The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 07132004 - D.7 (2) Appendix A Appeal Letter Attachments El Sobrante Valley Planning& Friends of Garrity Creek& Zoning Advisory Committee Hilltop Neighborhood Association P.O. Boy 20136 745 Renfrew Rd. �- El Sobrante, CA 94820 El Sobrante, CA 94803 June 17, 2004 - ` CC County Board of Supervisors Mand Delivered 651 Pine St. Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on SDOI-8533 Dear Supervisors, On June 8,the Planning Commissioners approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project(SDO1-8533) and set a limit of 40 homes for the site. We feel that these decisions were based on flawed, incomplete, and overlooked information. The initial study fails to acknowledge several significant impacts. We incorporate, by reference, all written comments from Attorney Reith Wagner, Barbara Pendergrass for Friends of Garrity Greek&Hilltop Neighborhood Association and Eleanor Loynd for the El Sobrante Valley Planning &Zoning Advisory Committee. We are very concerned because the analysis of the adverse environmental effects and the development of mitigation measures were deferred until later and the burden of providing information on these significant adverse environmental effects was shifted to the public, the applicant, and other agencies. That is unacceptable. In addition,we feel that the decision is not in compliance with the standards in the General Plan. The staff report states that the County slope protection policies can only be met with a reduction in the number of proposed units to 35. The Planning Commission ignored and/or overlooked this recommendation and approved 40 units for the site. Additional KED' POINTS: 1. TRAFFIC: "The California courts have held that public testimony about noise or traffic impacts or topics that you may be personally familiar with(i.e., significant view along scenic highway) are substantial evidence of a project's significant impact."1 The testimony of numerous residents as to the heavy traffic on Hilltop Drive, especially during the commute time and the starting/ending of school as well as problems that people have backing out of their driveways should be considered as substantial evidence of this project's impacts. In addition, the County should have taken into account the current applications and homes under construction in the Appian Way/Hilltop area. The 10 homes being built off Renfrew Ct. and the 5 homes under review will add even more traffic to Hilltop Drive. An environmental impact report would address the cumulative affect. Reference: 1. Community Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act by J. William Yeates, ESC ., Planning & Conservation League Foundation 2402. Appeal of SDOI-8533 Page 2 2. MARIN ROAD: The second access read to this property, Marin Road, is currently a substandard County read with no sidewalks or curbs, lame pot holes, and is very narrow with no delineated sides. The read is currently a dead end, so steep that you cannot see the bottom part of the slope. It is like looking over the Grand Canyon. The Developer does not intend to make any improvements to this road nor has the County required him to do so even though he was required to improve the access road to one of his other projects with a similar,narrow entrance road. The lack of improvements to Marin Read poses a threat to all existing residents and to the new residents as well. 3. PARRS: There are no county parks in the El Sobrante area. The local planning advisory group has made it clear to Mr. Afshar since the first meeting that we want a tot lot or play area on site. If a park is not required, we ask that the County require the developer to pay $50,000 to$70,000 to the County Service Area R-9 Committee so they can partner with the school district,the EBRPD, or another entity to provide play structures. For your information,the developer of the County project, Appian Village, was required to pay $70,000 to CSA R-9 in lieu of a tot lot on that site. The developer of the Richmond 40 home project on Valley View at May Road will provide$50,000 to upgrade a neighborhood parr rather than put a small park on that site. If no park is built on this site, Mr.Afshar should be required to pay money to offset the lass of the on-site park. 4. LAND USE: The property is zoned R-7 even though it is in conflict with statements in the General Flan, item 10-28. We respectfully call your attention to these county slope protection policies from the General Plan Safety Element: 10-28 "Generally, residential density shall decrease as slope increases,especially above a 15% slope" and 1.0-29 "Significant hillsides with slopes over 26%or more shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading or other land disturbance". An EIR needs to be done to define which land is actually buildable. This development has slopes of 5 to 1 (20%),4 to 1 (25%) and 3 to 1 (33 1!3%) as described in Mr. Afshar's own geological report. 5. GEOLOGY: The Geological report goes on to say"Areas of the site to be built on or paved should be stripped to remove any surface vegetation, organic top soils,and existing debris. Stripping depths should be determined in the field by the Soils Engineer at the time of stripping but for planning purposes an average depth of 3 inches may be assumed." Taking every bit of vegetation and top soil, as recommended in the Geological Report, will significantly change the visual nature of the land and provide a terrible dust problem for all residents. There is no provision in the plan to control the dust. This is in violation of CEQA law. Taping every bit of vegetation away will deprive the wildlife of their natural food supply. Appeal of SD01-8533 Pa2e 3 Mr. Afshar's Orion Court Project(Renfrew Court project)has been bare dirt for a year and a half and there is no indication that the Garrity Creek project will be any different. Again,the visual affect,the dust and loss of food for wildlife will have a substantial and destructive affect. Another reason for an EIR requirement. Contra Costa County's General Plan, section 8. Conservation Element 8-14, page 8-29 states that development on hillsides shall be limited to maintain valuable natural vegetation, especially forests and open space lands, and to control erosion. 8-15 Existing vegetation, both native and non-native,and wild life habitat areas shall be retained in the major open space areas sufficient for the maintenance of a healthy balance of wild life populations. 8-24 The County shall strive to identify and conserve remaining upland habitat areas which are adjacent to wetlands and critical to the surviving and nesting of wetland species. NATURAL SPRING: Lot 29 contains a natural spring and riparian area. The current plan is to build a home on the site and have the homeowner be responsible for the riparian area and spring. In addition, a sewer line is planned on the lot. One Commissioner pointed out, in the Planning Hearings,that in order to protect this riparian area, you cannot have an individual homeowner responsible for the area. The lot should be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association's by laws. DRAINAGE PROBLEMS IN HILLTOP GREEN: There have been slides and flooding in the Hilltop Green area which is a 500 homes subdivision located next to Afshar's project. Hilltop green is below the Afshar project and all water will drain to that area. At this time,the County has no information on the adequacy of the Hilltop Green Drainage system to contain the drainage from the Afshar project. County staff has required the applicant to get that information and provide it to them at some future time, after the project approval. GARRITY CREEK VIDEO: We urge the County Board.of Supervisors to allow us to show you our video of Garrity Creek. CONCLUSION: We concur with the statement of our attorney Keith Wagner of the law office of J. William Yeates,that the initial study prepared for this project is legally inadequate. For these stated reasons,the El Sobrante Valley Planning& Zoning Advisory Committee,the Friends of Garrity Creek, and the Hilltop Neighborhood Association appeal the Planning Commission decisions on SDOI-8533 to the Board of Supervisors. We feel that a full Environmental Impact Report should be required to provide complete and documented evidence of the impacts and mitigation measures needed to deal with environmental impacts, including the size of the project. Contacts: Eleanor Loynd at 510-223-6398 for the ESVP&ZAC. Barbara Pendergrass at 223-6091 for the Friends of Garrity Creek/Hilltop Neighborhood Asso. Sincerely, LZ El Sobrante Valley 1MZ Adv.Committee Friends of Garrity Creek Hilltop Neighborhood Association Appeal of SDOI-8533 Paze 4 Attachments: 1. Comments on the Environmental Checklist for Sub 8533, CDD File# SDO1--8533 from.Keith Wagner, Attorney with Law Office of J. W. 'Yeates. 5/21/04 2. Comments on Negative Declaration for Sub 8533 from Friends of Garrity Creek/Hilltop Neighborhood Association. 11/17/03 3. Comments on Mitigated Legative Declaration for Sub 8533 from El Sobrante"Valley Planning&Zoning Advisory Committee with attachments 5/25/04 4. Community wide to The California Environmental Quality Act by J. William Yeates, ESQ. Planning and Conservation League Foundation 2002. cc: Supervisor John Gioia Assemblywoman Loni Hancock Ruby Molinari E. S. M. A. C. Howard Sodja, E. S. Greens E. S. Chamber of Commerce hilltop Green HOA Elizabeth.O'Shea, Spawners E.S. GSA R-9 Committee Sierra.Club-West County Group E.S. Valley Legal Defense Fund May Valley Neighborhood.Council ATTACI BVI ENTS: 1. Comments on the Environmental Checklist for Sub 8533, CDD Pile#SD01-8533 from Keith Wagner, Attorney with Lave Office of J. W. Yeates 5/21/04 2. Comments on Negative Declaration for Sub 8533 from Friends of Garrity Creek/Hilltop Neighborhood Association 11/7/03 3. Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration for Sub 8533 from El Sobrante Valley Planning&Zoning Advisory Committee with attachments 5/25/04 4. Community Guide to The California Environmental Quality Act by J. William Yeates, ESQ. Planning and Conservation League Foundation 2002. 