The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 04261994 - H.3 H. 3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS } Conra FROM: HARVEY E.BRAGDON C��WLGI` DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: APRIL 12, 1994 County SUBJECT: LORENZETTI GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (5.92-EC) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Open public hearing and receive testimony on proposed plan amendment request. 2. Certify as adequate the Negative Declaration on this project for purposes of acting on the General Plan Amendment. 3. Close the.public hearing and Uphold the East County Regional Planning Commission's recommendation, as recommended by staff, to DENY the general plan amendment request because the proposal would be out of character and inconsistent with the remaining properties in the neighborhood. FIRCAT,PAPACT The applicant has paid a general plan amendment fee. BACKGROLIND/REAS INS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS This is a general plan amendment request for a higher density for a 1.33 acre property. The subject parcel is part of a larger subdivision which was approved at a density allowing up to one acre densities. The proposed density increase could be interpreted to be a spot amendme and uld be out of character and inconsistent with the larger neighborhood. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATU _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR—RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO EE —APPROVE _ OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON 4 2 6 9 4 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER _ On April 19, 1994, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the hearing on the recommendation of the East County Regional Planning Commission on a request to change the County General Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential, Very Low Density (0 . 2-0 . 9 units net/acre) to Single Family Residential, Medium Density (3 . 0-4 . 9 units/net acre) in the Oakley area. The plan amendment proposal would accommodate up to three single family parcels and would result in a net increment of two additional parcels over what is presently allowed. Supervisor Torlakson commented on the tour last week out in the neighborhood. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the application and described the proposed site location. Mr. Barry commented on the Planning Commission' s recommendation for denial and the recommendations stated above. The following persons presented testimony: Mike Spencer, Bellecci and Associates, 2290 Diamond Boulevard, Concord, representing Fred Lorenzetti, the developer, spoke in support of the proposed amendment and he presented pictures of Mellowood Drive, a map showing square footages of the lots involved, and a petition from people in support of the General Plan amendment request . J 1 . I y Supervisor Torlakson presented a brief summary of past history and compromises in the area. Dick Mello, 112 Loren Lane, Oakley, spoke in opposition to the amendment request . Charlene Souza, 119 Loren Lane, Oakley, spoke in opposition. Fred Lorenzetti, 3750 St . Peter Court, Concord, presented a brief history of his request for more lots. Mr. Spencer spoke in rebuttal . The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Torlakson commented on the proposal and he .recommended denial of the General Plan Amendment . IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2 and 3 are APPROVED; and the Lorenzetti General Plan Amendment request (5-92-EC) is DENIED. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 1 TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. April 26 , 1994 Staff Contact: Matt Tomas (6-2036) Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: Deputy, Clerk of t Board CAO's Dept.of Public Works OMAC Fred Lorenzetti 2 . BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES (Applicant) FRED LORENZETTI (Owner) General Plan Amendment #5-92-EC A request to increase the allowed residential density in order to develop three single family parcels on a 1.33 acre property. Subject property is located on the northeast corner of Loren Lane and Mellowood Drive. Oakley Area. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY APRIL 12, 1994 - 2:00 P..M. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra��.}, FROM: HARVEY E.BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT _ JV�rJCointy.}l.G�t DATE: APRIL 12,1994 SUBJECT: LORENZETTI GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (S-92-EC) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Open public hearing and receive testimony on proposed plan amendment request 2. Certify as adequate the Negative Declaration on this project for purposes of acting on the General Plan Amendment 3. Close the public hearing and Uphold the East County Regional Planning Commission's recommendation, as recommended by staff, to DENY the general plan amendment request because the proposal would be out of character and Inconsistent with the remaining properties in the neighborhood. FISCAL IMPACT The applicant has paid a general plan amendment fee. BACKGROU_NDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS This is a general plan amendment request for a higher density for a 1.33 acre property. The subject parcel is part of a larger subdivision which was approved at a density allowing up to one acre densities. The proposed density increase could be interpreted to be a spot amendme andVuldbeout of character and inconsistent with the larger neighborhoodCONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATRECOMMENDATION OF.COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO —APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _OTHER _ VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 1 TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Staff Contact: Matt Tomas (6-2036) Orig:Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: Deputy, Clerk of the Board CAO's Dept of Public Works OMAC - Resolution No. 13-1994 RESOLUTION OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, LORENZETTI GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT#5-92-EC, FOR THE OAKLEY AREA. WHEREAS, a request was received from Belleci & Associates to amend