that increases runoff. We had really bad flooding last Spring and we lost about a quarter of an,acre of land which the County and Fish and Game will not allow us to fix. The more small areas you allow as exceptions to the North Gate plan the more serious it is to those of us already on the creek. In dividing this property, it would really increase the runoff more because not only will the 2 pieces be built on, but there will also be double the sidewalks,,drives, roof area for rain to quickly.runoff. That will result in more damage to our land. We do not,understand why the County has a Plan to keep the agricultural feeling of this area for everyone to enjoy, going to the parks down Castle.Rock and yet are turning Pine Creek into a high density subdivision(all 2 story.exceptions to the Plan as well as the size of lots). The people who live on these smaller lots do not have any agricultural activities and then comlain there are flies and dust. We have to have our animal waste transported away to satist creek requirements at great expense and yet you keep approving thess small inf il!s and do not consider the damage runoff will create in the stream or us_ The high density you have allowed also has resulted in great noise pollution. This valley acts as an amphlithearter and the noise from these high density exceptions increase in hardscaping/denser housing, results in more people making greater noise than ever. The County needs to take all these impacts into,consideration. I urge you to not allow this exception to the North Gate Plan. Why have a Plan if the County just approves endless exceptions.?(The above are just a few of-the exceptions the County has granted.) Thank you for your consideration, J Victoria and Robert as Roza Castle Rock Road NEIGHBOR IN FA VpR pF TRAIL FebruLzy 9,2007 RE: v,. donald (570 Pine Creek Road, IvIS050045) To Va thorn It May Concern: My =-—c is Pamela Swartz; I am an avid equestrian trail rider. I am also the president of the Ecl.iestl-ian Trail Advocates, a non-profit organization dedicated to the establishment and rete:pion of safe trail access to public lands'for all equestrians. I was not so lucky with my horse, RC Vendetta on August 10, 2004 on Northgate Road, where she was struck and killed by a speeding motorcyclist. Safe trail access is.absolutely needed for all equestrians -horses and vehicular traffic and paved roads do not mix well. , I am regL-_sting the County to require a trail and scenic easement for the Macdonald Project-m link much needed trail access throughout the Northgate area of Walnut.Creek. Equesai=s do not need an elaborate, wide or super improved trail -just something to take us oaf the road from non-informed and speeding motorists. If you need additional information from me or if you wish to meet regarding this,I would be happy to do so. Sincere<< �f. Pamela. Swartz 25 Craemont Court Walnut C_-eek, CA 94598 Home 92_•.933,7337 Cell 925.788.9738 cc: "we Mount Diablo Supervisor Man,Piepho CEQA DOCUMENT- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM August 1, 2007 1001 AUU - P 3: Sa Ms. RoseMarie Pietras Z. Contra CostaCounty Community Development Dept. 650 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear RoseMarie: It is with regret that conforming to the environmental requirements for the survey concerning the "Red-Legged Frog" delayed our submittal of the necessary documents. We look forward to the planning commission hearing on August 28, 2007. Regards , x 1 Environmental Cheeklist Form 1. Project Title: MS050045 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,North Wing-4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rose Marie Pietras, Senior Planner, (925)335-1216 4. Project Location: 570 Pine Creek Road, Walnut Creek APN#138-230-028 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Alex MacDonald 570 Pine Creek Road Walnut Creek, CA 94598 6. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential—'Very Low 7.. Zoning: R-40—Single Family Residential 8. Description of Project: The applicant requests approval to subdivide 2.246 acres into a two single family lots. 9: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The subject site-comprises a single family home, an existing barn to be removed. The surrounding area comprises a few lots less than one acre,one acre lots, two acre lots and a five acre parcel to.the north. 10. Other public agencies whose approval Fish and Game (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning _ Transportation/ Public Services Population &Housing Circulation Utilities& Service Geological Problems _ Biological Resources Systems Water _ Energy&Mineral J Aesthetics Air Quality Resources _ Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of _ Hazards _ Recreation Significance _ Noise X No Significant Impacts Identified DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,. and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets,.if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigatedpursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature / P , C Date r [X� XPi 1 i �J CCC Community Development Department Printed Name For SOURCES In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation,the following references(which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department,651 Pine Street 5th Floor-North Wing,Martinez)were consulted: 1. Contra Costa Resource Mapping System—Clayton Quad Sheet Panels . 2. '(Reconsolidated)County General Plan(July 1996) and EIR on the General Plan.(January 1991). 3. General Plan and Zoning Maps 4. Contra Costa County Code,including zoning and subdivision ordinances and the State Planning and Zoning Law, Subdivision Map Act and California Environmental Quality Act 5. Agency Comments 6. Field Review Rose check date 7. Creek Preservation and Enhancement Plan prepared by Environmental Collaborative dated March 20; 2006 S. Peer Review of Creek Preservation and Enhancement Plan prepared by Monk&Associates dated May 17, 2006 3 EVALUATION OF 1ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incorporation Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? Sources 1, 2, 3,&6 — — — --- b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to: trees, rock X outcroppings, and historic buildings within a — — — -- state scenic highway? Sources 1,2, 3, &6 C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its — — — X surroundings? Sources 1, 2, 3 &6 d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime — _ — X views in the area? Sources 1,2, 3 &6 SUMMARY: No impact. a. The site is located in the Walnut Creek area of the County along Pine Creek Road..The site has an existing single family home,and a bam. Staff has made a field visit on August 1,2006. The applicant has proposed a"Restricted Development Area"along the creek structure setback. b. The site is located in a semi-rural area of the county. The property owners are living on Parcel. A on the subject site. The access to the property is directly off Pine Creek Road. There are mature walnut trees on the site. The 36"walnut tree will not be removed. The smaller walnut trees are in the way of development and will be removed. Prior to the recording of the Parcel map the applicant shall submit an Arborist Report with the appraised value of the 36"walnut tree to remain. The applicant shall be required to submit a financial surety for the appraised value of the tree and for performance of the tree preservation measures. C. The visual character of the site would change with the eventual development of Parcel B. The proposed project would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. d. No glare would be introduced in the area. Minimal new sources of light would illuminate from eventual development. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on.agricultural and farmland. Would the.project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Minution Significant No Impact Inco oration Impact Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), X as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the — — — Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of 4 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incomoration Impact Impact the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? Sources 1, 2, 3 &6 b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? Sources 1, — — _ X 2. 3 & 6 C. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, — — — X to non-agricultural use? Sources 1,2, 3 &6 SUMMARY: No impact a,b&c. The site is located in an area designated urban&built up land on the Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2000 Map. The property is designated Single Family Residential— Very Low. This proposal will provide for one additional house fulfilling the goals and policies of the County General Plan,Housing Element. II. AIR QUALITY: Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable airquality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the roject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact . Inco oration Impact Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Sources 1,2,3,& — — — Y 6 b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? _ _ X Sources 1,2, 3, & 6 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 — — — X standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Sources 1,2, 3, &6 d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ollutant concentrations? Sources 1, 2,3,&6 — — — -X X C. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Sources 1,2,3, _ — — X &6 5 SUMMARY: No impacts. a. The proposal does not conflict with implementation of an applicable air quality plan. b. The proposal would not violate air quality standards or contribute to existing air quality violations. C. The region is currently in non-attainment for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM10). Implementation of the project would lead to a slight increase in ozone and ozone precursors,as they are primarily the result of the automobile emissions and development of the additional residences would lead to increased automobile use. The residential use is not an inherent producer of PM10 pollution. Construction activities could cause a temporary increase in ambient levels ofPM10. There could be an impact from dust and fine particulates commonly associated with earth movement and construction. The project will be conditioned to require that measures be taken to reduce PM10 emissions during earth movement and construction. These conditions will include,but may not be limited to,watering the site multiple times daily,sweeping and collecting loose particles on-site and requiring that dump trucks be covered when hauling loose materials. The Building Inspection Department, Grading Division will also enforce measures to reduce particulate pollution. d. No sensitive receptors are located near the site. e. Construction of new residences and barn would produce no objectionable odors. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant. Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation lm act . Impact 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, _ _ _ X policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? Sources I. 2, 3, 5 &6 b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat .or, other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, X policies, or regulations; or by the California — — — =— Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Sources 1,2, 3 5 &6 C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited X to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through — — — direct removal, filling, hydrological inter-. ru tion.or other means? Sources 1,2,3,5&6 6 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lm act Inco oration Impact Impact d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or X migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use — — of native wildlife nursery sites? Sources 1, 2, 3,5 &6 e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree X preservation policy or ordinance? Sources 1,2, — — — 3, 5 &6 f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, — _ — X regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Sources 1,2, 3, 5 &6 SUMMARY: No impacts. The applicant submitted a Creek Preservation and Enhancement Plan prepared by Environmental Enhancement Plan dated March 20,2006 to comply with the policies of the North Gate Specific Plan. The County's Environmental Consultants, Monk&Associates prepared a peer review dated May 17, 2006. Monk&Associates concludes that the Creek Preservation and Enhancement Plan provides sound and appropriate standards for protecting Pine Creek within the area of minor subdivision. See County File#MS050045 for review of all reports described above. a. Development of the site would not result in significant adverse effects on special-status plant species. b. Development of the site would not result in significant adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. C. No wetlands exist on the site., therefore no substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands would occur by the establishment of the proposed project. d. The proposed project would not interfere with the migration of native fish or wildlife. The project site is comparatively small and is surrounded by semi-rural development. The property does not represent a significant wildlife corridor. The proposed development would not significantly impact wildlife movement in the region. C. The proposal does not conflict with policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and protected trees. Prior to recording the Parcel Map the applicant shall submit an Arborist Report and appraisal of the 36"walnut tree to be preserved. A surety will be' required based on the appraised value of the tree for the retention of the tree and implementation of the tree preservation measures outlined in the Arborist Report. f. The County does not have an approved Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Conservation Plan. 7 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less'lltan Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incomoration Impact Im acl a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined _ _ X in 315064.5? Sources 1, 2, 3, 5, &6 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource _ _ _ X pursuant to 315064.5? Sources 1,2, 3,5,&6 C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique _ — _ X geologic feature? Sources 1, 2, 3, 5, &6 d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Sources X 1,2, 3, 5,&6 — — — SUMMARY: No Impact a-d. A copy of this application was forwarded to the California Historic Resources Information System(CHRIS)for comments. The 30 day comments were received on November 9, 2005. CHRIS determined the project area has previously been surveyed(Study#S1-10768). No further study for archeological resources is recommended. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would theproject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or Y based on other substantial evidence of a — — — known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Sources 1,2, 3 &7 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? _ X 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including X liquefaction? Sources 1, 2, 3, 5 &6 — — — -- 4. Landslides? Sources 1,2, 3, 5, &6 _ _ _ X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil? Sources 1, 2, 3, 5 &6 — — — -- 8 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less-Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact 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 X on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Sources 1,2,3, 5, &6 d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1 8-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or — — — X X ro erty? Sources 1, 2, 3, 5,.&6 C. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available _ _ — X for the disposal of waster water? Sources 1,2, 3, 5,&6 SUMMARY: No impact. 2.1 The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse risk from known earthquake faults. a.2 The proposed project would not expose people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking. a.3 The proposed project would not expose people or structures to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. a.4 The proposed project would not expose people or structures to landslides. b. An Erosion Control Plan is routinely required for at-risk projects in hillside areas that disturb one acre or more. The subject site is relatively flat with the exception of a slight dip into the creek area which is in the creek structure setback. C. The existing geologic data indicates that the project is feasible. d. According to the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County. C. The applicant is requesting an exception from the North Gate Specific Plan requirement that all new development be served by public utilities due to the proximity to the creek and exceptions granted to a contiguous minor subdivision; County File#MS010005. 9 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL: Would the project: Potentially, Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitieation Significant No Impact Inco oration Impact Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use, X or disposal of hazardous materials? Sources 1, — — 2, 3, 5, 10& 1.1 b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the — — — X release of hazardous materials into the environment? Sources 1, 2, 31 5 & 6 C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or X waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or �— proposed school? Sources 1,2, 3, 5 &6 d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65862.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to — — — X X the public or the environment? Sources 1.,2,3, 5 &6 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 X public use airport,would the project result in a — safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Sources 1,2, 3, 5 &6 f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project 'result in a safety X hazard for people residing or working in the — -- project area? Sources 1,2; 3, 5 &6 g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response X • plan or emergency evacuation plan? Sources 1, — — 2,3 &5 h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent X to urbanized areas or where residences are — — — -- intermixed with wild lands? Sources 1,2,3& 5 10 SUMMARY: No Impact a. There will be no routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials by the proposed proj ect. b-c. The proposed project will not create or emit hazards to the public,or within a quarter mile of a proposed or existing school or on the environment through upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials or emitting hazardous emissions. . d. In compliance with Government Code Section 65962.5 the California Department of Toxic Substances Control issued a list of hazardous waste and substances sites (Cortese List). The 2002 edition of the Cortese List no hazardous sites within the property or in close proximity. e-f. The project site is not within the vicinity of a public use airport or private airstrip. g. Implementation of the project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h. The site is located in a semi-rural area with the following uses in the surrounding area: • horse stables and pastures; • in the immediate vicinity: single family residences; • private ranch and grazing lands to the far east along Pine Creek Road; and • more horse stables and single family houses to the south. If property interfaces with wildlands or open space areas, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District requires a separate landscape plan for vegetation fuel modification and/or buffer zone(s)featuring fire resistive and drought tolerant varieties of landscaping is required to be submitted and approved by the Fire District prior to the issuance of a grading and building permits. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would theproject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste X discharge requirements? Sources 1,2, 3,&5 — — 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 _ _ — X rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Sources 1, 2, 3, &5 C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the X alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a — — — manner which would result in substantial 11 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Sources 1, 2, 3 &5 d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the . alteration of the course of a stream or river, or X substantially increase the rate or amount of — — — surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? Sources 1,2,3,&5 e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide — — — X substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Sources 1,2, 3 &5 f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Sources'1, 2, 3 &5. — — — X g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area-as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or _ — X other flood hazard delineation map? Sources 1, 2, 3 &5 h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect — — — X flood flows? Sources 1, 2, 3 &5 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 — — — —XX levee or dam? Sources 1, 2, 3, &5 J. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Sources 1,2, 3, &5 — — — X SUMMARY: No Impact a. The eventual development of a new home on propose parcel B would produce a minimal amount of polluted runoff due to leaks of automobiles,use of backyards pesticides,etc. This pollution would be negligible. b. No water will be extracted from an underground aquifer. C. The site will not impact drainage patterns. Per phone conversation on June 15,2006 with Wes Cooley of the Public Works Department,Flood Control,DA85 has not been formed and there is no impact to the existing drainage pattern. The following comments were received from the Public Works Department. . 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 12 drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse. An unimproved earth channel traverses the subject property along the westerly property boundary. Apparently,the creek structure setback area was previously recorded on the subject property(164 PM 21) as part of a prior development application. The creek structure setback area is considered a restricted development area over which development rights have been relinquished. Construction of permanent structures is prohibited within.the creek structure setback area. A portion of the project site is 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. d. The rate and amount of runoff from the site will be improved with the new drainage plan that the applicant is proposing and been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. See comment in Section n.) C. The Ordinance Code requires collected and conveyed requirements on parcels of this size. The applicant is subject to all the rules,regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 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—Regional III).