1 . LAW OFFICE OF J. WILLIAM YEATES 8002 CALIFORNIA AVENUE FAIR OAKS, CALIFORNIA 95628 TELEPHONE: (916) 8602000 FACSIMILE: (916) 860-2014 MARY U.ARMN3 I.WILMAM YEATES info@envirogttaIityIaw.com KEITH G.WAGNER May 21, 2004 Mr. Darwin Meyers Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine St.,4th Floor,N.Wing Martinez,CA 94553 Re: Comments on Environmental Checklist for Subdivision 8533,CDL?File# SD018533 (Oct. 20,2003). Dear Mr. Meyers: This later, on behalf of our client,Friends of Garrity Creek,provides comments on the initial study that the County has prepared for the above referenced project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act C"CEQA").1 These comments are submitted for your and the Planning Commission's consideration"prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination."2 These comments are in addition to,and do not in any way replace or supersede,any prior comments submitted by our client regarding the proposed project. The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires a lead agency to prepare an environmental impact report(EIR)whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a"fair argument"that a proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment.3 "[S]ubstantial evidence includes fact,a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact,or expert opinion supported by fact."4 A mitigated negative declaration,rather than a full EIR,may be approved for a project only if 1)revisions In the protect,before release of the initial study for public review,will clearly avoid or mitigate effects beyond significance,and 2)there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record,that the revised project may have a significant impact on the environment.5 1 Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq. 2 Pub. Resources code, §21177,subds.(a)and(b). 3 See Pub. Resources Code,§§21080,subd. (d),21082.2, subd.(d),Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 14, ch. 3 C CEQA Guidelines"), § 15064,subd.(f)(1);No Coil, ,Inc. v. City o f Los Angeles(1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75 (stating that CEQA"requires the preparation of an EIR.whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact."). 4 Pub. Resources Code, § 21080,subd.(e)(1). 5 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21064.5, 21080,subd. (c)(2). Mr. Darwin Mayere May 21,2004 Page 2 of 9 As plainly stated by California's Court of Appeal,"if substantial evidence in the record supports a`Fair argument' significant impacts or effects may occur,an EIR is required and a negative declaration cannot be certified." California case law also makes it clear that a mitigated negative declaration cannot be approved if it relies on mitigation measures that have not been formulated at the time of project approval.? The proposed project cannot be approved at this time,because the initial study that has been prepared by the County is legally inadequate. As the following discussion demonstrates,the information that is contained in the initial study is inadequate to support a determination that all of the proposed project's potentially significant,adverse environmental effects have been clearly avoided,or mitigated to a"less-than-significant"level.& Accordingly,the proposed project cannot be approved until,at the very least,a revised environmental document is prepared for the County's consideration. Io AESTHETICS The County's initial study acknowledges that the proposed project,which proposes to build 40 lots on a steep, 10-acre hillside,"will substantially change the visual character of the site as viewed from lots in the adjacent neighborhood." But the initial study then goes on to opine that the project"could fairly be considered `infill' development."'(' No substantial evidence is cited to support this conclusory opinion. The initial study then states that a"well planned project that protects the channel of Garrity Creek and which complies with the standards/requirements of the CDFG,RWQCB and Corps of Engineers,will not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site."" No substantial evidence supports the County's conclusory statements that the project will not have significant,adverse aesthetic impacts. First,whether or not the site is"planned for residential development"is not responsive to CEQA's requirement that change to the existing environment be analyzed.12 Second,none of the agencies cited in the initial study are s Quail Botanical Gardens v. City ofEncinitaas(1994)29 Cal.AppAth 1597, 1601-02. 7 See Gentry v. City ofMurrieta(1935)36 Cal.AppAth 1359, 1396(holding that adoption of mitigation measures is improperly deferred where City's mitigated negative declaration reserved the right,after project approval,to require a study of affected,listed species and compliance with mitigation measures that might be recommended by the study);, undstrom v. County of Mendocino(1988)202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306.314(holding that county cannot rely on other agencies' ability to subsequently devise means of avoiding project's potentially significant impacts). 8 Pub.Resources Cade, §§21€764.5; 21080. subd.(c). Contra Costa County Community Development:Dept.,Environmental Checklist Form,project Title: Subdivision 8533,CDD File#SDO18533 (Hillview)(Oct. 13,2003)(hereinafter"Initial Study"), at p. 5. as Initial Study,at p. 5. The project consists of 15-30 percent slopes. (Initial Study,at p.6.) " Initial Study,at p. 5. 12 Environmental Planning and Information Council v. County of El Dorado(1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 3517, 355. Mr.Darwin Meyers May 21, 2004 Page,3 of 9 responsible for aesthetic impacts,and so complying with these agencies' standards and requirements regarding 1)wildlife mitigation,2)water quality protection,or 3)wetland mitigation will not clearly ensure that the project will have no aesthetic impacts. On its own terms,the initial study declares that the project will result in,substantial changes to the visual character of the area. Unless and until specific and identifiable changes are incorporated into the project that will clearly reduce such substantial changes beyond significance,the project may not be approved based on a negative declaration. II. .Alit QUALITY The mitigated negative declaration acknowledges that the project may have both short-term air quality effects associated with construction,and long-term air quality effects associated with commute trips. Rather than quantify or analyze these effects in any way,the initial study states that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District has elected not to respond to the initial study. Again,no substantial evidence in the record supports the initial study's conclusion that the project clearly will have no significant,adverse short-or long-terra air quality effects. The lacy of comment from BAAQ1" D's is not substantial evidence that the project will not have adverse effects on air quality. As just one example,other parts of the initial study make it clear that substantial movement of earth and grading will be required to carry out the proposed project.13 But not a single mitigation measure is proposed to control fugitive dust associated with such earth movement and grading. Construction-level mitigation measures that are typically included in residential construction projects of this type as a matter of course include covering filled truck Beds,wetting or seeding disturbed areas depending on length of exposure,and monitoring weather conditions. The initial study also fails to address all other construction related air impacts, including, but not limited to diesel particulate and volatile organic emissions. Put simply, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Linder CEQA,the burden of environmental review and investigation is on the lead agency.14 At the least,the initial study must be revised to acknowledge that potentially significant air quality impacts may exist and to incorporate measures that will clearly avoid such impacts or reduce them to less than significant levels. Since the initial study entirely fails to investigate,let alone identify,potentially significant impacts related to air quality,any revised initial study with corresponding mitigation:measures would also have to be recirculated for public review and comment before the project can be approved.15 The agency cannot hide behind its utter failure to gather any air quality data, and must,at the very least,take the affirmative steps necessary to engage in a meaningful evaluation of the direct,indirect and cumulative air quality impacts that the project may have.t6 " Initial Study,at pp. 15-20(noting requirement of substantial grading and presence of highly erosive soils 14 Cf.Mountain bion Foundation v. Fish and Game Commission(1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134. 15 CEQA Guidelines, § 15073.5, subd.(b)(1). 16 Sundstrom,supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 311. Mr. Darwin Mayem May 21,20014 Page 4 of a III. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The initial study attempts to re-characterize the project's biological and other impacts in a last minute"peer review"by Monk and Associates that purportedly summarizes the various biological reports that have been submitted to date.' Because the standard of review for a mitigated negative declaration is whether substantial evidence in the whole record supports a "fair argument"that the project may have significant adverse effects,the Monk and Associates "peer reviews"cannot be relied upon to negate or discount the actual substantial evidence in the underlying studies and reports indicating that the project may,in fact,have significant,adverse effects on biological and other resources that have not been mitigated to"less-than-significant" levels.18 In addition,our client and other members of the public have also submitted numerous questions and comments raising a"fair argument"that the project may have significant,adverse biological impacts that are not adequately addressed in the initial study.This letter hereby incorporates by reference,and re-raises as substantive objections, all such comments. IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS A. LANDSLIDE/SLOPE STABILITY The initial study acknowledges that the project is located on"expansive soil, . . .creating substantial risk to life or property[. "19 The initial study claims that such impacts will be"less- than-significant"with mitigation incorporated. However,the mitigation measures proposed to reduce such impacts to insignificance relies on the post-approval preparation of an"Updated Geotechnical Report and Remediation Plan"that will include"additional subsurface exploration and evaluation of slope stability."2a The initial study violates CEQA because it defers meaningful evaluation of the project's impacts with regard to landslides and slope stability until well after the project is approved.21 This deferral is particularly troublesome in light of CEQA's requirement of a mandatory finding of significance for any potential project impacts that may result in"substantial adverse effects on human beings:'"" if the potential exists that grading permits cannot be issued for the project due to landslide potential,Haat information should be adequately investigated by the County and disclosed to the public before project approval. B. EROSION AND SEDIMENTA'110N The initial study,acknowledges that the project has the"potential to cause significant erosion of unprotected slopes,and downslope sedimentation both on-and off-site."23 in order to offset Initial Study,at p. 10. 