the Land Use Element of the County.General Plan. The request is to change the Land Use designation on 1.33 acres from Single Family Residential, Very Low Density to Single Family Residential,Medium Density; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors authorized a General Plan study for this area; and WHEREAS, the County staff prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, staff prepared a report recommending denial of the proposed general plan amendment and circulated it to interested agencies, organization and individuals; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Monday, November 1, 1993 and continued to Monday December 6, 1993; renoticed for Monday, January 10, 1993, and continued to Monday, February 7, 1994 and Monday March 7, 1994; and all that wished to testify were heard and the public hearing was closed; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the East County Regional Planning Commission accepts the Negative Declaration prepared by staff to be adequate under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act to consider this amendment; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the East County Regional Planning Commission recommends DENIAL of the Lorenzetti General Plan Amendment to the Board of Supervisors; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the East County Regional Planning Commission acknowledges that the proposed request would treat one parcel differently than the remaining parcels in the neighborhood; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the East County Regional Planning Commission acknowledges that the majority of the property owners in the affected neighborhood were asked to consider a general plan amendment for increased density and they did not support such a proposal; and Page 2/3 Resolution 13 -1994 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all written and graphic material developed for and pertaining to these proceedings are made part of the record; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary of the East County Regional Planning Commission respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the provisions of State Planning Law. The instruction by the East County Regional Planning Commission to prepare this resolution, which recommends DENIAL, was given by motion of the Commission on Monday, March 7, 1994 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Wetzel,Andrieu, Sobalvarro,Hanson,Wagner, Hem, and Planchon NOES: Commissioners - None ABSENT: Commissioners - None ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None I, Harvey E. Bragdon, Secretary of the East County Regional Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was fully called and held in accordance with the law on Monday, March 7, 1994. ey E. gdon ecretary - t County Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California Fred&Alice Lorenzetti Richard&Marie Mello Ronald& Margaret York 3750 St. Peter Ct. 112 Loren Ln. 108 Loren Ln. Concord, CA 94518 Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 Raymond&Muriel Telles Thomas& Billie Jean Enea Joseph &Phyllis Morgan 120 Loren Ln. 116 Loren Ln. Rt 4 Box 13 Hwy 4 Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 I Donald&Dorothy Notarangelo Robert Kanagaki Bryant &Patricia Morgan 124 Loren Ln. Sharon Uchida Rt. 2 Box 13 Oakley, CA 94561 15 Hiromi La. Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 Donald&Helen McGee Julie Morgan William&Deloris Choitz Rt 4 Box 14 Loren Ln. 3949 Highgate Way 111 Loren Ln. Oakley, CA 94561 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Oakley, CA 94561 Charles &Kathleen McMeekin Augustino&Charlene Souza Oliver& Michele Loomis 109 Loren Ln. 119 Loren Ln. PO Box 1089 Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 035-240-012 035-240-013 035-240-014 AUGUSTINO & CHARLENE SOUZA OLIVER & MICHELE LOOMIS WILLIAM & DELORES CHOITZ 119 LOREN LANE 115 LOREN LANE 111 LOREN LANE OAKLEY, CA 94561 OAKLEY, CA 94561 OAKLEY, CA 94561 035-240-019 035-240-020 035-240=021 DONALD & DOROTHY NOTARANGELO MARTY & DENISE DEMARTINI THOMAS & BILLIE JEAN ENEA 124 LOREN LANE 120 LOREN LANE 11CI LOREN LANE OAKLEY, CA 94561 OAKLEY, CA 94561 OAKLEY, CA 94561 035-230-008 035-230-009 035-230-010 HENRY & CARMEN RAMIREZ FRED LORENZETTI HENRY EHLER 139 LOREN LANE 3750 ST. PETER CT. 134 LOREN LANE OAKLEY, CA 94561 CONCORD, CA 94518 OAKLEY, CA 94561 035-230-011 035-362-002 035-362-003 PATRICK & CHERYL GOETSCH SCOTT & SHERI FINGER ROBERT & DONNA DODELIN 3999 MELLOWOOD DRIVE 4013 MELLOWOOD DR 4009 MELLOWOOD DR. OAKLEY, CA 94561 OAKLEY, CA 94561 OAKLEY, CA 94561 035-362-006 035-362-007 035-250-004 ROGER & SHARON STONE RANDALL & SHERRIE MURPHY CLOVER BLDG CO 4005 MELLOWOOD DR. 4001 MELLOWOOD DR. PO BX 1010 OAKLEY, CA 94561 OAKLEY, CA 94561 ALAMO, CA 94507 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Board of Supervisors Staff Report and Recommendations Tuesday,April 12, 1994 Agenda Item# LORENZE'ITI GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (5-92-EC) I. INTRODUCTION: This is general plan amendment request to change the County General Plan land use designation for a 1.33 acre property from SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, VERY Low DENSITY(0.2 -0.9 UNITS/NET ACRE) to SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY (3.0-4.9 UNITS/NET ACRE). The plan amendment proposal would accomodate up to three single family parcels where one is now allowed. The pian amendment area is located on the northeast comer of Loren Lane and Mellowood Drive in the Oakley area (Figure 1). H. CEQA STATUS: A Negative Declaration (no environmental impact report required) for the plan amendment was issued August 27, 1993. The Initial Study of Environmental Significance is attached. III. SITE DESCRIPTION: The plan amendment area is a rectangular-shaped parcel consisting.of 1.33 acres. The site contains a detached single family structure with related accessory structures and has been cleared of improvements and vegetation. The property is located on the northeast comer of Loren Lane and Mellowood Drive. Laurel Road is the primary roadway which provides access to the area. This road runs in a east/west orientation. Highway 4 is located about 1,250 feet to the east of the Mellowood Drive/Laruel Road intersection. Mellowood Drive is a recently constructed roadway which provides north/south access. This road connects from Laurel Road up to Cypress Road and serves the new residential subdivision just northwest from the plan amendment area. A preliminary development concept proposes all new homes would front along and be accessed from Mellowood Drive. 