(See Section c) In compliance with the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance,it has been determined that this project does not require submittal of a Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP). New or redeveloped impervious surface area proposed in this application totals less than one acre(43,560 square feet),which is the threshold for submittal of a SWCP. However, this project is required to incorporate storm water quality elements to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). This must include efforts to limit new impervious surface area, limit . directly connected impervious areas, provide for self-retaining areas and include other Best. Manaeement Practices to the MEP. b h. No portion of the site lies within a FEMA designated Flood Zone. The site is within Flood Zone A— 100 year flood zone and C—of minimal flooding, Panel#0315 B. i. No levees or dams protect the site. j. Seiche and tsunami do not.occur in this area. 13 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would theproject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a. Physically divide an established community? Sources 1, 2, 3, &4 — — — X b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local _ — — X coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Sources 1, 2, 3, &4 C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan .or natural community — _ — X conservation plan? Sources 1, 2, 3, &4 SUMMARY: No Impact a. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. b. The property is designated Single Family Residential Very Low. The proposed two lot sub- division is consistent with the General Plan designation and the R-40 Zoning District. C. There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community plan in this area of Contra Costa County. X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact_ a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the X region and the residents of the state? Sources — — — -- 1,2, &3 b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site X delineated on a local general plan,specific plan — —or other land use plan? Sources 1, 2, & 3 SUMMARY: No Impact a-b. No mineral resources were identified at the site. 14 XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporation Impact lm act a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or — _ _ X applicable standards of other agencies? Sources 1, 2, &3 b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground bome vibration or ground _ — _ X borne noise levels? Sources 1, 2 &3 C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels — — _ X existing without theproject? Sources 1,2,&3 d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X above levels existing without the project? — — — Sources 1, 2, &3 e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of public airport or. X public useairport, would the project expose — — — people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Sources 1,2, &3 f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people X residing or working in the project area to — — — excessive noise levels? Sources 1,2&3 SUMMARY: 'No Impact a-c. The site is outside a 60dBA noise contour and the area is quiet with the exception of some farm equipment. The project site is in Contra Costa County and subject to the guidelines contained in the Noise Element of the County General Plan. The General Plan guidelines are that outdoor noise levels in new residential development should not exceed a DNL of 60dB and an indoor noise level should not exceed a DNL of 45 db. d. There would be a temporary increase in noise levels if the applicant decides to establish a residence on proposed Parcel A. These impacts are considered less than significant due to their short duration. The project would be conditioned to require that steps be taken to reduce construction noise such as fitting engines with mufflers,limiting the hours of construction and transport of materials and machinery and locating noise producing equipment as far from surrounding residences as possible. 15 e-f. The site is not in the vicinity of a public use airport or private airstrip and is not contained in an airport land use plan. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would theproject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Inco oration Impact Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for _ _ _ X example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Sources 1, 2 & 3 b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? Sources 1, 2 — — — ^— &3 C. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement _ _ _ X housing elsewhere? Sources 1, 2 &3 SUMMARY: No impact. a-c. On average,2.5 people reside in one residence. The proposal is for 1 additional single-family residence totaling 5 persons. The County General Plan has designated this area as Single Family Residential—Very Low. The property is located in a semi-rural area of the County. 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 Potentially ratios, response times or other performance significant objectives for any of the public services. Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Source 5: impact Incorporation Impact Impact 1. Fire Protection`? _ X 2. Police Protection? _ _ X 3. Schools? _ _ _ X 4. Parks? _ _ _ X 5. Other Public Facilities? X Source 6 16 SUMMARY: No impact a.1. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) currently serves the site. The CCCFPD forwarded comments on November 28,2005. a.2. The site is currently served by the Contra Costa County Sheriff s Department. The increase in demand for police services would be mitigated by an increase annual tax assessment per parcel of the property. New facilities would be constructed according to community need. a.3 The site is served by the Mt. Diablo Unified District. The District was noticed and no comments were received. The increase in demand for school services would be mitigated by the collection of school district fees at the time building permits were issued for the new residences and by the increased tax assessment of the property. No facilities would be constructed according to community need. a.4. No new facilities would be required as a direct result of this subdivision. New facilities would be constructed according to community need (see"Recreation"below). a.5. No other facilities would be affected by the proposal. XN. RECREATION:. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless_ Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco oration Impact Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing nei0hborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial _ _ X physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Sources 1,2 &3 b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an _ X adverse physical effect on the environment? Sources 1,2&3 SUMMARY: No Impact. The East Bay Regional Park District were noticed and replied with no convnents. a. The proposal would not result in an increase in demand for parks and recreational.facilities. b. There is no proposal to expand existing facilities. 17 XV. TRANISPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would theproject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact InCDrpoTation Impact Impact a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of _ _ _ X. vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? Sources 1, 2, 3,4&5 b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for _ — _ X designated roads or highways? Sources 1,21 3, 4&5 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 — — — X X safety risks? Sources 1,2, 3,4&5 d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous X intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm — — — equipment)? Sources 1,2, 3,4& 5 e. Result in inadequate emergency access? Sources I, 2, 3,4&5 — — — X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? Sources X: 1,2, 3,4&5 — — — g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation X (e.g., bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? Sources 1, — — — 2, 3,4, & 5 Sn4MARY: No Impact a-b. The following Public Works Department's comments were received on June 19, 2006 A private road extension of Pine Creek Road runs along the eastern boundary of the subject parcel. The road appears to be 20 feet in width. Where frontage in inadequate, the applicant will widen and upgrade the portion of the private road along the easterly frontage of the subject parcel to a 20 foot paved road, constructed to County private road standards. c. Air traffic pattems would not be affected. d. No hazardous design features or incompatible uses are proposed. e. The Fire District comments Were received November 28, 2005 Is f. The property consists of 2.246 acres of land. The proposed development will have ample space . for one more residence. . g. The proposal does not conflict with adopted policies or programs supporting alternative transportation. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would theproject: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control _ — — X Board? Sources 1,2, 3,4&5 b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction — — _ X or which could cause significant environmental effects? Sources 1, 2, 3,4& 5 C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which — — - X could cause significant environmental effects? Sources 1, 2, 3,4&5 d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlement and X resources, or are new or expanded entitlement — — — --- needed? Sources 1,2, 3,4&5 C. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve X the project's projected demand in addition to — —the provider's existing commitments? Sources 1,2, 3,4& 5 f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient-permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid _ _ _ X waste disposal needs? Sources 1, 2, 3,4&5 g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Sources — _ _ X 1,2, 3,4&5 SUMMARY: No Impact. a. The applicant must comply with the County's Storm Tater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. b. The subject property is not served by a Sanitation District. Therefore, no new wastewater facilities are required by the district. 19 C. The proposed project will not require the expansion of or result in storm water drainage facilities. d. The property is served by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. C. The property is not served by a Sanitation District. f. The project would be served by a landfill facility.within Contra Costa County. County landfills have capacity to serve a project of this size. g. Refuse collection from the new residences would be deposited in a landfill that must comply with state and local regulations for disposal of solid waste. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lmnact Inco oration Impact Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to X 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 X are considerable when viewed in connection — — — with the effects of past projects, the effects of. other current projects, and the effects of probable future rojects)? C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on _ _ _ X human beings, either directly or indirectly? SUMMARY: No Impact a-c. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment,nor will the project have significant cumulative impact on the environment. This project is in a semi-rural area of the southeast county. The County General Plan has designated this property as Single Family Residential Very Low. G:/current planning/curr plan/environmental/initial studies/MS050045initialstudy w-tables 8-1-06 It NOTIFICATION LIST • 300 FOOT RADIUS • SPEAKERS FROM: CPC HEARING 8/28/07 ZA HEARING 12/04/06 • CONCERNED NORTHGATE RESIDENT _0 . 