18 Pub. Resources Code, §§21080, subd. (d),21082.2,subd. (d). a9 Initial Study,at p. 15(response VID.). 20 Initial Study,at p. 17. 21 Gentry,supra,36 Cal.App.4th at 1396. 22 CEQA Guidelines, § 15065, subd.(d). 23 Initial Study,at p. 18. Mr. Darwin Meyer May 21,2004 Page 5of9 short-term erosion impacts associated with construction,the initial study requires the applicant to submit an erosion control plan prior to obtaining a grading permit.-24 However,no specific performance standards are included,either directly or by reference, in the initial study indicating haw the effectiveness of the applicant's erosion control plan will be measured to ensure that the project's admitted,potentially significant erosion impacts will be mitigated to"less-than- significant" levels.25 Again,the deferral of the development of such plants until after project approval violates CEQA. In addition,the initial study claims that long-term erasion impacts will be mitigated by "incorporat(ingj the appropriate design,construction and continued maintenance of one or more" proposed long-term measures,but again, fails to establish any performance standards that clearly indicate that erasion will be reduced to"less-than-significant" levels by incorporation of any or all of the proposed measures.26 Moreover,one of the proposed long-term mitigation measures simply states that"[c]oncentrated runoff`shall not be permitted to drain over cut or fill slopes."27 This is a normative statement, it is not a mitigation measure.28 The initial study might as well announce that"rain exceeding 1/2 inch in any twenty-four hour period shall not be permitted to fall on the project site." The unanswered CEQA question is,what specific changes will be made in the project to ensure that runoff will not drain over cut or fill slopes,whether"permitted"or not? C. EXPANSIVE E SOILS AND/OR BEDROCK As with the discussion of landslides and slope stability,the initial study admits that expansive soils may result in potentially significant adverse environmental effects, but improperly defers the preparation of an `Updated Geotechnical Report"to describe such impacts and to propose alternatives or mitigation measures to offset such impacts until after project approval.29 V. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The initial study nates that the City of Richmond has submitted comments 1)that"identified existing water problems and landslides,as well as`springs' within the Hilltop Green development,"2)that drainage through Hilltop Green is"barely manageable at present,"and 3 that drainage from the project site will flow through Hilltop Green.30 Accordingly the City requested the County to prepare an E1R to analyzed downstream effects on drainage. 24 Initial Study,at p. 19. 25 Sacramento Old City Association v. City cif Sacramento C'SOCA")(1991)229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 14329. 26 SOCA,supra,2229 Cal.App.3d at 1429. 27 Initial Study at p. 19. 28 CEQA Guidelines, § 15370. 29 Initial Study,at p. 241; Gentry,supra, 36 Cal.AppAth at 1396. See discussion at part Iv.A, supra. 30 Initial Study, at p. 23. Mr. Darwin Mayers May 21,2004 Page 6 of 9 The initial study first improperly attempts to shift the County's affirmative burden to affirmatively investigate such impacts to the City.31 CEQA does not allow the County to excuse itself from analyzing the project's effects on the existing environment,which includes the existing,acknowledged drainage problems in Hilltop Green.32 The initial study then states that"[t]he problems experienced by Hilltop green appear to be associated with deficiencies to the internal drainage structures."33 The initial study's admission that drainage problems in Hilltop Green exist(whether due to"internal"problems or not)cannot be reconciled with its attempt in time very next sentence to dismiss drainage problems at Hilltop Green as only"public controversy"or"speculation." The initial study then goes on to admit that the drainage studies that were prepared by the County for the project only"evaluated the internal drainage system of the project and not the adequacy of downstream drainage facilities:"34 The initial study thein notes that the applicant's drainage report,claiming that runoff from the site will be kept at pre-development levels,only analyzed a 25-year flood event. Perhaps recognizing the weakness of its own analysis,the initial study concludes by stating that changes will be required in the project"as part of the final design and plan review process'"to "ensure that the project dries not have an adverse effect on the reported downstream drainage inadequacies within the Hilltop Green project, Interstate 80, or any other downstream drainage facilities." As before,the initial study,has unlawfully deferred conducting an adequate investigation of the project's impacts on regional drainage,and alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce or avoid such impacts to"less-than-significant" levels, or establishing performance standards for such impacts, until after project approval 35 V1. LAND USE AND PLANNING The initial study recites General Plan Policy 10-29: "Significant hillsides with slopes over 26 percent or more shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading or other land disturbances."36 As previously noted,the initial study states that the project is proposed for areas that contains slopes greater than.26 percent,and will require extensive grading and other land disturbance. The initial study's claire that"compliance with Policy] . . . 10-29 [is] subject to interpretation" cannot be squared with case law making it clear that land use approvals must be vertically consistent with mandatory general plan policies.37 Regardless of the County's"practice" in the 31 xS'undstrom,supra,202 Cal.App.3d at 311. 32 Pub.Resources Code, §§216k5,21080,subd. (d). 33 Initial Study, at pp.23-24. 34 Initial Study,at p.24. 3s Gentry,supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at 1396;Sundstrom,supra,202 Cal.App.3d at 311. 36 Initial Study,at p.26,Table 9(emphasis added). 3'7 Families Unafraid to Upheld Rural El Dorado County v. card of'Supervisors('FUTURE) (1998)62 Cal.AppAth 1332, 1341-1342. Mr. Darwin Meyers May 21,2004 Page 7 of 9 past,the fact remains that the General Flan fvrhids projects that require extensive grading on hillsides of more than 26 percent. The initial study is defective because it fails to acknowledge that the proposed project is inconsistent with mandatory policies in the general plan.38 Moreover,the project cannot be approved as proposed because it is facially inconsistent with the County's mandatory general plan policies. V11. Nom As with construction-related air quality impacts,the initial study is completely devoid of any investigation of or limitations on construction-related noise irnpacts.39 The initial study fails to contain even the most basic noise control measures, such as limitations on hours of construction, that are included as a matter of course in most residential projects. As stated above,the County bears the affirmative burden under CEQA of at least considering the project's potential to have adverse noise effects on neighboring residents,and to propose mitigation measures or alternatives to mitigate such impacts. Because the negative declaration fails to even recognize the potential for such impacts, it must be revised and recirculated for public review before the project can be approved.40 With regard to Tong-term noise impacts,the initial study freely admits that noise levels will increase as the number of residences in the area increases from one to forty 41 The initial study lists several new sources of noise emissions, including air conditioners, lawn mowing,and outdoor recreational use.42 But,the initial study.makes no effort at all to quantify or analyze such impacts,and claims—with no factual support--that long-term noise impacts will be"less- than-significant."43 The project cannot be approved until the County provides some factual basis for its determinations regarding noise impacts. V111. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF%GNII=ICANCE As noted above,the deferral of investigation of the project's potential for landslides suggests that the project may have"substantial adverse effects on human beings."44 Unless and until this potential impact is adequately investigated and clearly mitigated.to"less-than-significant" levels a mandatory finding sof significance is required for the project based on its uncertain potential for impacts on humans 45 " Initial Study,p. 25 (purporting to claim that conflicts with the County's General Plan are"Less Than Significant"). "'Initial Study,p. 28. 40 GENA Guidelines, § 15073.5, subd. (b)(1). 41 Initial Study,p. 28. 42 Initial Study,pp.28-29. 43 Initial Study,p. 28. 44 See discussion at part IV.A,supra. 