1 Figure 1 LORENZEM GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Location Map 41k 1'T1=I=I:>x'1=I'I*I�I�I.L'--y ,',,• ;, �" f Ake,F DRIVE . d' .�' 4 1. •• a CY 54: Fs _ T � s E NV _LN 4 �� e •HAZELNUT OR. NAL . y T l l i FILBERT CT 2 VIHEWO O .OR ., u'M • .CL 'i r •Z G� T- s r .. Z CA, Ew LN412@ SI(2 11j '•'` r J PP ,, o anv11.1i0 oa UR BRAZIL E' NORTH xi GQ = 600' S `r+r 6356 54 r ' n S ,S Sys oLa•t i Ycn' m .'411ir`:,tt. e4, ALM TREE -CL'A• 15 (f 1 Z S: yi Z L2. f.� e•' � L CLEAN . i y l f 011 ., 'E r� >s TSe oM � r V ♦p GLEAAw000 SITE 1 a u ri I 54. — 3 i SUB s Su TOREN I 0l0 Oat A.P.N.: 035-240-018, 4, .. y s T t• s l0 ff f= 1 49 Z J i RO L u l 1 f I I i 1 54.. I ' f 1 i - I t I 4 I I I I -- 1 1 I f' i 54 1 1 i 1 f i 1 i I r + 54 IV. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS The plan amendment area is designated as Single Family Residential, Very Low Density (0.1-0.9 units/net acre). Existing County General Plan land use designations are shown in Figure 2. The existing zoning for the plan amendment area is A-2 (General Agricultural District). Existing zoning designations are shown in Figure 3. V. PUBLIC SERVICES: The site is presently served by all urban services which are needed to support the development. There are no public service constraints which would affect the plan amendment proposal. VI. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS: The plan amendment area is already designated for urban development and is within the service area boundaries for all required urban services. The proposed subdivision would be required to pay parkland dedication fees and an east county sheriff fee to offset costs of providing police service to the larger Oakley area. A Measure C-1988 traffic study is not required for the proposed two additional residential parcels. The 65/35 Land Preservation Standard- The plan amendment is in an area which is already designated for urban development. The proposed plan amendment request will not affect the 65/35 standard since it does not involve a change from a non-urban land use designation. VII. GENERAL PLAN POLICY ISSUES TO CONSIDER FOR THIS PLAN AMENDMENT: Land Use Considerations - The proposed plan amendment request would result in a net increment of two additional units beyond the one unit now allowed and built. The plan amendment area is on the corner of an area designated for up to one acre densities (40,000+ sq. ft. parcels). The proposal would likely lead to two new parcels averaging slightly less than 15,000 square feet in size. The remaining area would be devoted to the existing home while.additional road right-of-way would be secured to bring the streets up to county standards. The area adjacent to the plan amendment area, to the north and west, are designated Single Family Residential, Medium Density (SFM) designation. The existing SFVL designation, between Mellowood Drive and Highway 4, reflects the previous 3 Figure 2 LORENZEM GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Existing County General Plan Land Use Map OAKL EY PARK TRACT ML 4 H '` °' 1 C O CYPRESS O w2ELRUT OR MsS NUT LN f Goy � i _ _ - AL— P SH ti: I I I .� a F=1ERI -\ti s q OSS t v..(.000 _ -OR M 'I'M �: - _ AML . S Bk -, ,x,71%-A, ML S M 6356 O y U w'•' OLa �1 �' ..I-'-..l l.{ ALO-0-0 PEE � ai�!t a r7� fet•i S M 'o w 6 1 � 1 1 , a : 1 SUB fp:`?:t. I a S�/9 T { j / �•w 1! ---- _ 14 LOREa,Ch .5�`? Site S .... fl a 7 l0 II li r lf9 2 7 I I I � al I • 7 Z Z I I s n t a I I I � I ! SH north LEGEND ' 1"=600' SV Single Family Residential - Very Low "~ SM Single Family Residential - Medium SH Single Family Residential - High ML Multiple Family Residential - Low CO Commercial LI Light Industry SH I PS Public/Semi-Public AL Agricultural Lands �! I I, Figure 3 LORENZEIM GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Existing Zoning Map P-1 111 1 .1 I ! i A-2 �9 A'2 ROAD w C. R-6. ' GCS I f f 1 I N,CT VWKWCOC oo1 Iz r GO R-B _ B Z : ILtbrCtR `i. ! A•2 ' r Ai �fa A P-1 II P-1 ---------- A` 2 -�- +0 R•12 Site 2 .. ft Ol C Y. COU." .� J I •�0 • l A- l l l J 2 1 t , 1t , z1 P•1 north 1'=600' ' LEGEND R-6 Single Family Residential -- - --- --- R-10 Single Family Residential R-12 Single Family Residential R-40 Single Family Residential R-B Retail Business P-1 Planned Unit Development A-2 General Agriculture 1652 - 1653 1654 1655 1647 54o H25 subdivision approval and resulting development. Of the 18 total residential parcels under the SFVL designation, all but three are developed with single family homes. The three undeveloped parcels, located on the south side of Loren Lane and at the end of this cul-de-sac, are also owned by the project propoent for this general plan amendment request. The primary policy conern raised with this particular request relates to the decision to treat the subject property differently than the remaining parcels in the orginal subdivision. To date, one neighboring property owner reasonably argues that when they purchased their property in this area the expectation was that the present density would be maintained because most of the parcels presently designated SFVL were already developed with homes. The actual density proposal of this plan amendment request is 3.01 units per net acre, which is at the low end of the Single Family Medium (S FM) designation (3.0 —4.9 units/net acre). If the density increase is approved it could be a precedent for increased densities for the remaining area now designated Single Family Residential, Very Low Density (SFVL). Although much of this area is already developed with detached single family homes, small private driveways could be constructed to access potential new homes. If one calculated potential development using the SFM density, the range of possible new units within the remaining area designated SFVL, and accounting for existing homes, would result between 21 to 44 new homes. Even though approval of the proposed density increase on the subject property