138230002 138230009 /38230013 GEE WING B & CHRISTINE M YERAKA MIKE & CAROLYN J GRAHAM ROBERT R & SHIRLEY TRE 501 PINE CREEK RD 609 PINE CREEK RD 625 PINE CREEK RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 138230019 138230026 138230027 IRVIN GEORGE H JR &ELINOR TRE KNAPP RUDOLPH C JR& TAMI TRE BAILY J WARREN &ALICIA J TRE 601 PINE CREEK RD 580 PINE CREEK RD 590 PINE CREEK RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA' 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 138230028 138230029 138230030 MACDONALD ALEXANDER& CONATY JOHN M &ANNM MARTIN ALBERT E JR & RENEE TRE DARLENE 500 PINE CREEK RD 31 NOTTINGHAM PL PO BOX 5147 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 CLAYTON CA 94517 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 138230031 138230032 138240001 BETTENCOURT GARY M & MARI ROMANOFF KENT E &AMY S TRE VINCENT BRET W 567 PINE CREEK RD 585 PINE CREEK RD 1000 CASTLE ROCK RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA94598 138240002 138240003 138240006 CARTER DAVID T&LISA M DA ROZA ROBERT&VICTORIA TRE HOAG RICHARD S 980 CASTLE ROCK RD 888 CASTLE ROCK RD 401 PINE CREEK RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 138250001. 138250003 PETER MANFRED & BARBARA A 138250002 SMITH MATTHEW K& MARY JONES THOMAS P & MARGARET J TRE 1100 CASTLE ROCK RD MADDUX 1150 CASTLE ROCK RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94598. 1025 CASTLE ROCK RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 138250004 139140002 139140003 WISHART MILO ALLEN JOHN FREDERICK TRE SMITH MATTHEW K& MARY 1030 CASTLE ROCK RD 1001 CASTLE ROCK RD MADDUX WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 1025 CASTLE ROCK RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 139151001 139170013 NALNUT CREEK-CITY OF EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DIST 'O BOX 8039 PO BOX 5381 NALNUT CREEK CA 94596 OAKLAND CA 94605 Speakers from Zoning Administrators Meeting 12-04-06 Audrey Gee Janine Eldred Alex Macdonald 501 Pine Creek Rd. 570 Pine Creek Rd. 570 Pine Creek Rd. 'Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Seib Adams- Diablo Dave Wilson JoAnn Hanna 484 Ed�Tefield Place 950 Trails End 1901 Olympic Blvd. #220 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Brentwood, CA 94513 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Carolyn & Mike Yeraka Greg Collins John Conatz 609 Pine Creek Rd. 7 Grandview Place 500 Pine Creek Rd. Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Speakers from County Planning Commission Meeting 08-28-07 Alex Macdonald 570 Pine Creek Rd. Troy Bristol John Conatz Walnut Creek, CA 94598 1901 Olympic Blvd. 9220 500 Pine Creek Rd. IX alnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Al Martin Rori Kvalvik Janine Eldred 555 Pine Creek Rd. 570 Pine Creek Rd. walnut CreekCA 94598 570 Pine Creek Rd. Walnut Creek ., CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Robert Simmons '2866 Boling Green Dr. Greg Collins Teff Baily Walnut Creek, CA 94598 7 Grandview Place 570 Pine Creek Rd. Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Gordon Schell Oscar Fernandez Schell & Martin Civil EnRinecrin , Inc 570 Pine Creek Rd. 3377 h1t. Diablo Blvd. Walnut Creek_ CA 94598 Lafayette, CA 9=15=19. Concerned North Gate Resident - 1 "Pamela Swartz" To <rpiet(d-)cd.cccounty.us> <clrskin@acnetreatment.com > cc 02/09/2007 05:25 PM bcc Please respond to Subject Macdonald(570 Pine Creek Road, MS050045) 1<clrskhaacnetre@trn9nt.com>J To ANhom It May Concern: The purpose of this email is to request that you place me on your mailing list for the Macdonald Project. I Mould like to be kept apprised.of the project. Sincerely, Pamela Swartz 25 Cracrmont Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Home 925.933.8425 Cell 925.788.9738 LETTER FROM APPLICANT AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR SCHEDULING HEARING OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ZBO `SEP 18 P 3* 09 September 18, 2007 Rosemarie Pietras Contra Costa County Planning Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: MS05-0045 Dear Rosemarie: We understand the time constraints put upon your office by Save Mount Diablo's recent appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on our minor subdivision. While we would like to.see this matter to its conclusion as soon as possible,we realize that you and your staff are unable to meet the statutory 30 day deadline for referral to the Board of Supervisors. In light of this, we relinquish the `30 day' requirement on MS05-0045. Please proceed at your earliest convenience and let us know what we need to do and when. Thank you for your assistance. Regards, Darlene Macdonald 570 Pine Creek Road Walnut Creek, CA 94598 925-939-5173 home 707-643-9191 office REDUCED SCALE MAP •,p��1�„6s as„F�os,E�1,.1�.e 9»o��,�as l=:,],��s 994co RAS � m N O P o z A p O y HUTCHINSON RD x o m o H v " max Z �`O o �A sp m <”, �o�' ,g na Aro {}ACi2 e m$� m �� �� eg g � �z z /t o� scat_E, �� m APCA�e.R 6JJ�9 kK �� N C�T Q95 S9F A� Q � M 656�6LN SL b M ------------- Lau ''�° t4 X42'” Nd'd m syr ,�,/�•" --""--- �� P \ 9s.f gEt <iti N e u •_ __..._Him'M 332 a Y �� ' 118 O Z ro °a n y9 9R 0° g It o p --------- __ __... B .M O 2 q / 4 90C 3.00 00.905_----- ._.- p 4 _ z o "5., —�.'= q B �J b p �a 9�� g o S vLn x �-n--l10 omA$o Xkt WK(D•> r � T 1�m>$o� A 3'1tt my A r7*ncw,•ci2 o'" .C? Q f t- < W x alA z('>:lm1�t© I- �*i AAAC Z9 y9�A> "IJ� 1n >.ISQ S7W M Z g m 5 r] ?p?P Am %.o.. o}�fliA yFz m �n '"''� q • • • oo• � 4 ..ropry py DD �� C A > mOD> i 9 O Z 2 4 o Z Z 2 2 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z Z Z Z 2 Z 2 v n ZZ is m {"'m N N v C O P ro a o D ',,'6O 0 o p 0000 000 00000000000000 0�1 +mN z1n v0W On�9 1 SF1n�v`�i F cm r5 0 Mx204 �4� m !i1 VI 41 N nc P yz "0 m z �=aaz s�+Amm x o�i�� m fo �, tmn�N� € ➢ C> 0m0�Z Vi r_�sxrx (n -come�y oxm �Szz�Aca gym a µv i O mo ��n _., a� rrya xa mn A.n W azo t? Y' m yA iA1n > merpoo-1x7=-. 'D^mmz 'r�ci r''m A`- m vmi ? sjs -C1 Z`.+ y.-1fl�� ao zy o n '''^�a n° o� r7 z �u m X06 on Orow >�x t R O Y i "Y aWi CO A m 1 J�1 w MAPS • GENERAL PLAN • ZONING • ASSESSOR PARCEL MAP • NORTH GATE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA • FLOOD ZONE MAP County File # MS050045: General Plan Designations _ I 1 1 I - .G Hera; a 151 Canyon;; v. ° Geral.. n V Gene al-Pl�`n L �. - Arroilo U .. 4 j 1 ��.lI�II II ISULL �II��IN / General Plan PR r General Plan AL I . Tbs map of EaWal was cWW by llm 0-110 Cotta"""t"f—.=E)—bpment r] I ponabdbllP lr Daparhnant--homtl Contra Coto Carry DIS Prop Some Feet Mco be case comycommuny D.wopmaor,—poo,--p lmsc—�phnMy Gy LYnlls•b dwM lrom Na CASab Hoed of EquaPtlw. ..Sti. 0 150300 VOO 651 Plrr Sbmt,4th Floor NoM Wbp,MmWaZ.CAHa553-0]B5 bxr*aiw.WM1llt ubppetad to u.a colada*ma Couny eyaurnas no mr,ponsODy for 37:M:4SAWN I—AS9HaW Its aowrry.]Ht orp mnahs mpyiouw blomaYal 1 rptb Wbrad.It ortyba orpmdr_rt In Its mmnt slob II iM twme b clfsd.Uta.of Erb map aper to roM aW _pl pr Gawy of Cm:r Co.*dletlelmar of 4bmy for paopr;,W.*bmatbn. County File # MS050045: Zoning Districts \ V 4 `t\ Pine Creek Rd Zoning R-40 138230029 fr 138230028 �� o Zoning f.. A- .k c�i�P s�,r,.•-.-- " �a �� Cas . °o �9 a Zoning Walnut Creek � A-2 d TH.map or datasal wm o Wd by me Lantra Corm County Camm.nity Do 10"nl N Map craemd NlY 7 Depe ent wnh dab from ine(.once cosm Count/019 Pn q_ 6wna mff=�Feet 5y�'°"oeGo e6.IyCommunlVD-1.,nunkGIGG—p beeedeft,phne*Oty Lnim.4de— I mmeCAGime B tletEge&etlon's .5Y Pine Strata,<m Fbor Nonn Wlnp,McNno;GA W 553-0085 to reW.rem.Mae ob4omd m uta mS deft Ura LounV mtwnat no ntyorommV 1oi 05400200 37:59:/BA55N 172:06:95.39dW eeP�Inas amIWe 111M� 1..1w..eN 01 AIf RI.pW broad uM re a�[the CA1mV of Contm Cum 46minwr m leppV for 0eapmpNlo nba Llon. 1 MT. DIABLO BLVD. Tr" i MB.7-153 ..y` 0 27P.M.32 4-24-' MS 1210-72 r 49P.M.3 & 4 10 13.76 ;%,1S ''Q0-TIP 3.164P.M.21 4.25-94 y1=' 'L'"Q- ;1 16 U6'NE 25 581'/6E 292.30 54'1030•( 25.45 593.45E 279 .'.,_....:.... ....._.._..___.. 583'46E PINE CREEK ses•.s'E • —t L9 - ROAD 61. it4 1016 kl, 7L,S a2 230 v-'200' .. S r.01 SAM _ „ Lor r7 t,N „57 pCT Lis 14 Kim 24 ,_ 't ,sh E20k R!4 W,'\ '•, l5Gh. 5-00 'A' '� 'A' � N!1 �5 _I X57 o .in,5 3 8.. 7 ni•`s�} 2F�� Y9�GjN \•..�s�7 B�r]5'E^ 22 P �qe o It � `' 1'Sw-'4•y' ,,((o,K� jLS.Ie�S��-.��1 _s.. 'o� :' 8 t �l0- - w, 5 . /,{ Nlr'•s? 2.2 •� 5 �JE b t•Sl9 7.1„! 23 t\q0"�1 01-95 `;;.%c j4&D �v�WS^^-�'1�.4 `(x8• 1 O • SCC note,note,OPP�118 `�ge Dl• r P Naq ?G % fit..kM une adjuctinOt 1a tA ,ASS L1!7W pDg2 DI W °4�+5Oq 1 e554 a7 0 26 n aL VDA,,n PCI(FOE UNE F597 ,'� °4 •C• 11,'.,5,�6 J-I.I - wOfx N07.Mycaco, h, ' 109 a.. 11 SEW,•-. •�'✓;'� 13 4� R RefeC l0: qsK. '} North Gate 9 j1A- 1. p 05 Specific Plan L�aAd7m0f) �3 :5.,•,P:��3 Z- __ 20 .,oma_ •y 51,•x ~r. - mII m c 99,0P 318 x r W S,5•X5 ?, 19 LS SE Ne PRA800�1 O el ax ZW i N 1W P D °I•� `� �i E •A_�,-,���o lar, �,� 5,,. 15A nJ]614na--.. Malntam oddon AWL zdcN I)Tc N 1�•- ,;a— 589'16.E �2w DP CMT! moved amuse NORTH(IATE INTERIM ORD. Dt-se�ucncc y.� 26 rJ% 230 z9 zrsioz Ni s ASSESSOR'S MAP BOOK 138 PAGE 23 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY.CALIF. County File # MS050045: North Cute Specific Plan a I. I: Walnut Ave VUalniit Creek 77 I ( I - Walker Crul on r3r�pvo Del: J \ I I rIle MpAtvo 1 \ I - 4 � TlJe mep er tle I wes 6re6WE Ey to Coahe Came Colmy,Cm—rby Besamprnml N Nap Oranled MYl0a1 DyvN+onl Mm mm 6om 0w Coa•.n Ca Caua:y GIS Fra9mm.Sones Feet Sy Gonne Gnsu corny Garamaaly Demlo GIS Group ho a sWW pdrl Clry LYnlla,Is dlMd fro,ft CA SblW BOW of Epue Uorye 651 Flae SM1em,4m Floor NoM WM,MerEnex,DA9<553-0]95 put res mos WNW ablpmetl m use tlta mn the wanry uelvneo no rupombBy lar OCJOO r000 2r000 3]:59A6.a55N 1]2Ufi95—W I:e arraraq.TNe map ouolMs oopyfl laO MI.-W.ePD mey,b tlWleO.Itmey Ee roPrad�m ICwmy of ICmRaILho u=i lto.U,. I ft��pepwIo,e eM scoop ry o�9eepmpNe mlomumn. lY-"P VULIJUL 1 QrnII 1 Wl l ArcIMS HTML Viewer Ma A O ` � y l 1 1 1 �I � o 11 � Ci - a o a 0 0. 4 Milos http://im s9-cd/servlet/com.esn.esnmap.Esrimap?ServiceName=CDDhns9&ClientVersi on... 7/17/2007 GRAPHICS • AERIAL PHOTO • TRAILS • BUFFER ALONG PINE CREEK Jia d Gt•`„ r I. �S-X+-'l '.J(b A. +� r i `t'! �,.-_s.-- � �r �� F;. r � C�..1K: ..=�t} �.. � tvt♦ 'i.nt,;r�" f meq, � � � ���` r'- w,.. 4 ,' � �" rte., r. } ^,�,J-�t.� f „�ti` r A.•+ � 'A F �5¢,� 'a�� -Tt1 ,:P , •�:" aa7 �'lt'rt'`,4r'T3'�.,. r' f- ,r ,f fir• rte.:''f �i- X` ob �� �3' �r {"F p �r .. y'A��' + � ISE y' vQ��"� •t� ..,, ` �W lY�� 1 \ � t^,,�r+? 'tj C r y,},t'. 7{'��i,^.'• J r.s f ,, i F `a'F,''K 61 ,,�v 'T '` 'u2 ` �, •1}S A 1 M .,. f'1'• � , �/ h A '1`''•2,(t Fai.�,.r,�.,1' S Y t el- tt � •f•.;.r�r a ,•. � :+•°«, .+� ,, ` ;fit,k'`� ,� ; ���k .; e y+' <._{ #• ,r� ?v __ .r.'+�.. �..4t n: �f +•.. My- :fix� '.� .. tirl� til. '1��' A i.ti'''�• �e;'' %{� ' G���'�da��`A �r+t"� .F?i•r �,�`.;� � ``' � ^� •.� s �, ;i +�, r�u�.� G��s4� d""��Cj�'�:1~�����a,c, '1 �h'��`c T'� q .L �-... 4 ,�'�. 1 2 .+ (i •}4t 's�lc .s4 k�'� -T ��h,5 .+, q{C'�{� '.; ��,( °,. y�,y. d f 'YRi..• '�` h3,' ,tp.1 Y� r4� /..Y i'+''� Y�'� !'+�"�+ r ..� c y �-k k S �Y^{a_ a.•,�`p '. '.lii. i ..f?� �{��h�r� .. ��j li.:�t ` � n •, M� ��.JVI J J� � "� µt ��y '+ c v< 't fa �;-.tr ,���!t'� )f.. 1l J, I1 11 1s .► � ,,,, r ;7� 7 �• A r, •} µ 'rwl'�; ai3,.. f Y,+c �.�_2`i� '��,`� .� +r 1 `• },.. {-' ',;.w,f'''c. k ''"f..c �, �.., .+f ,,•:�'.P lag rj '' r�.:`r � sr i .r^�rf 1. '• �r �v''L;$ ^'>. i i ti, ^,� ,,1 :•. "1 tom' `''•��'C +4 y Y`. '�".i� ,,, � �'• TCI(- � .1. }. t�`��K�. t �•;1 '. � ��`.. �.'.P*; QlA . K •c �, �n.}•„ ,,,t�..i. :!r' (i t i r. rC,;r. '4y l ir' w 14` Fsk�� ,< .'J �FefjA '%,�'r fig- -,.�' Yom,.-',,,�.::� ;� •�Y. � r• 4 j;•s- + `• :�,� �*`"�� 4 nr?'' i�'.;k`�_cT'k;�tc`.�,�( �z� i�" 5cl!f✓.!"�a:�t�. *� \ •, Cyt i q`��`..:c"�_\4 r ��<t" ''-�.:F: ��'�r'3� ,'i� r i !� t�`'+' .,;T,,�,`,,� •t..r L� �,,�� �'��rf ��� �Y�..�«.�~•�-G�'�< +�,,,,,=' y '°?�yy�, � 1'_ x,�Csyy {- .gam 11 - ..r• 1Y �ttT�.'rv"` v, �� jfx 8f' ,� �5d� '"'?. j �' ,�tR:t'.+' �, t �~�� �� V "'�l r � _~ i a�t� -,c�•� w +,�„��� f,�+'(+i• � ��_.'%T+'�.f i'c+� !`� Wiii1 -0,Mh•,�•r "'�.'a'L4"t.._ w'�--cf'� 'C i.