45 CEQA Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (d). Mr.Darwin Mayers May 21,2004 Page 8 of 9 IX. BROWN ACT J PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CONCERNS Finally,our client is concerned about the difficulty they have encountered in accessing the documents that will be before the Planning Commission for its May 25,2004 hearing. Our client is under the impression that the most recent staff report for this project will not made available to the public until after the Community Development Department's close of business on Friday, May 21, 2004. For all practical purposes,this means that the earliest the public might be able to access the County's staff report for the project is less than 48 hours before the Planning Commission's proposed action on the project. California's Brown Act generally requires that any writings that are made available to a majority or all members of a board shall be made available to the public without delay'46 It is unclear whether the staff"report and other documents that will be before the Planning Commission have been provided to the Planning Commissioners. If they Have,the Brown Act requires staff to grant the public immediate access as well. Beyond the Brown Act,the public process is impaired when relevant reports and information regarding a project are not provided for public review with adequate time to meaningfully consider and understand their content. Without adequate time for such review, the holding of "public meeting" becomes an empty symbolic eventlacking public confidence or legitimacy. Especially in light of the well-known public concern and controversy over this project, fundamental fairness—as well as due process concepts of"open governance"and"public accountability"--require that the public should be given a meaningful opportunity to review and respond to information that is provided to their elected or appointed decisionmaking officials. X. CONCLUSION As stated at the beginning of this letter,the initial study prepared for the proposed project is legally inadequate. The initial study 1)fails to acknowledge several of the project's potentially significant impacts,2)defers the analysis of adverse environmental effects until after project approval,3)defers the development of mitigation measures or alternatives until after project approval,4)fails to establish meaningful performance standard for.mitigation measures,5) improperly places the burden on the public and other agencies to identify the project's potentially significant adverse environmental effects,and 6)fails to make required,mandatory findings of significance with regard to impacts to human beings. Moreover,the project cannot be approved because it is inconsistent with the County's mandatory general plan policy prohibiting projects that require extensive grading on slopes exceeding 26 percent. The Planning Commission should also put over any final decision on the project to a later meeting,and continue the opportunity for further public comment until all of the documents and reports that are to be taken under consideration by the Commission have been provided to the public with adequate time to allow those who are concerned about the project and its impacts to understand,and raise any concerns they may have about,the content of such information. 46 Gov. Code, §54957.5,subd. (a). Mr. Darty€n Meyers May 21,2004 Page 9 of 9 For the foregoing reasons,our client,Friends of Garrity Creek,opposes approval of the project at this time. Our client also hereby incorporates by reference all prior comments that they and all ether parties have submitted regarding the proposed project. Centra Costa County should not approve the proposed project mail a revised mitigated negative declaration is prepared that demonstrates,based on the"whole"of the record before the County,that all of the project's effects have been mitigated to"less-than-significant" levels, or until an EER is prepared to analyze the project's remaining,potentially significant adverse environmental effects. Sincerely, /signed/ Keith Wagner Friends of Garrity Creek Hilltop NeighborhoodAssociation November 17, 2003 Community Development Department -Attention: Mr. Darwin Myers County Administration Building-651 Pine Street, 4"' Floor, forth Wing Martinez CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Myers, We are submitting these comments in compliance with the November 24, 2003 deadline for public comment on SD 01-8533, and may amend or expand them K the comment period is extended (as we have requested in our letter of November 17, 2003, based on the fact that notification sloes not appear to have been made in compliance with the California Environmental{duality Act page 9D.} We strongly oppose your recommendation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Even with the proposed mitigations,there is substantial evidence that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment,thus requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the proposed project prior to approving or carrying out the project. Your recommendation shows insufficient consideration of the many issues that we and other consented organizations and individuals have brought to your attention through a number of previous letters, petitions, and meetings. As you are aware, an EIR has been requested in writing by the Richmond City Council, El Sobrante Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Urban Creek Council, friends of Garrity Creek, Hilltop Green Homeowners Association, and the Hilltop Neighborhood Association_ In addition, hundreds of individuals have signed petitions sent to your office in opposition to this development. Many significant issues have been raised in the course of numerous letters to your office and meetings with you, including: • Floodingin the steer—including in the Manor Drive and Hilltop green areas. Your study states that no flooding problems are known to FEMA between this site and Interstate 80. In fact, FEMA paid $160,000, to address flooding problems in Hilltop Green (see attached letter, May 19, 1998). This was not a permanent fix to the problem. Solutions are needed before any development aggravates existing flooding problems. (See attachment, Notice of Interest to FEMA for Improvements to Garrity Creek from 1-80 to Blume Drive, cost$521,125 • Trak problems—existing bottleneck and safety problems will be exacerbated. Your study greatly underestimates traffic impact by estimating only two trips generated per day. A higher number is certainly more accurate in an area such as this with only limited public transportation. The additional traffic on Hilltop Drive could be crippling. Heavy traffic problems on Hilltop Drive, particularly at school drop-off and pick-up times, and commute times, have resulted in two significant accidents of which we are aware just in the last two weeks, occurring on Hilltop Drive between Pebble and Renfrew Road intersections. We are sure that traffic records would indicate many more collisions. Residents report that Hilltop is a heavily traveled two-lane street which is already over capacity at peak hours, even without the additional traffic that 40 more homes would bring. Another intersection at the proposed"Royal Oaks Chive"would further choke this street, without adding any capacity. Although a left- Page i of 9 hand turn lane had been discussed, your notice does not include this lane or any signal lights. • tlnsuitabili# of the site for devel2gm+ent—studies provided have misrepresented or not completely studied this slide-prone area. Your study states that the April 2001 report from AMSO on geology and soils doesn't require updating because the number of homes was reduced from 44 homes to 40 homes. The AMSO report is inadequate in that: . The report mentions only three of the five parcels, and therefore does need to be updated to include all five parcels. The developer has ganged the design of the project twice since that report was released. Relevant changes include construction on the very steep area at the endof Marin Road. No provision is made in your study for possible slides or damages to homes on Marin Road. The AMBO report states that bedrock was not located when hales were bored, but the existence of bedrock was "assumed"by them. boreholes should be drilled to the depth necessary to prove the existence and depth of bedrock below proposed home foundations. If the County approves existing plans without 1) proof of the location of bedrock and ) incorporating appropriate engineering for the actual conditions, the County risks legal liability for any homes in or surrounding the proposed development that are damaged by future landslides. * Adverse effect on the environment and wildlife W elimination of habitat is not acceptable. This project'proposes to take 10.09 acres of slide-prone land now providing a habitat to diverse wildlife, and replace that habitat with asphalt, concrete, and homes. Every bit of surface dirt, every blade of grass will be graded of removed. A neighborhood already beset with flooding, traffic and infrastructure problems will be further stretched, perhaps to the breaking point. To describe such a project as having no significant environmental impact is a complete misrepresentation of common sense and fact. Requirements of CEQA itself-- substantial_evidence DOES exist that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA requires that"a lead public agency must prepare an environmental impact report whenever a discretionary project may have a significant and adverse physical effect on the environment."' Our group and ethers have provided a great deal of significant environmental impact,which has not been sufficiently addressed by your proposed mitigated negative declaration. An Environmental Impact Report must be prepared that adequately addresses the potential significant environmental effect. Your Notice mentions variances requested for retaining walls, lot size, and protected trees. if you are implying that these variances are acceptable, please explain your reasoning. Our response to each of your points follows: 1. Aesthetics You indicate less than significant impact to Aesthetics, including scenic vista, scenic resources, degradation of visual character, and creation of substantial light or glare. We strongly disagree. There is no question but that the aesthetic impact will be severe. The site is a beautiful hilly open area with a lovely and thriving creek area at the bottom, supporting a diversity of wildlife. It is currently undeveloped, used by wildlife as well as a path for neighborhood school children to access schools and a nature study Page 2 of 9 area by neighborhood teachers and classes. It is adjacent to surrounding properties used for horses and other farm animals. Certainly removing all existing trees and vegetation, and replacing them with rooftops and pavements will have a substantial impact on the visual character and quality of the site and surrounding areas. The crowding of human habitation will wipe out wildlife habitats and pose danger to neighboring horses and farm animals. II. Agricultural Resources—no comment at this time. 11 1. Air Quality—the addition of 40 homes complete with fireplaces in this steep canyon will unquestionably negatively impact the air quality in the area, already at risk due to proximity to Highway 80. Smoke from fireplaces is likely to be concentrated in the immediate area, which is surrounded by.steep ridges. IV. Ifiologlcal Resources—you have indicated that impact will be less than.significant with mitigation, based in part on a report from the firms LSA and Woods. LSA should not be considered a credible source. As we mentioned in a previous letter, their report on the Clark Road project in EI Sobrante has been shown to have left out over 25 out of 32 seeps and streams, much wildlife and habitat, including a landmark cypress tree estimated at 120-160 years old. It is obvious that grading and removal of all vegetation on the site will have a severe negative effect on the habitat and wildlife in the