may not greatly affect the remaining homes along Loren Lane, it could be argued that approval of the plan amendment request is premature and that staff should consider a plan amendment study for the remaining area designated SFVL, between Mellowood Drive and Highway 4, if the majority of the property owners choose to apply for a plan amendement change to allow a higher density. However, if the Commission thinks that the proposed plan amendment for this one particular property does not create additional density concerns and issues for the remaining property owners along Loren Lane, between Mellowood Drive and Highway 4, it may choose to approve the plan amendment request for up to three residential parcels on the subject property. Access - Ingress and egress into the plan amendment area is from Mellowood Drive. Mellowood Drive runs in a north/south orientation, between Cypress Road to the north and Laurel Road to the south. Mellowood Drive was recently improved to serve the new subdivision just across the street from the plan amendment area. No new streets need to be provided to the plan amendment area 6 since all new homesites would front along MelIowood Drive. The increased traffic from the new homesites will have a negligible effect overall on neighborhood since none of the traffic generated by the project will use Loren Lane. Relationship to Surrounding Area- Since the plan amendment area is located on a corner, the proposed increase in residential density should not greatly affect remaining properties which are designated Single Family Residential, Very Low Density. However, approval of the proposed density increase would set a precedent and may lead to other incremental requests for a similar density. Such an approach would warrant a plan amendment study for the entire area between Mellowood Drive and Highway 4. VIII. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission make one of the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors: 1) Recommend DENIAL of the proposed general plan amendment request to the Board of Supervisors because the decision would treat one parcel of the original subdivision differently than the others and, 2) Recommend to the Board of Supervisors to direct staff to CONSIDER a plan amendment request for a higher density for the remaining area now designated Single Family Residential, Very Low Density for the area between Mellowood Drive and Highway 4. Consideration of a plan amendment study for this larger area would occur only if a majority of the property owners choose to apply for such a request. M7sMac\GPAs\5-92-EC SR _ NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING You are hereby notified that on MONDAY. November 1. 1993 at 7:30 p.m., the East County Regional Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the Antioch City Council Chambers, Third and H Streets, Antioch, California, to consider a General Plan Amendment as follows: Lorenzetti General Plan Amendment (5-92-EC) - A proposed general plan amendment for a 1.33 acre property, located on the northeast corner of Loren Lane and Mellowood Drive in the Oakley area. The proposed plan amendment is a request to change the County General Plan land use designation from Single Family Residential, Very Low Density (0.2 - 0.9 units/ net acre) to Single Family Residential, Medium Density (3.0 - 4.9 units/ net acre). The plan amendment proposal would accomodate up to three single family parcels and would result in a net increment of two additional parcels over what is presently allowed. Subject property for the above referenced project is approximately 1.33 acres in size and in the Oakley area. (CT: 3020.00; APN:035-240-018). Project Decription and Location: The applicant is seeking a general plan amendment to increase the allowed residential density in order to develop up to three single family parcels. The development concept will retain a detached single family housing product which is consistent with the overall character of this area. The project, at this time, includes a General Plan Amendment. Separate environmental review will be conducted on the forthcoming site development applications if the plan amendment is approved.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. For further details, contact the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, or phone Matt Tomas at (510) 646-2036. Harvey E. Bragdon, Director Contra Costa County .Community Development Department Please publish once, Tuesday,.October 19, 1993 in the Legal Section of the Antioch Daily Ledger/Post Dispatch. This space is County Clerk's Filing Stamp - PROOF OF PUBLICATIO1 (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. 93_1083 Proof of Publication of NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A am.the Principal Legal Clerk of the California Delta News- papers,Inc.A newspaper of general circulation,printed and 5-92—EC Published at 1650 Cavallo Road in the City of Antioch, NOTICE OF II4TENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE a of Contra Costa,94509. DECLARATION Courtly Lorensetti General Plan Amendment(5-92-: EC)—A proposed IM-21 plan ammammt for a 1.33 And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of :ue of ! 9 P the northeast corner of Loren Lane and Elderwood� general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Drive in the Oakley area. The proposed plan a:nend- meat Contra Costa, State of California, under the date of March the as a County geiest to Waage I the Courctyy General Plan tend use designation from 26, 1870.Case Number 7467370. SINGLE FAMILY RESI- DENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY (0.2-0.9) UN- GGLACRE)TO SIN- FAMILY The notice,of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in RESIDENTIAL. MEDIUM DENSITY(3.0-4.9 UNITS- type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in /NET ACRE). The plan proposal would accommodate up to three each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in single family. parcels and would result m a act mee- any supplement thereof on the following dates,to-wit meat of two additional par- cels over JULY 23 allowed. what s presently JULY property for the I above referenced project is all in the year of 19 9 3 approximately 1.33 acres in sue and in the Oakley area.I (CT: 