��t{���.4 ,� �a r rr'� � � �-� LL �.`��%`S• . �J Ll�c r"i`� +t`� M-�'tc.�•• �4�T�?.tM'��fCi N 'j;h ��4L i�t, d' �, + .'� '' ,( Ir,rte. � �• •�z,�yw �f,, .` �^y ,•, ' +, II `moi ,x� ��', `Y> �t,,.t t"{.� s• If County File # MS050045: Trails Pine Free&'o° !}6 '. /�o�t^Q tlll•:�••y�(1�, ; _ Detension Basi.h, t#� � .1 1 '.��x ;7' •�T_•` ?--•r'-•• O - O _- �,f'•-I � _ �1 �Yf.;t•+�#;.` rYAK � '.,;pp�� t ~;./..s F; �. vr�?,��[a`r. �•++::'• r5 :A. r - - •'< _ -s2=4:}d 5.;.��� �t.' ,n,;�.. '� Q ,. } 'rte' add` •�- ; �� �:F•L k.�p�.riOa (,` j�\ - i.v?��1;_i- " 're�.�'�•' "'v A. n' y r • -6.0 4`G - •.�•','•�,(}t;.'•.' jyF u�yf..f- �'r 'x dp d'• ''h r �•�`-,}•,.fit � O d' r U .y h_ 4=55. '�•'; • - 'a D ti r - -> ">i.?ut"i•,t. rt.: ;;?.C'. r! �'I'h •r k ..1 ':y'•_nZ' :-G. _ O., `•Sy. l: yY.::a / �gg•.T-`x^,tea�;( .e ti:t ��1�.u5• .n; �Sl� d'_ ,.f.yQ.,r,1.. p, _ ..i, .pa•.C: - .'?�J''_�L .r,., �' 4. 'n,- S�•�t,,.G d� � ,.!•.{C-.. 'ii -ti' .O _� .t L;:�k-yyft}J'' '."i' !�� �"�.rc I': �. �J`� i:y�r';- A Cr<. �''F•' •r.,7�• .c+. i•f�.pt': �.�a:°�f .q, - d - SS:.Yi S''= 1.`.a'• ` `\'.ti,�� V: S• .�l�' �'�! sr'. � 'sx'fa;�''.`_ ^ - AO''�. 1 ' �lj`1'l� ,,, �..h/ ib•5--_�: •N - / F`'R.:.'� •- 3 '" :F,'.S"'' �'. �-y+'•�.7L 3y ��' .+r�%K :*•t,t d.. '.7 '. L" o 16, o". i�.y!;�lT'`�,.rt Si;,•:r1.,!'.K(,i.. •fYS...•'4i.::7� YS t� ` fe'{ "•,r`t. r"yi- ��;+sy"`-..:p n,, �{ 00 {}1�I'st`%4,� t<`'1�{'t�yrF.,'r'T'�J 3. `°y.t �t�'�- .�,.lg r�.�r_`'i�1�^-M.t�;{�• l; tl �3�,r•. f t� 6� �"r ,'.i O. .7.. b•Ft.. ;'s.1:.=', .:O 4y1.�-1�r:i�•�_'l�.J � +� 3� �J �10•.+ .. ,� A`/rr..:�'� ..� 138230029 o a. Vol— F. i fnrJrr �s ..� PT.\4�•.�''C-•}i,7 •t1"'.•fes- -�£ '�y''��'..._ .. .�,,.. ;��.-;_ .?1 :; �� ;� O °x tt �7 'l''JfJ" !. s ° -. 5�. F•: 1 ,+l' src._ `�._ O 138230028 c�-.�ti,,. '• .,�t•,',..'x'r,�c',.�0 00 }�- -�bttr•'m1 00 O .�Ca.•'�`=;+a c;'%. _"`:.•-.:� ,�Q,_i- a��cjjfj ti� � r�+fM�;,L��:,ts•r.- - !�1,f" ��� 4 e°e 16 +pp {�+� � Iii ..•r ,f ". - 1 e t+'f°1�I�a.� 1�,< \ ty-�f.•I q:"{��i i'•�`�•�� J�{G•`:•Q � 1 � V .[-1��°F 4q�','.rl`•.>�... 000 .:..�«J;r:f3? '�v`• '��;•.:•y'�:s: ,, .,34',! ��fj.j !'% f {.t,,L��.«.+• `�i� '�;t�,., " 4• o yi,••<[t `+L5- �'td r -r 1 -'C s •✓ a.l" 'Q_fa."n c' Tq 1 i _'!) 4��� y 00 .Itij,(,:1 r'�. `'•� - t i2 ex ' care •'\,''y -(-cl. 'Soj.�'..r��Y]^� - Io- r���:T`. _ 000 .:'�'cT"kC}rW,•�•' � � 1 fa�l�'�t,���Ih��.� ����,.re;..�ir �`f:'v ) ��J,r�,J, rSTr+•> ��N �!� 00°0 . .' `' '.��•-"''" {,:fir,a}�r, '�i-f f trrr: �'�n 00 `' ftp •�t `', f Shell Ridke z' �� i:RfWI col \ dt }� °l F'e• ,,• 'ri .A ' o 000age o Proposed Hiking Trails g�pp 9Ty. eoen000I,�N�I���t� U'q;TETRPIL Equestrian Trails EBRPD Trailsn}�°, ® City Limits NOTE:Trails are schematic and for illustrative purposes only. ® TNxmDeor sM1 h c1 sheabe,by Pr Convo Coate Count's 1`119 llp fl—s Nel oneWealtyD r Day.Mun,MN Cy ,ere Contra�ss s—Me CA6 GISSPropf fbme Feet ,PI.SC.I.'th nyC.n Wb,Dmbpm CA GIS . ass .WWI@pilnviMly arytedto igen ntllmn btlGywstwemtlol E p—ta"t, 651 Pyre Str•el,ab Fber NoNh1 h 06:35.IU,<S,GA B656t-0OCS lex.W tlreef.WNW obtlpsl<e b I,<e tlex�1 th Cglmly ea<uwa fro rb<po it—br 05000 200 'l1:59VBASSN IC2JB:%.88<W ttaemnerH.TNa mep=—am bbma.Ue" oe-1 be It—Y be repmd0 eNween)-e tltha ds be'.I Umnof,'mePm. bnutl erA —0 Me cowry or cano-e Caatr,Ca<leWrerel o.blcy ror paaprepNC Moimenbn. County File # MS050045: Pine Creek Buffered by 50 feet ii T,..,;olll :zrl �J �} l�'' ` V � �+�r: �� F ''•i'�� a S+'fir �� �r °,.w..a- ' ' F.+�(, � ;{''��•, - - �a .9-•`�'�1F E'•`:�'a-i?!r, i'f,�:....-�: :._ ,y. •K^�,:4- O Y��'1 rh. O 'T^ A.i Vil- `,. .Y lir, ��`�� :`a_- ��� r• L7�' Y���, �.� '''�-,.'r 7� _ � �I I` �,•, - Y'k 1'• �'�a;i '4.{j'}; >•`L rt r. lr ��� �_. :.�j 7 _ • . •.� `f y� �:'rf��af�J✓ :`;.,�J•., ,�, • .�- .cam a ' -�-- n, _ Z 138230029 ..,� .a�..,a'.',..�.-••"r.• -a' +yj' - •,y 'S%�F- r r TX pf • t /_. yy.. ]]]] i .r.��y>L. 2 i.: '-� •��'�j r F. I` A:,rs• p.,�"�y.++l �S , - 138230028 ay }tri50 DO YA DO M. MAD FIR jiz ••.� _�' Wye, � '� �' � � f' 1 r •'(J✓ .� _ .� + •'yr�a�:��'��. _" i ``\tea. �P� Sr - l•-_ Slaell lzidge 50 foot buffer Open Wmiidt Creek F r �: ' loll mep o,an...l wm w.w br h cores.co.m Ga.ra com„my b.vsbpm.,, N FeetMtlpr . wl2�G ps mMrsnlMT Enm lmmQm Conve Crim Cqunry Gl9Papwn.Bans byGmoe(bsra(army Gganrnly Gawbpmonl GlSGwp bos dam pNrwtly GftYUmIls,h-ftW Imo M CA61sJ BOW Dleq lZiww : : tax mmotir>wW Yr tlws wlrmpispmIhW tlb wmmh Camesupro651plsb'L.tlFlorNCMWbp,M. ..CAW59-0 . b4l.O JO i�0 200 4:.:.'MN 12mSw ft­cYTVdsw�•WwpnlWh,mmmtlonNEmonolbaNsmrWubmev hW ma Is C..E.l/.nn of tlrh rtup.P.o b nW erN _pl h Carry b C..Losm 4rAhnsr al I .Y br poopmpNo mlomulbn GENERAL PLAN TRAIL MAPS • BICYCLE TRAILS • HIKING TRAILS • RIDING (EQUESTRIAN) TRAILS l; } trite ' lam; r� ............... /� iz 1 1 �l r LILAC •1/ � �'�v L � �-R'F O j v c < i a r"3 �t { ' 5')/�•, � ` �,,.�;a:x to � ,�'•+u �•� - -y � G Y,•6r 7 � n9 Imo' •.:^�•'-,, V V' te,..: CE Pa-e bf) " 9-19 /111 ., �• � � F-�;. O �, .-.�—' 1�����s •":��' tog¢a ':i. t� �• j:^, �.::.t..1 lJ E' ;gyp.r UN i iN VII KE � • • i ••• .`�,,� ..i ..::...`' • • .1',• tis=.„'� w � F .' ' etc T � �f•+w 2 _1 � r+F•r+� v ... ....,{ �IR „�i• =atm"�'e':'� 'n �•• • oD' � A � N N C LLI w U Page, 1"i ir-• O '•'fT ——le s v. 106 3 1 s ivon b j 4 r 5 /..0 Me WCi 711 CD — P O vw3 ' o a Z Paye r-+ t p 9.21 NORTH GATE SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNED RECREATION FACILITIES AND TRAILS NORTH GAVE SPECIFIC PLAN—FIGURE 8 Planned Recreation Facilities and,Ttalis Lime Ridge a OPS"Sport Specific Plan BourdM7 P Pine Creek Park a o> ` r Oetontion B P /B I coc has land } �PJE1B $LY m Mt Diablo Park :.� Koak Entrance Shell Ridge r E "p-See--. row ssoghg Area Existing pclx Rc Par# t c 4. % 4- ✓ Existing Trail i .. P Proposed Traa Walnut Creek �•. Open Space i Bike TrcJ E Equestrian Trc' s P. pedestrian Teal Trail Locations art.SchzL Twtic A 26 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG SURVEYS PREPARED BY WILDLIFE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES Wildf.ife Research Associates Greg and Tr1sh Titarian 1119 Burbank Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Ph: 707.544.6273 Fax: 7O7.544.6317 www.wildliferesearchasscoc.com trish(a)wildliferesearchassoc.com ores(cilwildliferesearchassoc.com May 10,2007 Alex MacDonald 570 Pine Creek Road Walnut Creek,Ca 94598 Ph 707-643-9195 Fax 707-643-9197 RE: California Red-legged Frog Surveys,570 Pine Creek Road, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County Dear Alex: This letter presents the results of our protocol-level aquatic surveys along Pine Creek at 570 Pine Creek Road, located east of Castle Rock Road and west of Pine Creek Road,on the east side of the City of Walnut Creek, in Contra Costa County. The roughly rectangular-shaped study area consists of suburban residences, with horse pastures to the north and south. The project,a proposed single family residence,is set back 50- feet from Pine Creek,which flows from south to north between Pine Creek Road and Castle Rock Road. The 570 Pine Creek Road property is located in the southwestern corner of the U.S. Geological Service Clayton 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle(Figure 1).The site is located northeast of Shell Ridge,north of Castle Rock and just north of the confluence of Pine Creek and Little Pine Creek.The site slopes down to the west and ranges in elevation between 239 and 249 feet.Access to the site and the creek is via Pine Creek Road. The total length of the project site along Pine Creek is approxirrialtey 200 feet. We conducted protocol surveys for California red-legged frog(Rana aurora draytonii)(CRF)following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-Legged Frog(USFWS 2005)to determine presence or absence of the species. Site Description The proposed 570 Pine Creek Road project site is located on the east side of Pine Creek. Riparian tree species along the creek consist of willow(Salix sp.), and California buckeye(Aesculus californica),among others,with an understory of snowberry(Svmphoricarpos albus var. laevigatus),periwinkle(Vinca major) and poison oak(Toxicodendron diversiloburn). Tree canopy comprises between 90-100%cover although sunlight reached the creek from the west in the afternoon. Several discrete clumps of giant reed (Aruizdo donax)were observed along the creek,both upstream and downstream.No emergent vegetation occurs within Pine Creek along the project site.Watercress(Rorippa nastut•tium-aquaticum) occurs downstream along a riffle. The channel width ranges between 1 foot and 10 feet with an average width of 4 feet. The banks range between.10 feetin height,on portions of the east bank,to 2 feet in height in portions of the west bank. A total of five instream pools occur along the portion of the creek within the study area See Table I for pool measurements and Figures 3-10 for pictures of the pools. Depths along the creek ranged between 2 inches over riffles to 3 feet in the pools. y Table 1: Pool Depths in Pine Creek M easuresment Pool 1 F Pool 2 r Pool 3 Pool 4 Pool 5;, � '.: ..- :.. ,J i:. �r.. -.•:' ..., r._._ ... ... I rte.,,.. r ,.-d.,W,.,.,[ - _ 3/20 4/24 3120 r 4/24 3/20 4/24 3/20s 44124 Depth (inches) 26 22 22 13 27 17 36 17 30 16 Width(feet) I 6.5 5 6.5 6.5 7 7 6 6 5 4 Length(feet) 8 8 10 10 5 5 6 6 3 3 Several houses are built adjacent to the creek and sandbags were placed along portions of the western bank to control erosion. Methods For purposes of this report, the study area includes approximately.200 feet of Pine Creek. Field surveys were conducted according to the Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red- Legged Frog(USFWS.2005), which requires that surveys be conducted of all suitable aquatic habitat during the breeding season(January 1-June 31)and non-breeding season(July 1 -September 30).However, all eight surveys,consisting of 2 daytime and 6 nighttime surveys,were conducted during the breeding season. The day surveys were conducted on clear, sunny days and the night surveys on warm,still nights,between one hour after sunset and midnight. I conducted daytime surveys on March 20 and May 17,2007,between the hours of 1500 and 1800. See Table 2 for results.of the surveys.Daytime surveys consisted of walking in Pine Creek within the project area and approximately 185 feet downstream and 280 feet upstream. I stopped every 10 feet to scan the edges of the bank and five feet up the bank for individuals with 8 x 42 roof-prism binoculars. I conducted nighttime surveys on March 20 and 27,and April 3,9, 17, and 24,2007,between the hours of 2030 and 2130.Nighttime surveys were similar to daytime surveys,with the addition of a 6.3-volt xenon/halogen-bulb light source to provide illumination. The attached data sheets present all species observed along with the weather,vegetation present,and the duration of the survey. v California Red-ledged Frob Autecology California red-legged frog primarily inhabits ponds,but will also,inhabit slow-moving streams, or pools in intermittent streams. Inhabited ponds and pools are usually permanent and at least 2 feet in depth,with emergent veLTTetation, such as cattails,and shoreline cover,used as cover from predators and for depositing eggs(Stebbins 1985,Tatarian 2005).Its range extends from the western slope of the Cascade-Sierran mountain system, in the North and South Coast Ranges,and the Transverse Range. This species is active year-long along the coast but will use gopher and ground squirrel holes as well as cracks in the ground as refuge during the winter season. Breeding occurs during heavy rains from early to late winter;usually November through early May. CRF larvae mature in I I to 20 weeks. Pine Creek Road California Red-legged Frog Surveys 2 Wildlife Research Associates Historically,many factors have been identified as attributing to the decline in populations