area. Please refer to our previous communications on this subject. Mitigation that only avoids work disruptive to nesting birds during nesting season IS NOT ADEQUATE. This does not address the removal of habitat, not only of birds but other wildlife. Lot 29 is mentioned as having evidence of"groundwater seepage". In fact, this is a natural year-round spring that feeds the creek and a riparian area. This site is completely inappropriate for any development other than creek and riparian conservation. An earlier map in your files lists lot 29 as all riparian prier to mitigation mentioned in your negative declaration.. This project plans to place a creek which is now partially in a natural state into culverts. This is clearly a severe negative environmental Impact, as well as a highly questionable practice for containment of flooding. Weare opposed to the proposed fence in that it prevents animals from having access to wildlife corridors and to fresh water, and lessens the likelihood that the creek area can be preserved an maintained by restricting access. Simply putting the creek behind a fence without access invites creation of a dumping ground. Now will this creek be maintained and conserved under this proposal? V. Cultural Resources - your study finds"less than significant impact"by the project in this area with mitigation, based on the archaeological report submitted by pacific Legacy Inc.,Apri128,2001. This report is inadequate in that, • The report excluded one out of the five parcels that constitute the proposed site. • The report did not include study of significant areas. • The report did not include study of steep slope areas. Page 3 of 9 Pacific Legacy Inc. confined their observations to walking"zigzag"in areas with less than 30%slope on four of the five parcels. The excluded parcel {#426192-008, 2.08 acres} contains a natural year-round spring that feeds Garrity Creek. Such a spring is a likely gathering place for native peoples seeking fresh water, and therefore likely to contain evidence of their history. The report further states that blackberry bushes obscured the creek banks, preventing them from closer observation. Creep banks are again a likely plane for cultural artifacts, as are areas high on a steep hill with a good overlook for hunting or observation. The report states that six prehistoric sites have been recorded within a mile of the proposed site. One historic resource, the farm complex, is located approximately one- half mile south of the project site. A creek fed by two natural springs in close proximity would be a likely site for a small village. A complete and detailed archaeological inspection should be completed prior to this project approval. The proposed mitigation requiring that construction operations cease if artifacts, human burials or the like are found is insufficient. Any construction worker will tell you that such requirements are rarely honored. Please refer to the letter supporting our recommendation from one of the experts mentioned in the archaeological report, Katherine Perez of the Ohlone Indian Tribe, Most Likely Descendant Also please refer to the report written by Michael Ali, Native American historian, regarding his preliminary observation of this area. V1. Geology and Sails--your study states that the April 2001 report from AMBO on geology and soils doesn't require updating because the number of homes was reduced from 44 homes to 40 homes. The AMSC? report is inadequate in that. • The report mentions only three of the five parcels, and therefore does need to be updated to include all five parcels. The developer has changed the design of the project twice since that report was released. Relevant changes include construction on the very steep area at the end of Marin Road. No provision is made in your study for possible slides or damages to homes on Marin Road. • The AMSC) report states that bedrock was not located when holes were bored, but the existence of bedrock was"assumed"by them. Boreholes should be drilled to the depth necessary to prove the existence and depth of bedrock glow proposed home foundations. if the County approves existing plans without 1) proof of the location of bedrock and 2} incorporating appropriate engineering for the actual conditions, the County risks legal liability for any homes in or surrounding the proposed development that are damaged by future landslides. • In our letter of March 2002, we mentioned several concerns raised by the AMSO report, including --the likelihood of liquefaction of soil under the influence of severe ground shaking —a "minor" slope failure that we asserted is much larger than they describe. We have supplied photos in previous letters demonstrating its size. --the fact that they could not thoroughly examine the area. You have not addressed these issues. • Lot 29 is mentioned as having evidence of"groundwater seepage." In fact, this is a natural year-round spring that feeds the creek and a riparian area. This site is completely inappropriate for any development other than creek and riparian conservation. We have previously documented our concerns about this developer's record based on engineering failures in his 10-home project off Renfrew Court and his project on Stanley Page 4 of 9 Lane. Given the failure of his engineering and construction methods in the past, we have repeatedly expressed concern that significant construction errors will be made. Again, we urge that a bond be required of the developer of a value high enough to address any future problems caused by poor construction or design. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials--no comments at this time VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality—your study states that no flooding problems are known to FEMA between this site and Interstate 80. In fact, FEMA paid $160,000, to address flooding problems in Hilltop Green(see attached letter, May 19, 1998). This was not a permanent fisc to the problem. Solutions are needed before any development aggravates existing flooding problems. (See attachment, Notice of Interest to FEMA for Improvements to Garrity Creek from 1-80 to Blume Drive, cost $521,125 The City of Richmond has requested an EIR for this proposal to address the problem of flooding that has already occurred downstream of the project, notably at and near Hilltop Green. Wastewater must run through the pumping station at Hilltop Green, under the freeway and on to Garrity Lake. A permanent fix needs to be made to the site where the water.drops from the pipe under the freeway to the bed of Garrity Creek and through the. pipe to Garrity Lake. As explained to us, the creek bed fills with silt and hinders the drainage from under the freeway, backing up to the Hilltop Green pumping station. West County Wastewater District has told us that this has caused flooding problems in Hilltop Green, damaging the electrical mechanism used by the pump to pump from Hilltop Green to the other side of the freeway. The last time this took place,FEMA paid $160,000,to repair the pumping station. Unless this problemis fixed on the other side of the freeway to approximately 1000 feet of creek bed, additional wastewater from 40 homes and loss of permeable surfaces will hugely increase the amount of water fed through the system from Garrity Creek drainage. Under Project Objectives, the homeowners association is to be established with some maintenance responsibilities. However, no responsibility is assigned for Garrity Creek itself, or for the culvert that passes under Park Cental. A permanent and adequate solution to this.complex legal/administrative problem must be reached. Consideration of possible damages caused by the increase in water through the system must be included. We have previously noted that the replacement of a natural area by a paved one can only exacerbate flooding problems, and will not detail this information again here. IX. Land Use and Planning Your study may underestimate the percentage of this site than exceeds 26% slope, thus meeting the criteria for preservation as open space as specified in the County General Flan. In fact, we question whether the site should be zoned R-7. This designation may be in error or in contradiction to the Open Space Ordinance and should be addressed by the Planning [department. Your study lists the percentage of land exceeding 26% slope as 16.4%. In fact, that percentage may be much higher, in that • The slope map provided of the site includes properties with 0-15% slope that are in fact not part of this development, i.e. parcels 426-192-006 and 426-192-007 owned by Claremont. Page 5 of 9 • It appears that these parcels have been mistakenly included in your study's calculation of slope categories, if so, the percentages that should be shown as 15- 26% slope and 26%and above are in fact much higher than the 67.5% and 16.4% listed. 0 Your calculation should have been based on categories consistent with the General Plan, namely slopes 15-25%, and then slopes 26% and higher. Again, this could mean that you have incorrectly calculated the slope percentages on this site. Your statement that"developmentigrading proposed in areas of>26% slopes can be considered consistent with Policy 10-29" because of the location of the Garrity geek crossing and the Marin Road Connection, and because"the creek channels are to be retained and enhanced, " is completely unexplained. We are not aware of any enhancement to the creek channels on the other side of the proposed fence. The development creates an unworkable situation by selling lot 29 to an individual homeowner and at the same time designating part of the lot as mitigated wetlands or riparian areas. It is already a riparian area and contains one of the two fresh-water springs feeding the creek. Leat 29 should be accessible to wildlife and not be the responsibility of an individual who is purchasing it for the purposes of residential living. The designation of lot 29 as both a home site and the riparian mitigation area also appears to be in conflict with the statement that the homeowner's association, to be established,will be responsible for riparian landscaping planting material. The developer's plan shows grading and wall construction on this property. This,torr, conflicts with preserving it as a riparian area. You state that this project is appropriate in that it"in-fills..