3020.00; APN:035- 240-018). Project Description and I certify(or declare) under penalty of perjury that the fore- Locatioo:The applicant is seeking a general plan amendmeia�the going is true and correct. tresid ntwi-density in order to develop up to Executed at Antioch,California. three single fainly parcelsonce - The - 23 JULY 93 willlretain.4ettaa�single On this day of 19 family housing product which is coesistent with the overall character of this area The project, at this _;;�� time, includes a General �Rgnatur, Plan Amendment Separate eavirearaeaUl review will be conducted on the forth- coming site development California Delta Newspapers,Inc. applications if the plan Daily Ledger s Post Dispatch and Brentwood News an'endment isapproved.ed This is a notice of of staff' P.O.Box 2299 determination of the envi-. Antioch,CA 94531-2299 ronmental impact of the (510)757.2525 above project. Interested =unity contact The =unity Develop- ment Department, Ad- vaned Planning Division, Attention:. Matt Tomas. Advanced I Planner, 651 Pin St.,I 4th Floor, North Wiqyl Marttianez,CA 94553 di-' rectly by letter to convey any concerns or comments i that they may have about the enviroameatal review for this project no later than Friday. August 27, 1993 at 5:00 p.m.,at the following address: if you require further in- formation regarding the project, contact Mr MaTomas mof the Commu- nity Development Depart- went at(510)646x2035. Harvey E.Bragdon. Contra Costa County Community Development Department Legal 93-1083 035-240-012 035-240-013 035-240-014 AUGUSTINO & CHARLENE SOUZA OLIVER &.MICHELE LOOMIS WILLIAM & DELORES CHOITZ 119 LOREN LANE 115 LOREN LANE 111 LOREN LANE OAKLEY, CA 94561 OAKLEY, CA 94561 OAKLEY, CA 94561 035-240-019 035-240-020 035-240=021 DONALD & DOROTHY NOTARANGELO MARTY & DENISE DEMARTINI THOMAS & BILLIE JEAN ENEA 124 LOREN LANE 120 LOREN LANE 116 LOREN LANE OAKLEY, CA 94561 OAKLEY, CA 94561 OAKLEY, CA 94561 035-230-008 035-230-009 035-230-010 HENRY & CARMEN RAMIREZ FRED LORENZETTI HENRY EHLER 139 LOREN LANE 3750 ST. * PETER CT. 134 LOREN LANE OAKLEY, CA 94561 CONCORD, CA 94518 OAKLEY, CA 94561 035-230-011 035-362-002 035-362-003 PATRICK & CHERYL GOETSCH SCOTT & SHERI FINGER ROBERT & DONNA DODELIN 3999 MELLOWOOD DRIVE 4013 MELLOWOOD DR 4009 MELLOWOOD DR. OAKLEY, CA 94561 OAKLEY, CA 94561 OAKLEY, CA 94561 035-362-006 035-362-007 035-250-004 ROGER & SHARON STONE RANDALL & SHERRIE MURPHY CLOVER BLDG CO 4005 MELLOWOOD DR. 4001 MELLOWOOD DR. PO BX 1010 OAKLEY, CA 94561 OAKLEY, CA 94561 ALAMO, CA 94507 ,fired& Alice Lorenzetti Richard & Marie Mello Ronald& Margaret York 3750 St. Peter Ct. 112 Loren Ln. 108 Loren Ln. Cpncord, CA 94518 Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 Raymond&Muriel Telles Thomas & Billie Jean Enea Joseph & Phyllis Morgan 120 Loren Ln. 116 Loren Ln. Rt 4 Box 13 Hwy 4 Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 Donald&Dorothy Notarangelo Robert Kanagaki Bryant&Patricia Morgan 124 Loren Ln. Sharon Uchida Rt. 2 Box 13 Oakley, CA 94561 15 Hiromi Ln. Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 Donald&Helen McGee Julie Morgan William&Deloris Choitz Rt 4 Box 14 Loren Ln. 3949 Highgate Way 111 Loren Ln. Oakley, CA 94561 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Oakley, CA 94561 Charles &Kathleen McMeekin Augustino& Charlene Souza Oliver&Michele Loomis 109 Loren Ln. 119 Loren Ln. PO Box 1089 Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 E. dn Community Contra Director of CBommunity Development DevelopmentCOSta Department COUrny County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 945530095 Phone: (510)646-2035 a °x July 21, 1993 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Lorenzetti General Plan Amendment (5-92-EC) - A proposed general plan amendment for a 1.33 acre property, located on the northeast corner of Loren Lane and Elderwood Drive in the Oakley area. The proposed plan amendment is a request to change the County General Plan land use designation from SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,VERY Low DENSITY(0.2-0.9 UNITS/NET ACRE) to SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY (3.0-4.9 UNITS/NET ACRE). The plan amendment proposal would accomodate up to three single family parcels and would result in a net increment of two additional parcels over what is presently allowed. Subject property for the above referenced project is approximately 1.33 acres in size and in the Oakley area. (CT: 3020.00; APN:035-240-018). Project Decription and Location: The applicant is seeking a general plan amendment to increase the allowed residential density in order to develop up to three single family parcels. The development concept will retain a detached single family housing product which is consistent with the overall character of this area. The project, at this time, include a General Plan Amendment. Separate environmental review will be conducted on the forthcoming site development applications if the plan amendment is approved. This is a notice of staff s determination of the environmental impact of the above project. Interested persons may contact me at the Contra Costa County, Community Development Department, directly by letter to convey any concerns or comments that they may have about the envrionmental review for this project no later than Friday, August 27, 1993 at 5:00 pm to: 1 Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor/North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 (510)646-2035 Sincerely, 4att Tomas Senior Planner endosure:Enviommental initial Study cc: file GMsTending GPA's44-92-ECPapini GPAl4-92-EC Nog Dec Node Map A LORENZEM GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations 1 '13 I OAKL EY PARK TRACT t'� t •4 �11' z� �4.{.�' ML Co . PS o� x Of rl O wUt l/l AL.0 jflwt DA wal v S�> S H vlwf•DDD = . fix - ML 4 ism .1 L:2z Cp VAN OG 6356 O 33 M c..