of California red- legged frog throughout California,including habitat loss and depredation,predation by exotic fish,and competition with and predation by bullfrogs(Rana catesbeiana),introduced into California from their native eastern states between 1914 and 1920 (Moyle 1973;Hayes and Jennings 1986;Jennings and Hayes 1994). Declines in CRF populations have been attributed mainly to non-native fish such as largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides),green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus),and bluegill(L. macrochirus)and amphibians such as bullfrog(Rana catesbeiana)(Jennings 1988;Hayes and Jennings 1.986;Lawler et al.1999; Goodsell and Kats 1999; Moyle 1973). California possesses a low diversity of native freshwater fish that prey on vertebrates,made up primarily of salmonids(Salmo sp.,Onch(rynchus sp.,and Salvelinus confluentus), cottids(Cottus sp.),two cyprinids(Gila crassicuada and Ptychocheilus grandis);and one centrarchid (Archoplites interruptus)(Hayes and Jennings 1986).Although salmonids are the most likely to eat frogs in all life stages,they are typically restricted to deeper,swifter running waters than those typically occupied by these frogs. Their co-occurrence is therefore limited. Findings . No California red-legged frog larvae,recent metamorphosed young, or adults were observed along Pine Creek.Pacific chorus frogs(Pseudacris regilla)were observed in and adjacent to the creek and larvae were observedin all but one of the pools(Table 2).One Pacific slender salamander(Batrachoseps atienuatus)was observed in a downed log in the creek. Table 2: Amphibians Observed at Pine Creek "DatelSunreyType ' Pool1� .' Pool2 r Rool3t I Pool4 " Podl:5x'1 :r ,i. S'- 7 q 3/20 Diurnal + PTF(H) 2 PTF(H) 0 2 PTF(H) PTF(H) Nocturnal 3/27 Nocturnal PTF(0) 2 PTF(0) + PTF(H) 2 PTF(0) . 2 PTF(0) 4/3 Nocturnal PTF(0) 2 PTF(0+H) PTF(H) 2 PTF(0) 2 PTF(0) PSS(0) 4/9 Nocturnal PTF(H), 4 PTF(20+ PTF(0) 2 PTF(0) 0 tadpoles 2H) PSS(0) 4/17 Diurnal+ PTF(H) PTF tadpoles PTF tadpoles 2 PTF(H) PTF(H) Nocturnal (>10) P55(0) 4/24 Nocturnal PTF(H) 0 PTF tadpoles PTF(V) 0 (>1o) 2 PTF(H)(V) Note:PTF=Pacific treefrog,PSS=Pacific slender salamander,H=heard,O=observed No western pond turtle(Emys marmorata)were observed during the surveys.Other species observed during the surveys include feral cat(Felis catus),raccoon(Procyon lotor)and opossum(Didelphis virginiana). Over the course of the survey the water level dropped by 4 to 16 inches.The creek is dry in the summertime (MacDOnald,pers. comm.. 2007). Conclusions and Discussion No CRF adults or larvae were observed in Pine Creek during these surveys.The nearest reported occurrence of CRF include a sighting in an unnamed tributary to Little Pine Creek(CRF 849),approximately 1.56 miles to the southeast(CNDDB 2007). Within the study area,Pine Creek does not provide suitable breeding Pine Creek Road California Red-legged Frog Surveys 3 Wildlife Research Associares habitat and is marginal for dispersal habitat.No suitable breeding habitat or reported occurrences occur downstream of the site. Based on the absence of CRF during the focused surveys,I conclude that Pine Creek does not presently support breeding CRF. Further, the potential for this portion of the creek to support CRF is low based on the current conditions. However,to ensure the CRF are not taken during construction of the propose project,we propose that a silt fence,properly installed by a fence company,be placed outside the riparian canopy cover to deter any CRF from accessing the project site. The east and west ends shall run towards Pine Creek Road for approximately 100 feet for further.deterring access by CRF. Please call if you have any questions regarding this report. Sincerely, Trish Tatarian Pine Creek Road California Red-legged Frog Surveys 4 Tfildlife Research Associates Appendix E. California Red-le2Qed Frog Survev Data Sheet Survey.results.reviewed by (FW8:Field0Ctice) " ;(date)' (biolo tst)7' Date of Survey: 3/20/07 Survey Biologist: Tatarian.Trish (mm/dd/yyyy) (Last name)(first name) Survey Biologist: (Last name)(first name) Site Location: 570 Pine Creek Road.Walnut Creek. Contra Costa County (County,General location name,UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long.or T-R-S). "ATTACH A MAP(include habitat types,important features,and species locations)** Proposed project name: 570 Pine Creek Road Brief description of proposed action: Single-family residence Type of Survey(circle on ' DAY NIGHT BREEDING ON-BREEDING Survey number(circle one): C 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Begin Time: 1600 End Time: 1700 Cloud cover: clear Precipitation: none Air Temperature: 15 C Water Temperature: 13 C Wind Speed: <5mph Visibility Conditions: 100 % Moon phase: Humidity: 70 % Description of weather conditions: clear.sunny and mild Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: Nitelite Were binoculars used for the surveys(circle one)? YES NO Brand,model,and power of binoculars: Nikon 8 X 42 roof prism 570 Pine Creek Road, Walnut Creek Wildlife Research Associates Appendix E. California Red-le_ged Fro_ Survev Data Sheet AMPHIBIAN.OBSERN'ATIONS Certainty of S eCies #of Observed(0) Life Stages Size Class Identification p indiv.= Heard(H) PSRE 1 H adults . 100% Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish,bullfrogs,and raccoons: Observed raccoon tracks alone creek bank Other notes, observations, comments, etc. No CRF observed. No crayfish.or sign of crayfish observed. No bullfrogs observed. Necessary Attachments: 4.All field notes and other supporting documents 5. Site photographs 6.Maps with important habitat features and species locations 570 Pine Creek Road,Walnut Creek Wildlife Research Associates I . Appendix E. California Red-le422ed Froa Survev Data Sheet Survey results.reviewed by (FWS:Field Office) 7 (date) (biologist) Date of Survey: 3/20/07 Survey Biologist: Tatarian.Trish (mm/dd/yyyy) (Last name)(first name) Survey Biologist: (Last name)(first name) Site Location: 570 Pine Creek Road.Walnut Creek.Contra Costa Countv (County,General location name,UTM Coordinates or Lat.fLong.or T=R-S). "ATTACH A MAP(include habitat types,important features,and species locations)" Proposed project name: 570 Pine Creek Road Brief description of proposed action: Single-family residence Type of Survey(circle one): DAY 'IGH BREEDING 'ON-BREEDING Survey number(circle one): 1 O2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Begin Time: 2030 End Time: 2130 Cloud cover: clear Precipitation: none Air Temperature: 12 C Water Temperature: 12 C Wind Speed: <5moh Visibility Conditions: .100 % Moon phase: waxing crescent Humidity: 70 % Description of weather conditions: clear.sunnv and mild Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: Nitelite Were binoculars used for the surveys(circle one)? YES NO Brand, model,and power of binoculars: Nikon 8 X 42 roof prism 570 Pine Creek Road, Walnut Creek Wildlife Research Associates Appendix E. California Red-let!aed Frog Survev Data Sheet AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS Certainty of Species #of, Observed(0) fife Stages Size Class Identification p indiv. Heard(H) PSRE 1 H adults 100% Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish,bullfrogs;and raccoons: Observed raccoon tracks along creek bank Other notes, observations, comments, etc. No CRF observed. No crayfish or sign of crayfish observed.No bullfrogs observed. Necessary Attachments: 4. All field notes and other supporting documents 5. Site photographs 6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 570 Pine Creek Road, Walnut Creek Wildlife Research Associates Appendix E. California Red-leaned Froa Survev Data Sheet Survey results reviewed by (FWS Field Office): {date) (biologist) Date of Survey: 3/27/07 Survey Biologist: Tatarian.Trish (mm/dd/yyyy) (Last name)(first name) Survey Biologist: (Last name)(first name) Site Location: 570 Pine Creek Road.Walnut Creek. Contra Costa County (County,General location name,UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long.or T-R-S). "ATTACH-A MAP(include habitat types,important features,and species locations)** Proposed project name: 570 Pine Creek Road Brief description of proposed action: Single-family residence Type of Survey(circle one): DAY NIGHT BREEDING ON-BREEDING Survey number(circle one): 1 2 O 4 5 6 7 8 Begin Time: 2030 End Time: 2130 Cloud cover: none Precipitation: none Air Temperature: 12 C Water Temperature: 10C Wind Speed: <5 mph Visibility Conditions: 100 % Moon phase: waxing gibbous Humidity: none Description of weather conditions: clear.mild Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: Nitelite Were binoculars used for the surveys(circle one CYESDNO Brand,model,and power of binoculars: Nikon 8 X 42 roof prism 570 Pine Creek Road,Walnut Creek Wildlife Research Associates Appendix E. California Red-le!!aed Frog Survev Data Sheet AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS Certainty of #of Observed(0) Life Staaes Size Class Identification Species indiv. Heard(H) PSRE 6 50 I adults . 1000 % 1H Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish,bullfrogs, and raccoons; Other notes, observations, comments, etc. No CRF observed. Necessary.Attachments: 4. All field notes and other.supporting documents 5. Site photographs 6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 570 Pine Creek Road,Walnut Creek Wildlife Research Associates Appendix E. California Red-le22ed Frog Survey Data Sheet Survey.results reviewed by (FWS Field Office) .(date) (biologist) Date of Survey: 4/3/07 Survey Biologist: Tatarian. Trish (mm/dd/vvyy) (Last name)(first name) Survey Biologist: (Last name)(first name) Site Location: 570 Pine.Creek Road.Walnut Creek.Contra Costa Countv (County,General location name,UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long.or T-R-S). **ATTACH A MAP(include habitat types,important features,and species locations)** Proposed project name: 570 Pine Creek Road Brief description of proposed action: Single-family residence Type of Survey(circle one): DAY NIGHT BREEDING ON-BREEDING Survey number(circle one): 1 2 3 ' 4O 5 6 7 8 Begin Time: 2030 End Time: 2130 Cloud cover: none Precipitation: none Air Temperature: 15C Water Temperature: 14 C Wind Speed: <5 mph Visibility Conditions: 100 % Moon phase: full Humidity: none Description of weather conditions: clear,calm Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: Nitelite Were binoculars used for the surveys(circle one ' YES NO Brand,model,and power of binoculars: Nikon 8 X 42 roof prism 570 Pine Creek Road, Walnut Creek Wildlife Research Associates Appendix E. California Red-leaaed Frog Survev Data Sheet AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS #of Observed(0) Certainty of Species indiv. Heard(H) Life Stages Size Class Identification PSRE 9 40 adults 100% 5H BAAT I 10 I young 100% Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish,bullfrogs, and raccoons: Other notes, observations, comments, etc. Water level appears to be dropping by 4 to 6 inches. No CRF observed. Necessary Attachments: 4. All field notes and other supporting documents 5. Site photographs . 