-previously passed-over property.'" We don't believe the concept of"in-fill"was ever intended to convert a semi- rural area into a.sea of housing developments. Our neighborhood wants, needs, and deserves preservation of some open space. X. Mineral Resources—no comment at this time XI. poise—Your study lists a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels caused by the project as having"no impact." This statement is contradicted by the experience of neighbors of another recent project by the same developer, off Renfrew Court in EI Sobrante. This 10-home project created a tremendous noise level impacting all residents of Renfrew Court and Renfrew Road for months. Certainly the use of heavy equipment such as earthmovers and double tractor- trucks will create a significant noise impact. XII. papulation and Housing the use of Marin Road will have a significant interest in traffic and pedestrian use. Marin Road is a narrow, sorb-standard road with no sidewalks. It is currently a dead-end road. Marin Road should not be used by the developer for construction or excavation vehicles, as it is too narrow and already in poor condition, Again, the example of this developer's Renfrew Court project is illustrative. This project became such a mess that a family whose house is at the entrance of the project moved out permanently during construction due to the poor design of the entranceway to this project. There have been two accidents that we know of in the last two weeks on Hilltop next to the proposed main entrance to this project, This entrance will increase traffic danger. Page 6 of 9 XI If. Public Service--your study claims "leas than significant impact" We have previously written to you that the recent West Centra Costa Unfired School District consultants'report showed local schools in terrible condition and lacking room for all of the developments currently planned for this.area. This information has been confirmed in conversation with the principal at El Sobrante School, the local elementary school. We suggested that the impact of the multiple local development plans on Juan Crespi Junior High and El Sobrante Elementary schools should be thoroughly evaluated before granting approval to 40 additional homes. XIV. Recreation—this area lacks park space, a lack that the.site itseff could be used to remedy. Residents are working on acquiring funds for purchase and maintenance of this property as a park and open space. We request county assistance in this effort to preserve the wildlife, the creek, wetlands and the natural habitat. Hilltop Green has a very small park area, not made for access for non-residents and not large enough in any case to accommodate recreational needs of the entire neighborhood, nor was it designed to do so. The EI Sobrante Park Study of 2001 lists this site as site 24 of potential sites for parks in EI Sobrante. In meetings with Supervisor John Gioia, our group requested that this site be prioritized for park use. In addition, the"Shaping Our Future"map marks this site as Open Space, and Garrity Creek as Riparian,Zone. Therefore plans do exist"'to establish a park use on the site." EI Sobrante is acknowledged as significantly underserved by park facilities. Will the County wait to take action on this until all suitable sites are occupied by developments? XV. Transportation and Travel According to the EI Sobrante Planning and Zoning Commission, each residential home generates an average of 8-10 car trips a day, totaling 320-400 trips a clay generated by this subdevelopment. Dept. of Transportation standards use an estimate of five trips per day, Your study greatly underestimates traffic impact by estimating only two trips generated per day. A higher number is certainly more accurate in an area such as this with only limited public transportation. The additional traffic on Hilltop Drive could be crippling. Heavy traffic problems on Hilltop drive, particularly at school drop-off and pick-up times, and commute times, have resulted in two significant accidents of which we are aware just in the last two weeks, occurring on Hilltop Drive between Pebble and Renfrew Road intersections. We are sure that traffic records would indicate many more collisions. Residents report that Hilltop is a heavily traveled two-lane street which is already over capacity at peak hours, even without the additional traffic that 40 more homes would bring. Another intersection at the proposed"royal Oaks Drive"would further choke this street, without adding any capacity. Although a left-hand tum lane had been discussed, your notice does not include this lane or any signal lights. Traffic is backed up at 8:20 a-m. from the light on Hilltop at to Paloma back to the cemetery and at tames to the freeway. This also has not been addressed. Compensation must be provided for construction damage including road damage, dust and dirt damage to the residents whose homes are adjacent to this project, as we have Page 7 of 9 repeatedly requested in previous letters. Huge amounts of dust and dirt will impact the residents and provisions should be made to include the cleaning of these residences. We question whether this developer's construction methods are feasible on Hilltop Drive. The developer's current project off Renfrew Court has entailed double-trailer trucks parked two and three deep,waiting to deliver or haul material to and from the site. It is questionable whether such trucks could even make the turn off Hilltop Drive. The Renfrew project entailed dropping and dumping of one trailer on Renfrew Road while the other one was loaded or unloaded. This method will not be workable on Hilltop Drive, and will cause extensive problems for all of the residents. On Renfrew Road, the weight of large trucks also caused large hales in the roadway. Public Works made temporary fixes but the problem has recurred. Such problems could severely impact heavily trafficked Hilltop Drive and the vehicles that travel it. Marin Road Is also likely to be negatively impacted by routing the traffic of these new homes through it. We discussed this in detail in our letter to you of September 2€03. Increased use would be extremely problematic on this street, where only one car can pass through if anyone is parked in the area 3 houses prior to the intersection with Hilltop Drive. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems We vigorously protest the plain for a sewer line through lot 29. Lot 29 contains the natural spring and riparian areas and should not be used for the sewer line. The danger of contamination of the spring and riparian area is obvious. XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance We disagree with your summary: in fact, there IS substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. We have prodded this evidence in detail over the last few yearn It is not in the County's interest to ignore the facts. This project proposes to take 10.09 acres of slide-prone land now providing a habitat to diverse wildlife, and replace that habitat with asphalt, concrete, and homes. Every bit of surface dirt, every blade of grass will be graded or removed. A neighborhood already beset with flooding,traffic and infrastructure problems will be further stretched, perhaps to the breaking point. To describe such a project as having no significant environmental impact is a complete misrepresentation of common sense and fact. Only a thorough Environmental Impact Report is adequate to address the issues we have raised here and In other communications. We request that the County NOT adopt the MitigatedNegative Declaration for Subdivision 8533. Sincerely, Barbara A. Pendergrass 745'Renfrew Road El Sobrante, Ca 91803 Page 8 of 9 Phone NBR 510 223-6091 Jesse Golden Hilltop Neighborhood Association & Friends of Garrity Creek Attachments: March 18, 1996 letter from West County Wastewater District to State of Calif. May 19, 1998 letter to Hilltop Green Homeowners Association from West County Wastewater District. (Grant of$160.000 from FEMA) May 14, 1997 Notice of Interest FEMA to the;Mate of Calif. from the City of Richmond. (Grant request amount$521,125) November 20, 2003 fax from Northern Valley Yokut/Ohlone/M'iwuk representative, Katherine Perez Write up by Micheal Ali on"The Huchiun Band of the Ohlone at Garrity Creek", attachments to the Michael Ali report are not included at this time, CC. John Gioia, County Supervisor Terrance Cheung, District One Coordinator Shirley Petty, Hilltop Green Homeowners Association Len Battaglia, chair, Contra Costa County Planning Commission Eleanor Loynd, chair, El Sobrante Valley Zoning Advisory Committee El Sobrante Chamber of Commerce California Regional Water Quality Board El Sobrante MAC Committee Mayor Andersen and Richmond City Council Lisa Viani, Urban Creek Council State Assemblywoman Lord Hancock, member state environmental committee Wage 9 of 9 I WOUST WASTSWATBR BISTRICT t i t C 2910 Hilltop Drive Richmond,CA -1974 A Public A{esttry Te►ephor�a(attl)�- Tt Fax 4511222.3277 March 18, I"s Randy Merritt,Maintenance Supervisor State or California Dept.of Transportation,East Hay Region P.O.Box 337 San Lorenzo,CA.94580.0337 Subject:1-110 north of Hilltop Drive,Richmond,California Dear Mr.Merritt: As you are aware,a stream known as Garrity Creek suns under 1-90 through a 72-inch CMP approximately 1400. feet north of Hilltop Dr.in Richmond,CA. This storm drain became a concern during a storm out January 1, 199'7. At that time,the outfall on the west side of 1-80 was obstructed by vegetation and silt,resulting in over S 160,000 of flood damage to a West Country Wastewater District(WCWDi)wastewater lift station located in the Hilltop Green area on the east side of 1-80. Discussions with you and City of Richmond personnel during January, 1997 lead to the partial clearing of the outlet by City forces in January, 1997. You may recall that on January 10, 1997 you and Mr,Steve Damm,WCWD District Inspector,visited the site. At that time an area of severe erosion had begun in the interstate embankment just above the nutlet for the 72-inch diameter storm drain. This erosion was and is contributing to the blockage of the storm drain flowing under 1.80. Recently,during the week of February 2, I99S,while performing routine monitoring of the arca during a heavy storm period,it was observed that this erosion problem has not been corrected. The soil in this area was being eroded very rapidly and appears to print a high likely hood of a major landslide an the 1-80 a bani ent that could completely plug the 72 inch diameter storm drain. A potential landslide attdfor heavy erosion at this area causes great concern to WCWfi!because ofthe impact flooding could have on the District facilities at Hilltop Green. Due to the critical stature of this storm drain system,the District is requesting that you survey the situation and take corrective action as soon as possible. If you have any questions,please contact Mr.Steve Damm or me at(510)222-6704. Siat�redy, PAUL D.W +tNICKI