`„ 4I 6k o -i: t - - r r-174; S M M e I ------------------------ From: Single Family Residential-Very Low To: Single Family Residential-Medium Ei� [ sue a I I` >_ p I08 - lDlltMr> Site - a C~ -- — V Dl0 O.a COVaT J 11 M T , I 1 �, . aD • p- 1 1 1 1 SH i north LEGEND I 1" =600' SV Single Family Residential - Very Low " SM Single Family Residential - Medium SH Single Family Residential - High ML Multiple Family Residential - Low CO Commercial LI Light Industry S H I PS Public/Semi-Public AL Agricultural Lands F- II Ili i II ! il ! i CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM & INITIAL STUDY 1. Background 1. Name of Proponent: Bellecci Associates for Mr. John Lorenzetti 2. Address and Phone.Number of Proponents: 2552 Stanwell Drive, Suite 201 Concord, CA 94520 (510) 685-4569 Attn: Steve Cross 3. Date Checidist Submitted: June 22. 1993. 4. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Lorenzetti General Plan Amendment (5-92-EC) Guad Sheet: General Plan Designation: Brentwood Existing ,Single Farnity Residential,Very Low Density Parcel !l: Proposed: Single Family Residential. Medum Densly 035-240-018 11. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all significant, (S),answers are required on attached sheets.) 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: S 1 a Unstable earth conditions or changes ingeologic substructures? b. Disruptions,displacements, compaction or vercovering of the soil? ✓ C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ✓ d. The destruction,covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ✓ Please Note: "S" is for significant; NI" is for insignificant e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands,or changes in siltation,deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,inlet or take? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,mudslides,ground failure,or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteriorationof ambient air quality? ✓ b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture,or temperature,or any change in climate,either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents,or the course ofdirection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and amount of surfacerunoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters,or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? L Exposure of people or property to waterrelated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I- is for insignificant 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species,or number of any species of plants(including trees,shrubs,grass,crops,and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. Animal Life..:Will the proposal result in: a Change in the diversity of species,or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles,fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. introduction of new species of animals into an area,or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration.to.existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a . Increases in existing noise levels? .� b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ✓ 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? geo Wx j*"o& 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including,but not limited to oil, pesticides,chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? ✓ Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal after the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?4,9�p r 94j9,I POSr-w ";-%3 ✓ 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand .for additional housing? - ✓ 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:se* jT:!;(„yam a Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing paridng facilities,or demand for new parking? ✓ c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? ✓ d. Alterations to present patterns ofcirculation or movement of people and/or goods? ✓ e. Alterations to waterbome,rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a Fire protection? b. Police protection? C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ✓ e. Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? ✓ f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ✓ b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Please Note: "S" is for significant; "1" is for insignificant 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,or substantial alterations to the following utilities: ✓ 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard f (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or View open to the public,or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a Alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? ✓ b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ✓ C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ✓ d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21 . Mandatory •Findings of Significance. a Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare orendangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will well into the future.) IL c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but Please Note: "S" is for signtftcant; "1" is for insignificant cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly indirectly? Ill. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation See attachments. IV. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: • I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. • I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. • I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ebt-- " Signature Da Reviewed By Date Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant • Responses to Environmental Initial Stud Lorenzetti GPA (5-92-EC) Proposed Negative Declaration June 22, 1993 Project Description - These are staff responses to a proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no environmental impact report required) for a proposed general plan amendment for a 1.33 acre property, located on the northeast comer of Loren Lane and Elderwood Drive in the Oakley area. The plan amendment would result in a net increment of two additional units over what is presently allowed. The proposed plan amendment is a request to change the County General Plan land use designation from SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, VERY Low DENSITY(0.2-0.9 UNIT/NET ACRE)to SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY(3.04.9 uNrr/NET ACRE). The plan amendment proposal would accomodate up to three single family units. Summary of Issues - Staff has reviewed and determined that the proposed land use change would not create any significant environmental impacts under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The plan amendment area