6.Maps with important habitat features and species locations 570 Pine Creek Road,Walnut Creek Wildlife Research Associates Appendix E. California Red-legged Froa Survey Data Sheet Survey.res ults.reviewed b,_y (FWS:Field Office).... (date)... : (biologist). Date of Survey: 4/9/07 Survey Biologist: Tatarian.Trish (mm/dd/)yyy) (Last name)(First name) Survey Biologist: (Last name)(first name) Site Location: 570 Pine Creek Road.Walnut Creek,Contra Costa Countv (County,General location name,UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long.or T-R-S). **ATTACH A MAP(include habitat types,important features,and species locations)** Proposedprojectname: 570 Pine Creek Road Brief description of proposed action: Single-family residence Type of Survey(circle one):DAYNIGHT t>6 ON-BREEDING Survey number(circle one): 1 2 3 4 7 8. Begin Time: 2030 End Time: 2130 Cloud cover: none Precipitation: none Air Temperature: 16 C Water Temperature: 13 C Wind Speed: <5 mph Visibility Conditions: 100 % Moon phase: waning gibbous Humidity: none Description of weather conditions: clear and calm Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: Nitelite Were binoculars used for the surveys(circle one)? _ YES NO Brand,model,and power of binoculars: Nikon 8 X 42 roof prism 570 Pine Creek Road,Walnut Creek Wildlife Research Associates Appendix E. California Red-IeRQed Frog Survey Data Sheet AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS #of Observed(0) Certainty of Species indiv. Heard(H) Life Stages Size Class Identification PSRE8 -50 adult I 100% 3H PSIS I >10 O tadpoles 100% Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish,bullfrogs,and raccoons: y Horse pasture on the southwest side of the site is shoveling manure into the creek.. Other notes, observations, comments, etc. Necessary Attachments: 4. All field notes and other supporting documents 5. Site photographs 6.Maps with important habitat features and species locations 570 Pine Creek Road, Walnut Creek Wildlife Research Associates Appendix E. California Red-le22ed Frog Survev Data Sheet Survey results reviewed!by (FWS Field Office)' (date) (biologist)! Date of Survey: 4/17/07 Survey Biologist: Tatarian.Trish (mm/dd/yyyy) (Last name)(first name) Survey Biologist: (Last.name)(first name) Site.Location: 570 Pine Creek Road.Walnut Creek.Contra Costa Countv (County,General location name,UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long.or T-R-S). **ATTACH A.MAP(include habitat types,important features,and species locations)** Proposed project name:_570 Pine Creek Road Brief description of proposed action: Single-family residence Type of Survey(circle one)-ZD NIGHT BREEDING NON-BREEDING Survey number(circle one): 1 2 3 4 5 6O 7 8 Begin Time: 1515 End Time: 1615 Cloud cover: none Precipitation: none Air.Temperature: 21 C Water Temperature: 18 C Wind Speed: —20 mph outside of creek Visibility.Conditions: 100% Moon phase:_ Humidity: 56 Description of weather conditions: clear and windv Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: Nitelite Were binoculars used for the surveys(circle one)? 1'ES NO Brand,model,and power of binoculars: Nikon 8 X 42 roof prism 570 Pine Creek Road,Walnut Creek Wildlife Research Associates Appendix E. California Red-leL!ed Fro:Survey Data Sheet AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS Certainty of #of Observed(0) Life Stages Size Class Identification Species indiv. Heard(H) Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish,bullfrogs,and raccoons: Raccoon tracks observed as well as dog tracks on creek banks and channel. Other notes, observations, comments, etc. Sunlight reaches creek from west side. 'necessary Attachments: 4. All field notes and other supporting documents 5. Site photographs 6. Maps xvith important habitat features and species locations 570 Pine Creek Road,Walnut Creek Wildlife Research Associates Appendix E. California Red-Ieg2ed Frog Survev Data Sheet Survty.results reviewed by (FWS Field Office) (date) :- (biologist) Date of Survey: 4/17/07 Survey Biologist: Tatarian, Trish (mm/dd/,vwry) (Last name)(first name) Survey Biologist: (Last name)(first name) Site Location: 570 Pine Creek Road.Walnut Creek,Contra Costa Countv (County,General location name,UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long.or T-R-S). "ATTACH A MAP(include habitat types,important features,and species locations)" Proposed project name: 570 Pine Creek Road Brief description of proposed action: Single-family residence Type of Survey(circle one): DAY NIGHT BREEDING ON-BREEDING Survey number(circle one): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7O 8 Begin Time: 2030 End Time: 2130 Cloud cover: none Precipitation: none Air Temperature: 12 C Water Temperature: 10C Wind Speed: <5mnh Visibility Conditions: 100 % Moon phase: new Humidity: 56 % Description of weather conditions: clear and calm Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: Nitelite Were binoculars used for the surveys(circle one)? YES NO Brand,model, and power of binoculars: Nikon 8 X 42 roof prism 570 Pine Creek Road,Walnut Creek Wildlife Research Associates ' If Appendix E. California Red-le2aed Froa Survey Data Sheet AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS Certainty of Species of Observed(0) Life Stages Size Class Identification p indiv. Heard(H) PSR 9 9 H adults 100% BAAT 1 O adult 100% PSRE >10. O tadpole 100% Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish,bullfrogs,and raccoons: Feral cat observed in the creek. Other notes, observations, comments, etc. No emergent vegetation in study area, only Rorippa downstream adjacent to horse pasture. Horsehair worms in each pool. ' Necessary Attachments: 4. All field notes and other supporting documents 5. Site photo-graphs 6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 570 Pine Creek Road,Walnut Creek Wildlife Research Associates Appendix E. California Red-leased Frog Survev Data Sheet Survey results reviewed by (FWS Field Office)'' . (date) (biologist) Date of Survey: 4/24/07 Survey Biologist: Tatarian.Trish (mm/dd/yyyy) (Last name)(first name) Survey Biologist: (Last name)(first name) Site Location: 570 Pine Creek Road.Walnut Creek.Contra Costa Countv (County,General location name,UTM Coordinates or UL/Long.or T-R-S). **ATTACH A MAP(include habitat types,important features,and species locations)** Proposed project name: 570 Pine Creek Road Brief description of proposed action: Single-family residence Type of Survey(circle one): DAY NIGHT BREEDING ON-BREEDING Survey number(circle one): 1 2 3 4 ._ 5 6 7 8O Begin Time: 2030 End Time: 2130 Cloud cover: partially Precipitation: 0 % Air Temperature: 16 C Water Temperature: 14 C Wind Speed: <5mph Visibility Conditions: 100 % Moon phase: waxing half Humidity: 56 % Description of weather conditions: clear and calm Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: Nitelite " Were binoculars used for the surveys(circle one)? YES NO Brand,model,and power of binoculars: Nikon 8 X 42 roof prism 570 Pine Creek Road, Walnut Creek Wildlife Research Associates Appendix E. California Red-leaaed Frog Survev Data Sheet AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS #of ( Observed (0) I I Certainty of Species indiv. Heard(H) Life Stages Size Class Identification • I . Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish,bullfrogs,and raccoons: Other.notes, observations, comments, etc. Necessary Attachments: 4. All field notes and other supporting documents 5. Site photographs 6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 570 Pine Creek Road,Walnut Creek Wildlife Research Associates REFERENCES CITED DROST,C.A.AND G.M.FELLERS. 1996.COLLAPSE OF A REGIONAL FROG FAUNA IN THE YOSEMITE AREA OF THE CALIFORNIA SIERRA NEVADA,USA. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY VOL. 10(2):414-425. EHRLICH,D. 1979. PREDATION BY BULLFROG TADPOLES(RANA CATESBEIANA)ON EGGS AND NEWLY HATCHED LARVAE OF THE PLAID'S LEOPARD FROG(RANA BLAIRI). BULLETING OF THE MARYLAND HERPETOLOGICAL SOCIETY 15:25-26. GOODSELL,J.AND L.KATS. 1999.EFFECT OF INTRODUCED MOSQUITOFISH ON PACIFIC TREEFROGS AND . THE ROLE OF ALTERNATE PREY. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY VOL. 13(4):921-924. HAYES,M.P.AND M.R.JENNINGS. 1986.DECLINE OF RANID FROG SPECIES IN WESTERN NORTH AMERICA: ARE BULLFROGS(RANA CATESBEIANA)RESPONSIBLE?J.OF HERPETOLOGY 20(4):490-509. JENNINGS,M.R. 1988.NATURAL HISTORY AND DECLINE OF NATIVE RANIDS IN CALLFORNIA.PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE ON CALIFORNIA HERPETOLOGY. SOUTHWESTERN HERPETOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 12P. JENNINGS,M.R.AND M.P.HAYES. 1994.AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN IN CALIFORNIA.CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME.CONTRACT NO. 8023. KIESECKER,J.M.AND A.R.BLAUSTEIN. 1997.POPULATION DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSES OF RED-LEGGED FROGS(RANA AURORA)TO INTRODUCED BULLFROGS.ECOLOGY 78: 1752-1760. LAWLER,S.P.,D.DRITZ,T.STRANGE AND M.HOLYOAK. 1999.EFFECTS OF INTRODUCED MOSQUITOFISH AND BULLFROGS ON THE THREATENED CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG.CONSERVATION BIOLOGY VOL. 13(3):613-622. MILLER,K.J.,A.WILLY,S.LARSEN,AND S.MOREY. 1996.ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS;DETERMINATION OF THREATENED STATUS FOR THE CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG.FEDERAL REGISTER: VOL.61,NO. 101.. MONK AND ASSOCIATES 2003A.SITE ASSESSMENT FOR THE CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG NORTH CONNECTOR PROJECT,FAIRFIELD,SOLANO COUNTY.LETTER REPORT TO CHRIS NAGANO,USFWS. JUNE 23. MONK AND ASSOCIATES 2003B.PROTOCOL SURVEY FOR THE CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG NORTH CONNECTOR PROJECT,FAIRFIELD,SOLANO COUNTY LETTER REPORT TO CHRIS NAGANO,USFWS. SEPTEMBER 29. . MOYLE,P.B. 19 73.EFFECTS OF INTRODUCED BULLFROGS,RANA CATESBEIANA,ON THE NATIVE FROGS OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA.COPEIA 1973: 18-22. STEBBINS,R.C. 1985.AFIELD GUIDE TO WESTERN REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS.2ND ED.,HOUGHTON MIFFLIN,BOSTON. TATARIAN,P.2005.DIURNAL AND NOCTURNAL MOVEMENTS OF CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG IN A XERIC ENVIRONMENT.MASTERS THESIS,SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY. U.S.FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE(USFWS).2001.ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS:FINAL DETERMINATION'S OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG: FINAL RULE.FEDERAL REGISTER VOL.66,N0.49.MARCH 13. U.S.FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE(USFWS)2005.REVISED GUIDELINES ON SITE ASSESSMENTS AND FIELD SURVEYS FOR THE CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG.AUGUST. Personal Communcation MACDONALD,A.2007.HOMEOWNER 570 PINE CREEK ROAD.PERSONAL COMMUNCATION WITH TRISH TATARIAN,APRIL 30. Pine Creek Road California Red-legged Frog Surveys 5 Wildlife Research Associates Figure I maa ti _ I _ L WkLNUTj. CFEEK' I - 1 9 - _ - ::�:c-'^ - �:x'--:�:'a}'_$.-Lza.� - - ��, _- � - �•f!.r�ill:'�(�.1�°{I{I��C•:1\ ^ { -c' .J'- J �,-�?.. m ,- 1 rr•� - .1-e �1,I(I� f g7L°L,I5p��, RF i 'Il• t� I� "'] rr� ewe a�� 11 i�lt!- ir�ll 5? * \+ y � S \amu* p_._r=.• FII�,1..l�'�, =,w�?iia illjll �� 'air ? �, 1 '. • ]!G\�a' _ ,.r�a t`_' I-„i Project Site r:-1a ! .rn iyrl, V L•r�l{ +'��„/ � - i`'� ---'' ` `�; �Jt.r,h,.%.yli�i, I',L'.�lf.L�� ��r..11�'.o.,i!i. _41.1 q•s; ��``.-"I - _--- 'I Nm't...;z:!<; .L!1' 'i t)� �\ � - :- .:).iL_•j Ilr”"j rr- \G iii r ,I�e ale r I j ;••�'. ��? -� •e_ ;••I�J 'I iG ��"� ��, � �` (� � •� ,� ��_ °pro`• 1\ 1.}C 1 vv. 11.•��' �•-f�lj�Jppr,"'�L'."'�:;�\1 'ull ?� =A W. i sec a ( ,_�, '�-J1ri,r�n�L/R•l'�I !L`✓.�1 T�' I-•� \ ('�_. ..Pls�l -' 1� `�l ��{ -:9 '� i ,,.. �•f ) IS I U�-�-ri }°l'h i i.`a r \� -- r"`^ r�i j �r_l,'�`�i '• � 'I �'j�ro �a �.?�.nP^n➢�.� �� It4•-rJr%�Ct�' + I 1'✓1y _ �7n vr•— - _ I'117 ' I i � � �?C .� 7 ,.i +`1" 'n•i r �`- ♦`� 1;!(li r� ir' ,� � � '(+C-=Jj I'I .nl- .ca.tl•IYax4 ��� L'I r•1��i� . r' J" 1 � I 7 � � •� o •'I��i.�rnv �\+Il l� �' �n-y'a� F -L'1`,'' lt,.i) -�-- 1 1 UN/ r.. C L. l/I�i-r 11\ I '��i��r J`i;_•l n� = - �Jl`\'�,1���:\. �:`, � X71 Ln 7 � �J' —tiL' -7.r \ 1 '1. Or� Name:CLAYTON Location: 10 0588514 E 5195003 N NAD 83 Date:411 9/2007 Caption:Fioure 1-Project Location Pine.Creel:Road California Red-legged Frog Surveys 6 Wildlife Research Associates i m �'r''..