District Engineer z PDW/SD:ism-b cc: Walter Georgetown,City of Richmond Public Works Dept. Henry Tingle,City of Richmond Deputy City Manager Michael Abramson,District Manager Alfred M.Cabral,Board Counsel SOAA0 MEMBERS Loot*rd t„Banagira Alfred M Granzefts Willtarte S Oliver George H.S�t+rrrtcf�a� l�ti��' BOARD ATTORNEY Allred A Cabrat DISTRICT MANAGER Michael Q.Ahram"n _ __ _ _ _. WZ3T COONTY WAST&WATU BISTRICT - 2910 Hilltop Skive Richrnond,CA 94806-1974 A Public Agency Telephone(610)222.6700 Fax(610)222-3277 May 19, 1998 Ms. Brenda Bryant Hilltop Green Homeowners Association 1095 Parkside Drive Richmond, California Subject: Hilltop Green Park- Relocation of West County Wastewater District Electrical Controls to minimize future flood damage Dear Ms. Bryant As discussed briefly on the telephone with you;the West County Wastewater District (We WD)has received a Grant under the Federal Emergency Management Act(FEMA)to relocate electrical controls at the existing WCWD wastewater pump station located in Hilltop Green Park. The purpose of the project is to move electrical controls for the pumps above the elevation of the floods that would occur less frequently than once in 100 years. The pump station electrical controls are currently at the lowest elevation in the park and have flooded on January 1, 1997 due to high rainfall and limited storm drainage capacity for the drainage area. The flood resulted in disabling the electrical controls and wastewater pumping requiring over V 60,000 in expenditures to return the pump station to normal operation. The damage to,the pump station required use of a large portable diesel pump manned day and night for over 10 days until new electrical equipment could be obtained and installed to allow automatic operation. There was also a threatened flooding in 1998 due to a large landslide potentially blocking the storm drain outlet for the entire Hilltop Breen area. This storm drain outlet drains to Garrity Creek on the West of Highway 80. The District has applied for and received a FEMA grant to pay a portion of the casts to relocate electrical controls to minimize future flood damage and disabling of the pump station. The flood damage mitigation project will require the construction of a building approximately 15 feet wide by 20 feet long and relocation of the existing emergency generator on land at elevation 202 feet above sea level. Two locations for the facilities are under consideration. One location for the building and generator would be along the North fence of the tennis courts. The other passible location would be on land just North of the existing pump station. l have enclosed a drawing showing the alternate BOARD MEMBERS Leonard L.Bataglla Alfred M.Granzerla VWfiam S.Oliver George H.Schrnk t Paul C.sallow.Jr. BOARD ATTORNEY Alfred A.Cabral DISTRICT MANAGER Michael D.Abramson Green Homeownek. sociation 19, 1938 ' 2 locations. An enlargement of the existing easement for the pump station will be requested from the City of Richmond for the additional area necessary for the equipment relocation, We are requesting the Homeowners Association input,at-this early date in the design process,to include your comments on the easement enlargement and the facility design. We are available to attend a meeting at the convenience of the Homeowners Association to discuss this project. if possible, we request that you provide your comments on the alternate locations by June 15, 1998 so that design wont can begin. Thank you for your cooperation in implementing this project. if you have any questions or need fr:Irther information phase contact me. Slncerely, Paul D. Winnickl,PE District Engineer PDW_Ilm-b Enclosures. Drawing--flan View of two alternate facility locations 5 copies. 1t:TOU1 M mkkAPnbtieffil#top hmco wncrs.doc .� Icky bepartruent of Public Worms EngiJace;tug Division May 14, 1997 State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services Hazard N(itigation Grant Program P.O.Box 239016 Sacrxnent€t,CA 95823-9016 Attention- Nancy Ward,Deputy State Coordinating macer SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTEREST FEMA- 1155-D -CA HAZARD MITIGATION GVANT]PROGRAM Enclosed please find three pages of completed application and material for the following City project under the subject gmt program for funding. Project. Improvement to Garrity Creek from 1-80 Freeway to Blume Drive. Should you have questions or need additional information,please contact Mr.Robert Dna or Syed Rahman at 510-307-8091. DWIG PILL CITE'ENC3I l Z 1DP:SR:vl Enclosure Copies to: henry'Tingle,Deputy City Manager-w/enclosure '#dirt Hunter,Assistant Public Works Director-ver/enclosure Tkram Chaudry,Assistant City Engineer-w/enclosurc Rich Davidson,Senior Civil Engin=-wtencleswre Robert Dunn,Seritor Civil paean-wlc"cs �rr..•rrrrrrvrrryerr+rrrrra:+rr5►,rwrrrrvrrrrvwi►rr.royrtrvrrrrrs.�rrrrrr..rrvirr..rrvvrvrvrrrrsvrrsrirrrrrrrsrrrrrrrrrrr+ > ri rr� #PANS: TO: FROMi t Jnr 011P, � / i f I1X7f'� � f Nle 161r: PHONE# , rreinrrrsr.-srrrrrr�.i*.Etxrrrrrrrarrrrsrr®rrrrrrrrrrrrrt++r..rvr+a►,rrrarrrr+*sxrvrrrsr.Ff..»-•-�•__:___. /19/97 10:54 0510 020 6917 PUBLIC WORKS 0,F S GOVERNOWS OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES HAZARD MMGATION GRANT PROGRAM NOTICE OF INTEREST CALIFORNIA WINTER STORMS 1997 FEMA-1155 The Govemor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) has prepared this Notice Of Interest (NOI) to establish an intent to apply for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding. Hazard mitigation projects are typically those that are reducing or eliminating future damages. The focus of hazard Mitigation projects is on protedirig. strengthening, elevating, relocating or otherwise improving buildIngs, infrastructure or other facilities to enhance their ability to withstand the damaging impacts of future disasters. Damage repairs are covered by Public Assistance (PA) and not by the HMGP. 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Applicant city of Richmond Type of Applicant [x1 Govemment Agency I j Non-Profit J I Special District Other Contact Person: Dwight Pilz Title: City tngineer Business Phone: PAX#: Alternate Contact. -Robert Dunn Phone Address: 2566 Macdonald Avenue City- Richmond State, CA Zip: 94804 County: Contra Costa 11. PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION ProiectTitle: Improvement to Garrity Creek from 1-80 to Blume Drive Project Location: City of Richmond GrantRequest: $ 390,845 (Maximum is 75% of mitigation project cost) Applicant Match: -(Minimum Is 25% of mitigation project cost) Total Project Cost: $ 521,125 Funding source for applicant match: Storm drain enterprise funds Who will be responsible for the long-term maintenance of the project? City of Richmond v-✓i vc Northern Valley Y'okut/Ohlon e/M wuk 1234 Duna Lane Stockton, CA 95206 Tel: (209)462-2680 Fax: (209)462-2680 November 19,2003 To Wham It May Concern: It is the tribes understanding the developers are in a hurry and want to include the new parcel of land for the proposed:development without doing and EIR. This would mean that the parcel of land that has not been subject to any investigation would be an error in more ways then one. The new parcel of land was not originally evaluated for any effect to the not only Dative American issue or concerns but also to the effect or impact to others (the community, habitat, air quality, water, endangered species, and plants, etc.) and is also not under the CEQA guidelines To include the new parcel wound not be the right thing to do. If the landowner or the developer want to show,good faith they will do the right thing and hire a qualified archaeologist and evaluate the lanai for any impacts that their project may have on all concern parties. It is also my understanding that in the original EIR the Archaeologist did a record search and a foot survey(visual), at a time when visibility was poor due to the vegetation (blackberry) and no archaeological testing was done to assure there were no burials. The tribe is not comfortable with the landowner and developers proceeding with their plan. The trig is concern that the project could yield burials. Therefore, recommend that the new parcel not be developed without further environmental investigations. Respectfully, Katherine Perez,N''VY/Ohlone, Miwuk THE HUCHIUN BAND OF THE C BLO E AT GARRIT'Y CREED. By Micheal Ali xrxaxx taxxxx ax♦xwxxwxraxxaa♦xx xxrxr xxxwxr♦xarr xx xxxx Sponsored by the Friends of Garrity Creek Can Thursday, August 28, 2003, I led members of the Friends of Garrity Creek in exploring to see what we could find in terms of the Ohlvne's historical presence around the north and east forks of Garrity Creek. Land developers want this area to build modern dwellings for profit, thus forever drastically changing and ruining the wild beauty of this well- loved piece of land. The open space surrounding this part of Garrity Creek includes ten acres of creek, valley and sloping hillsides dotted with copses of woods. Its isolation, peacefulness and charm mean much to the neighbors and few visitors who have discovered this hidden haven. They are curious about the history of the Ohlone here and asked me if physical evidence of their presence could still exist at this site. Knowing the history of the Huchiun Band of the Ohlone, I knew that they had occupied this particular territory in times of antiquity. mould traces of their lives here hundreds of years ago still be visible, after all the building and development in the area? 1 am pleased to say that we did find ancient artifacts that prove without a doubt that the Huchiun band of the Ohlone did once live at what is now known as Garrity Creek. Overview The Huchiun band of the Ohlone at Garrity Creek & the surrounding area Before the coming of the Spanish, the Central, coast of California had the densest population of Native Americans anywhere north of Mexico. More than 50,000 people lived in the coastal regions from the Carmel River to the San Francisco Bay Area. There were some sixty bands of people in San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties alone. Members of these sixty bands spoke ten to fifteen dialects of the Fentivan family language group. A majority of the languages were closely related,but in some cases were so very different that these small bands could live several miles apart from one another and yet could not understand each other. (See attachment-1)The average size of a band could number up to 250 persons. These sixty bands of the Pentivan-speaking Native Americans lived in six of the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties -- San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Monterey, Alameda, Solano