is in an area which is already designated for urban development. There are no urban service constraints facing the proposed development as the site is within all urban service boundaries. Circulation - The plan amendment would support up to three units on the site and is a negligible increment in terms of traffic genereration. The proposal is well under the Measure C-1988 threshold of 100 units for preparation of a traffic study. County Growth Management Considerations- Measure C - 1990 resulted in the County adopting a Growth Managment Program which establishes minimum levels of services for the typical urban services which are needed to support proposed development. Since the plan amendment area is already contained within existing service area boundaries (fire, police, sanitary sewer, water, flood control, school facilities and parks) for the major urban services needed to support the proposal, the concerns relating to these considerations have been addressed. The proposed change would not affect the County's 65/35 Land Preservation Standard since it is an intensification of an existing urban designation and does not result in the conversion of land under a non-urban designation. The following are staffs responses to the Initial Study Checklist. S. Lend Use a. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 1 Responses to Environmental Initial Study Lorenzetti GPA (5-92-EC) Proposed Negative Declaration June 22, 1993 The proposed land use change will allow increased development density in an area which is-already designated for residential development. The increased density is not considered to be environmentally signficant since it will occur in an area which is already undergoing urbanization. The resulting three single family units will retain the existing single family character of this area. 11. Population The related increase in population is not significant under CEQA provisions since the project area is already within existing urban service boundaries. 12. Housing The proposed density will result in a housing type which is consistent with the homes recently developed norith of the plan amendment area and will retain the single family character of the area. 13. Circulation The plan amendment would result in a negligible increase in traffic, and does not trigger the threshold for preparing a mandatory traffic study under Measure C-1988. UrsHDiGPA's15-93-ECOS Responses 2 ALAMEDA COLLISA MAPoN Northwest Information Center California - CO+TPACOSTA MENDOCINO a. tgEpn Department of Anthropology DEL NORTE MONTEREY SANTA rXAN+4 Archaeological HUMBOLDT NAPA SANTAUkR CQsr Sonoma State University LAKE SAN SENrto 0�s}�No 4 Rohnert Park,California 94928 Inventory SAN d'�94tD� (707)664-x494 — — Moto B Psf- 27 JuLy 1993 oF4F� V c} /93-CC-82E DrpT Matt Tomas Contra Costa County Cofm uAty Development Department 651 Pine Street Fourth Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 re: Lorenzi General Plan Amendment (5-92-EC) p Dear Mr. Tomas, Records at this office.of the California Archaeological Inventory were reviewed to determine if this project could adversely affect prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. This review did not take into account the possibility of sites of architectural importance. However, the Office of Historic Preservation has determined that buildings and structures 45 years or older may be of historic value. Therefore, if the project area contains such properties they should be evaluated prior to calmencenent of project activities. Please contact our office for a list of professional consultants. The proposed project area contains or is adjacent to the archaeological resource(s) ( ). A study is recommended. ' The proposed project area has the possibility of containing archaeological resources. A study is recommended. Study # identified one or more archaeological or other cultural resources. The recaTmendations from the report are.attached. Study # identified no archaeological resources. Further study for archaeological resources is not recctmtended.- t There is a low possibility of archaeological sites. Further study for archaeological resources is not recanmended. Comments: i In all cases, if archaeological resources are encountered during the project, work in the imnediate vicinity of the finds should be halted until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation. If you have any questions please give us a call (707) 664-2494. Sin'gerely, Leigrtr o Assis ant Coordinator 3/92 STA F CALIFORNIA I PETE WILSON.Governor GOV ERNO- OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH a COS.1400 q NTH STREET 0-) SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 �Fy��op�U��PH 2•�j September 1 , 1993 MFMTD�pr. Matt Tomas Contra Costa county 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Lorenzetti General Plan Amendment SCK# 93081020 Dear Matt Tomas: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call Mark Goes at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in ' this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, i Christine Rinne Deputy Director, Permit Assistance - Contra Costa County Community Development Department DATE: November 29, 1993 TO: East County Regional Planning Commission FROM: Matt Tomas, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Policy Choices and Additional Ba kground Information for the Lorenzetti General Plan Amendment (County File # 5-92-EC) On Monday, November 1, 1993 the Commission opened the public hearing on the Lorenzetti general plan amendment request. Public testimony was taken and the hearing was continued until the Commission's December 6, 1993 meeting. The inital staff recommendation relates to the issue of how to treat this single parcel in relation to the remaining properties in the original subdivision. Staff urged the Commission to poll the remaining property owners on Loren Lane to determine if a general plan amendment study for a higher density should be considered for the remaining subdivision. The neighboring property owners submitted a signed petition indicating opposition to increased density for the neighborhood (see Attachment A). Now that the question regarding possible increased density for the remaining subdivision has been answered, the Commission must decide if