�,.�'r�""-•r'^'zt ",y �. � rl <I.��'t�hn.- 1' r+��`�- iA .� r}�,.. � ` "F� ;`��. "'�:i AL1��y�♦ v.� ,,i6. 1 •' p -Dp G "' ^•il fI ti`tdr( 4�' _ r r +r. ",e` �v.. f' ''° +�� M -moi nl - a.. `r ,t..� •._yr�y"'2' .-L ° _' x L�,rr � ����, �-}- I�� L��f�ef� ��f� �-•.c'-'-t a -.9 � �y,. t �;, -.. ` �t �°,�, bl v 'f"r:�+w '$ �,,5..r'/.iL rt� ,��- r,SLn�y ; —1 d t'�q.ps�..�! .,�SY '"� ,r�w _ 'mak t+ " `!'-•-�` d� x3 G,�:, � � �f _;ii3'!s1`1,.��'J(� 1'sJ;Il + -L ��»..G, �"'���+ �F �ivR'•+C'`'c'`:r '-Y�e2U "�,�L�'�f•m `f �'✓� `c\1 `'ram F ;kf�"" L� `"'�Qh� � �'u.• .ui 'i - r ��. �' 'B"1,£` :tr Fier � I�F Tb 1 `�'•.'j r,x 7"'�.-�'t` `+ �' ?.. H �"`y M1 �•1- f ,tl �QIP J �ii;y-y��,., I f� _ •rr }7a ✓;;{ 'jir��f' lt"'*' M;-Gy 4 .Y ,}!� +v'/ 'lrw9+�rr - .p(e I{ Yr} :._• ...�7T L�r f i Y ' J ` '# �,t7 •�.. 6�r4J _, "'frp�' li. '` I;r r• -r S ;v,�y �, .. �• Py �-* � ✓, Lk yY �- � � '-'P++4 2Tlyx r� � f y�A�r��'�`,r411} •L� � !• �('+ �`` ''C l�•��+*' I C '4 �. ,SS I_�1N tzi���:'1 `'�� �y� �f•,• �,��; � ,•' tyf� '(:,X�J lir s ; r kr ,t ^•1 .,llI'y k' Y ,::f..�r # 1 �. Q� �>!•- 1 1` y ( �� p F•�s:F f�rµS� r•,.{.L' j§1y ,�`�,+ �� r�-�" ;. =-' a .5-r w nai�.'k..,�r"' �� 4 a r� % .� 1 I 5. 'TLl _f'� b � �n � � 7� �'�"t:'F � P - \ r/ `���� 7•��_Y3�t� I;�"�U - �� ���f• t*�1.a?`,.ai�-s�p���'i�y, Fv������ I�,,L(11}7 }J �Q �1 '�'��`a/��T,r,7• .W •-� 'iT, r (. ��r r�ti��� / Y1�a „�- 1- ��jj jl `t� .- Lhftf 3 1 h it 03-21-2007 15 34 '' �, 03` 2007 19:23 • >tVL 5� 35¢17©4 /�-off-d7 �. of I• ' NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS WALNUT CREEK AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday Novem- ber 6,2007 at 1:00 p.m.,in the County Administra- tion Building, 651 Pine Street,Room 107(Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, Cali- fornia, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervi- sors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning mat- ter: ALEX MaCDONALD(Appli- cant & Owner) County File #MS05-0045- A hear- ing on an appeal filed by Save Mt.Diablo of a deci- sion by the County Plan- ning Commission to ap- prove a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 2.25 acres into two parcels, with a request for an ex- ception to the public sew- er connection policy of the North Gate Specific Plan. The subject site is located at #570 Pine Creek Road in the North Gate area. (APN 138-230- 028) The location of the sub- ject 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- ject site is #570 Pine Creek Road in the North Gate area. For purposes of compli- ance with the provisions of the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA),a Negative Dec- laration of Environmental Significance (no Environ- mental Impact Report re- quired) has been issued for this project. If you challenge the proj- ect in court,you may he limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing descri- bed in this notice, or in written correspondence 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 6, 2007 at 12:30 p.m.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; (3)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 Rose Marie Pietras,Community Development Depart- ment,at(925)335-1216 by 3:00 p.m.on Monday,No- vember 5,2007 to confirm your participation. Date: October 24,2007 John Cullen,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk Legal CCT 2570518 Publish October 27,2007 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 Walnut 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 supplement thereof on the following dates,to-wit: October 27. all in the year of 2007 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Walnut Creek,California. On this 6 day of ril vember, 2007 .. ........../ ................................ Signature Contra Costa Tias 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 WALNUT CREEK AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday November 6, 2007 at 1:00 p.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Room 107(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: ALEX MacDONALD(Applicant&Owner)County File#MS05-0045-A hearing on an appeal filed by Save Mt.Diablo of a decision by the County Planning Commission to approve a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 2.25 acres into two parcels,with a request for an exception to the public sewer connection policy of the North Gate Specific Plan. The subject site is located at#570 Pine Creek Road in the North Gate area. (APN 138- 230-028) 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 4570 Pine Creek Road in the North Gate area. For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance(no Environmental Impact Report required)has been issued for this project. If you challenge the project in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County at,or prior to,the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday,November 6,2007 at 12:30 p.m. in Room 108,Administration Building,651 Pine Street,Martinez,to meet with any interested parties in order to(1)answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3)clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve,or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call Rose Marie Pietras,Community Development Department,at(925)335-1216 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, November 5,2007 to confirm your participation. Date: October 24,2007 John.Cullen,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By- 14 1 Amt,kRLL �d'ay*L' atherine Sinclair,Deputy Clerk BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 1N THE MATTER OF: . Appeal of an Administrative Decision of the Zoning Administrator's Determiniation that the Proposed Building Located at 2265 Sunset Road, Knightsen is a single family Residence (County File A106-11539B) Naveed Ahmed-Owner; Kevin Dutt-Appellant. Nonce of hearing for Tuesday,November 6, 2007 at 1:00 pm,was mailed this day, Friday, October 26, 2007. 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: October 26, 2007 Katharine Sinclair,Deputy Clerk fOL 138230002 138230009 138230013 GEE WING B & CHRISTINE M YERAKA MIKE & CAROLYN J GRAHAM ROBERT R&SHIRLEY TRE 501 PINE CREEK RD 609 PINE CREEK RD 625 PINE CREEK RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 138230019 ��� 138230027 IRVIN GEORGE H JR &ELINO � ,� RE BAILY J WARREN &ALICIA J TRE PINE CREEK � WALNUT GREEK 590 RINE CREEK C W C Ito IS ,-j, A 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 t i 138230028 00 v MACDONALD ALEXANDER& I,�� _ 138230030 DARLENE pe/0"47 � ^��+ g MARTIN ALBERT E JR & RENEE TRE WALNPL PO O T X 5147 CREEK CA 94596 •�d"i � L`� rla�4 ' CLAYTON CAA94517 138230031 138230032 '138240001 BETTENCOURT GARY M & MARI ROMANOFF KENT E &AMY S TRE VINCENT BRET W 567 PINE CREEK RD 585 PINE CREEK RD '4:000 CASTLE ROCK RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 138240002 138240003 138240006 CARTER DAVID T & LISA M DA ROZA ROBERT &VICTORIA TRE HOAG RICHARD S 980 CASTLE ROCK RD 888 CASTLE ROCK RD 401 PINE CREEK RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 ; 138250001138250003 PETER MANFRED & BARBARA A 138250002 SMITH MATTHEW K& MARY TRE ,JONES THOMAS P & MARGARET J . N?ADDUX I 1100 CASTLE ROCK RD , . 1025 CASTLE ROCK RD :1150 CASTLE ROCK RD iNALNUT CREEK CA 94598 i WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 'A'ALNUT CREEK .CA 94598 8250004 139140002 1,9140003 13 W 825000SHART MILO ALLEN JOHN FREDERICK TRE SMITH MATTHEW K& MARY 1001 CASTLE ROCK RD M.ADDUX 1030 CASTLE ROCK RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 .1025 CASTLE ROCK RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 139151001 139170013 WALNUT CREEK CITY OF EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DIST PO BOX 8039 PO BOX 5381 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 OAKLAND CA 94605 ® Speakers from Zoning Administrators Meeting 12-04-06 Audrey Gee Janine.Eldred Alex Macdonald 501 Pine Creek Rd. 570 Pine Creek Rd. 570 Pine Creek Rd. Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Seth Adams- Save Mt. :Diabio Dave Wilson JoAnn Hanna Blvd. #220 484 Edgefield Place 950 Trails End l 901 Olympic B Walnut Creek, lv #22 Brentwood, CA 94513 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Carolyn & Mike Yeraka Greg Collins John Conatz 609 Pine Creek Rd. 7 Grandview Place 500 Pine Creek Rd. Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Speakers from County Planning Commission Meeting 08-28-07 Alex Macdonald 570 Pine Creek Rd. Troy Bristol Jolui Conatz Walnut Creek, CA 94598 1901 Olympic.Blvd. 4220 500 Pine Creek Rd. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Janine. Eldred Al Martin Rori Kvalvik 570 Pine Creek Rd. 555 Pine Creek Rd. 570 Pine Creek Rd. Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Robert S11111-flons 2866 Boling Grecn Dr. Grey Collins Jeff Baily \��alnut Creek CA 94598 7 Grandview Place 570 Pine Creek:Rd. ' Walnut Creek. CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Gordon Schell Oscar.Fernandez Schell & Martin Civil En2ineeringy, Inc 570 Pine Creek Rd. 3377 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Walnut Creek_ CA 94598 Lafayette, CA 94549. . BUILDING INSPECTIONHSD, ENVIRONMENTAL 1 ZEAL"I H; P/W FLOOD CONTROL CONCORD CONTRA COSTA FIRE DISTRICT SAVE MT. DIABLO CONSOLIDATED 1901 OLYMPIC BLVD., STE 220 WALNUT CREEK,CA 94596 iwruvr..rc i t"t11CM1_1./1'I=FYLi)-JO141 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK CITY OF WALNUT CREEK MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1666 N. MAIN STREET DISTRICT 2950 PER-ALTA OAKS COURT P.O. BOX 8039 1936 CARLOTA DRIVE P.O. BOX 5381 WALNUT CREEK,CA 94596 CONCORD,CA 94519 OAKLAND,CA 94605-0381 HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMA"PION SYSTEM CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT FOUNDATION CENTER,BLDG 300 1331 CONCORD AVE. 1303 MAURICE AVENUE P.O. BOX H2O SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY CONCORD,CA 94524 ROHNERT PARK,CA 94928-3608 Proposed Project Description for Legal Notice of Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal ALEX MacDONALD (Applicant & Owner) County File#MS05-0045 —A hearing on an appeal filed by Save Mt. Diablo of a decision by the County Planning Commission to approve a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 2.25 acres into two parcels, with a request for an exception to the public sewer connection policy of the North Gate Specific Plan. The subject site is located at 4570 Pine Creek Road in the North Gate area. (APN 138- 230-028) For purposes of compliance.with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration determination(no Environmental impact Report required) has been issued for this project. G:\Current Planning\carr-plan\staff report.des\MS 05-0045 BOS hearing.des.doc "CCT Legals" To "Kathy Sinclair"<KSinc@cob.cccounty.us> <cctlegals@bayareanewsgro up.com> cc 10/24/2007 12:38 PM bcc Subject RE:Publication Request-MacDonald Ad 2570518 is scheduled in the CCT for 10/27. $173.60 will be billed. Thank you, Legal Advertising Contra Costa Times -Concord Transcript-Lamorinda SUN ph: 925.943.8019 fx: 925.952.5019 - - -- — --, From: Kathy Sinclair[mailto:KSinc@cob.cccounty.us] Sent: Wed 10/24/2007 12:14 PM To: CCT Legals Subject: Publication Request-MacDonald Hi Jennifer, I am sorry this is down to the wire,thank you. Please publish the attached legal notice in the CCTimes MacDonald One day only,Saturday October 27,2007 Reference PO#: 2104 Please confirm receipt of request Should you have any questions,please call me at the number listed below. Tnank you, Kathy Sinclair Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County L, N� a.. �i t� ?Vtf- CLASS p pA w ' d -7 C:) �� a �; o p •%)wrosr At,dc•. t3'� 7„ n.� IDOO t-3 �t, t�% O rn VOTA r-4 o to