approval of the proposed density increase could create other policy conflicts. The staff report of November 1, 1993 indicates that the two new homes resulting from the proposed density increase would use the existing streets for project ingress and egress and that the proposed density and resulting home construction would generally conform with existing development densities on adjacent lands to the west and north and with the new residential development occurring just northwest of the site. From this perspective, there seems to be no other outstanding policy conflicts. OMAC Review of the General Plan Amendment Request- The Commission inquired about OMAC's recommendation on this plan amendment request. County files show that OMAC was mailed a copy of the CEQA documentation on the plan amendment request (see mailing list, Attachment B). The public review period lasted between July 23, 1993 to August 27, 1993 and no comments from OMAC were received during that time. Files show that OMAC was routed the application for the previous subdivision application (MS 193-90) and that no comments were submitted on this application. Clarification regarding the Previous Minor Subdivision Application - The applicant indicated that a previous minor subdivision (M.S. 193-90) application for the subject site was approved in late 1990. On January 28, 1991 a tentative map for M.S. 193-90 was conditionally approved(Attachment C) for a three lot project(two lots and a remainder parcel). Condition number two of the tentative map approval requires that a rezoning application to the appropriate zoning district is needed (Attachment D). Until this date, the rezoning application has not been approved subject approval of the pending general plan amendment for the proposed density increase. W4 Bepecci B[/1mciates,Inc. November 1 , 1993 The attached petition OPPOSING Lorenzetti ' s General Plan Amendment (County File # 5-92-EC) represents 98% of the homeowners on Loren Lane east of Mellowood . The remaining 2% were unavailable. f WE THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE the lorenzetti General Plan Amendment (County File # 5-92-EC) NAME (Signature) ADDRESS: 2. 491.1 ez-9f2 5. �&Yc 7. Y r 8. 9. + :S9- 12. .--� �Oee-�-f �'74,;f 13.14. 15. 1-52 17. 1 C9 19. .•lam-- !/'S' 1�G !i �/7 .. h �'�= 21. 22.0 � 23. 24; 25. OAKLEY GPA'S ..4berty Union High School District founty Service Area-Lib I1 PUBLIC AGENCY LIST 350 Second Street PO Box 194 CPl/baklyGPA.LAB Brentwood, CA 94513 Oakley, CA 94561 Diablo Water District Sonoma State University Oakley-Knightsen Fire Dist. PO Box 127 NW Information Center 123 Main St. Oakley. CA 94561 California Amhaelogical Inventory Oakley, CA 94561 Dept. of Anthropology Rohnert Paris, CA 94928 OMAC Ironhouse Sanitary District Oakley Union School District PO Box 612 PO Box 1105 PO Box 7 Oakley. CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 State Clearinghouse INTEROFFICE Transplan Ofe. of Intergovernmental Mgmt. c/o Patrick Roche 1400- 10th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 James Cutler Matt Tomas Carole Norris, Redevelopment Advance Planning Advance Planning Attachment C • Apt.ived Permit for MS 193-90 Per Conditions of Approval CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNI'T'Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: Bellecci & Associates APPLICATION NO. MS 193-90 2552 Stanwell Drive #201 Concord, CA 94520 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 035-240-018 ZONING DISTRICT: A-2 OWNER: Edward Del Chiaro Route 1, Box 343-A EFFECTIVE DATE: 7 February 1991 Oakley, CA 94561 APPROVAL DATE: 28 January 1991 This matter not having been appealed within the time prescribed by law, the minor subdivision is hereby granted, subject to the attached conditions shown as Exhibit "A". HARVEY E. BRAGDON, Director Community Development Department By: Karl L. Wandry, Deputy Director PLEASE NOTE THE APPROVAL DATE, as no further notification will be sent by this office. Unless otherwise provided, you have 36 months from the approval date to file the PARCEL MAP. This permit is not valid until fees have been paid to the Department of Fish and Game in the amount of $25. Attachment D G.-_itions of Approval MS 193-90 See#2 for Rezoning Requirement CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 193-90 1. The request to subdivide the 1.33 acre parcel is approved for two (2) parcels and a remainder subject to the Vesting Tentative Map dated received by the Community Development Department on December 27, 1990. The following conditions of approval require compliance prior to the filing of the Parcel Map unless otherwise indicted. 2. Approval of this subdivison is contingent upon the approval .of the rezoning of the preorty from A-2 to R-12 purusuant to County File #2927-RZ. 3. A six (6) foot high decorative solid masonry wall shall be constructed along the rear of the proposed lots to buffer the proposed residential lots from the existing neighboring agricultural equipment storage use. The solid Masonry wall shall be installed prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map. Care in placement and construction of the wall shall be undertaken to avoid damage to the existing row of trees in the area. If need be, the wall shall be constructed inside the line of trees or a combination of inside and outside of the row of trees. 4. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading,trenching or other on-site excavation, earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist certified by the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures, if deemed necessary. 5. . The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will require the review and approval of the Public Works Department: A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the following requirements: 1) Chapter 96-10, "Underground Utilities." Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities including distribution facilities on Mellowood Drive and Loren Lane. 2) Section 96-14.002, "Improvement of County Streets." Constructing road improvements along the frontage of Mellowood Drive and Loren Lane. a) Constructing curb, four foot six inch sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening along the frontage of Mellowood Drive and Loren Lane.