and Contra Costa. They were called the Ohlone, a Siem Miwok word meaning the 'purple of the West'. We need to think of the Ohlone not as a 'tribe', but as related groups of people with a similar Penduan-based language. Before "European contact, these Penduan-speaking people never thought of themselves as a 'tribal' unit. However, the invasion and interaction with whites gradually caused most of those who remained of the original bands to think of themselves as Ohlone in later years. This paper provides a history of the Huchiun band of the Ohlones in West Contra Costa County, with a specific report on their use of greater Garrity Creek at the El Sobrante site. The Huchiun used the El Sobrante site of Garrity Creek.as a seasonal village for hunting herds of tule elk, pronghorn antelope and black tail deer and also for seed gathering and harvesting. The Huchiun band of the Ohlone (the word Huchiun simply means 'people') homeland was high in the western hills of West Contra Costa County. It was a great stretch of high„rolling grassy hills clothed in a sweep of prairie-type grasses and endless fields of wildflowers. For the Huchiun, the important features were in the forests following the creeks and rivers down from the canyons in the high hill country and across the grassland savannahs to the San Pablo Bay. Here the coast redwood, buckeye, coast and live oak, big leaf'maple, madrone and rnanranita trees formed thousands of acres of untouched primeval forest that shadowed the.Bay shoreline of Nest Contra Costa. Our story of the Huchiun and Garrity Creek begins on the other side of the San. Pablo Midge at the mouth of Wildcat Canyon in Richmond, particularly at Wildcat Canyon Creek in present day, Alvarado Park. While the record shows Huchiun presence throughout West Contra.Costa from 5,000 to 20,000 years ago,most paleoanthropologists find 5,000 to 7,000 years ago to be more accurate. The present location of Alvarado Park was for thousands of years the site of one of the largest existing Huchiun villages, with a population of some 250 people residing on the banks of Wildcat Canyon Creek. The first Spanish expedition there was chronicled by Captain Pedro Fages and Father Juan Crespi, who came north to explore the western parts of Contra Costa County in 1769 while looking for Drake's Bay. At the Richmond Wildcat Creek village, Crespi made contact with the first Huchiun, the same Huchiun that would use the Garrity Creek site in El Sobrante as a seasonal hunting and seed gathering ground. He stated they had found "a good village of heathen, very fair and bearded." Along San Pablo Bay close to the area where Garrity Creek flows into the Bay nearby Point Pinole, he reported "five large villages of very mild heathens with pleasant faces...(that were) bearded." (See attachment-2) The prehistoric Huchiun site map of archaeological excavations (See attachment-3), shoves that Garrity Creek features very prominently in archaeological digs, notably sites CA-CCO-264 and 265. Recent archaeological digs completed in the mid-1990s showed that both Garrity Creek and adjacent Point Pinole (circled area of attachment-3) are included in an Ohlone spiritual center. Holy men and shamans from as far south as Monterey were brought to that village for burial. Upon reviewing the entire ....................................... Ohlone landmarks map (See attachment-4), we can see how prominent the Huchiun were in the greater OMone world. As we shall see in this narrative, Garrity Creek as a whole and the Garrity Creek site in El Sobrante played an important role in the life of the Huchiun people whose village sat upon the banks of the Wildcat Canyon Creek. Ohlone Native-American archaeologist Andrew Galvan estimates that around the time of the Fages and Crespi expeditions there were some 10,000 Huchiun in the East Bay. These indigenous people lived hunting and gathering lifestyles in tribelets of 250 or less. They lived in seasonal villages, migrating from the shores of San Pablo Bay to the inland canyons along Garrity, Rheem, San Pablo and Wildcat Canyon Creeks on a annual cycle for thousands upon thousands of years. The Huchiun seasonally followed the harvesting locations of their food, abandoning winter villages during gathering and hunting periods. The Garrity Creek site was highly prized because it offered the basic sustenance of acorns from tanbark, valley, coast and live oak trees, as well as buckeye trees. They also harvested seeds, berries, greens, nuts and roots at the site location. They would venture down Garrity Creek to fish for steelhead,salmon and sturgeon that'swam up Garrity Creek to spawn. The Huchiun hunting at the El Sobrante site did not reduce the native animal populations. However, there were significant results when the Huchiun made seasonal summer camps such as Garrity Creek location. Each fall they would set fire to the dry hillocks and hills. This kept the brush from overtaking the meadowlands, giving good growth to seed harvest and ensuring plentiful grazing for large game animals like tule elk, pronghorn antelope and black tail deer. This created an ideal setting for excellent hunting conditions for the Huchiun at the Garrity Creek site. It also encouraged oak and pine nut seed germination, which germinate best after a controlled fire, and prevented a build up of fuel that could create a major firestorm. Evidence ofHuchuin use of the Garrity Creek site in El Sobrante as a seasonal seed gathering and hunting site Having completed the historical overview of Huchiun presence in gest Contra Costa, the question remains whether the El Sobrante area of Garrity Creek .is a true archaeological site that should be preserved. How did we conclude that this location is included in the larger historical implications of being a prehistoric Native American seasonal seed gathering and hunting encampment? Let's examine the evidence found on Aust 28 for answers. At seasonal sites like these, physical evidence in terms of artifacts maybe scarce and difficult to locate -- a valid point to take into consideration. Why is there at times a lack of artifacts? The answer is quite simple. The shelters they built were temporary and quickly decomposed, leaving behind no permanent trace of habitation. Also, when moving to different seasonal locations, the Huchiun band of the Ohlvne typically traveled very lightly in terms of what equipment and gear they would carry with them from the permanent camp to their seasonal home. Their seasonal campsites were very low-impact with regards to the environment they would reside in for several weeks to a month at time. A highly resourceful people, they would only carry the tools and implesi tints they needed, making ether tools at the actual site if need be. Any tools that were not essential to take back to the main village were simply discarded or left at the seasonal site to be used next year. Archeologists call tools and other implements that are left behind 'exposed artifacts.' This means they can be seen by the human eye on the ground level or are slightly buried several inches below the ground, but still can visually be seen. In exploring the particular site at Garrity Creek, I discovered various exposed artifacts, providing the factual basis from which to draw valid conclusions about the nature of Huchiun life at this site. What was life like for the Huchiun at Garrity Creek? Let's follow them from their ancient village at Wildcat Canyon Creek and observe how they,utilized and maintained this site for big game hunting,seed and plant gathering. To such their seasonal camp, a group of Huchiun would leave the Wildcat Canyon area and make the grueling trip to the high crests of the San Pablo Ridge. When they finally reached the highest 1500-foot elevation, they would start their slow descent down from the Ridge and into the El Sobrante Valley. By late afternoon or early evening, they had finally reached the large hillocks of the Garrity Creek. area. Generally, at any given time the site would have no more than about ten to fifteen people from the village. The first order of business was building temporary shelters to accommodate the Wildcat Canyon band for the time they would be there. Removing pacific willow saplings and branches from Garrity Creek,they would build a donne-shaped fire house in a short amount of time. (See attachment-5)The Huchiun utilized identical construction methods to the Porno, as illustrated in this photo of a dome-shaped frame for a Porno summer house. When the season was completed, they would abandon the structure and let the elements return it back to the earth. As you can see, finding the remnants of a dome frame structure would not be an easy task. There simply would be no trace of it-- after a year's time, it would start to slowly decompose after a brutal rainy winter. More than a century later,vital:evidence of housing is not there to be found. The evidence we can see includes the plants, shrubs and trees to demonstrate that this site was a seasonal seed and plant harvest site. During the end of spring,the women from the Wildcat Canyon village began the seed gathering and harvesting of dozens of different seeds and plants that served for both diet and medicinal purposes. The women used burden baskets capable of carrying very heavy loads of seeds, which were held in place by tumplines worn on the forehead and attached to the burden basket. The Huchiun women would wear a basketry cap to prevent the burden basket from chafing their foreheads, as in(attachment-6). Using a scoop-like seed beater in the right hand (See attachment-7),they cradled the burden basket in the left arra and waded right into grass. They swept the seed beater through the steed heads, loosening the grass seeds and knocking thein directly into the large burden basket The Porno seed beater in attachment_7 is very similar to the . uchiun version. Within a few weeks, they would complete collecting close to one ton of mustard seeds, sage or chin seeds, clarkia and redmaid seeds and place them, in temporary cone-shaped granaries made of Pacific willow saplings. The granaries sat several feet above the ground and could keep several hundred pounds of seeds safe from mice and ether rodents. To mill the seed, the women put the seeds into a portable mortar and rolled a small pestle lightly around to loosen the hulls (See attachment-8). This seed pestle was discovered as an exposed artifact at the Garrity geek site where the north and east forks of the creek join. I believe that this was a pre-teen's pestle because it is designed for a much smaller hand. I observed various seed grasses at the site that were commonly harvested by the Huchiun. The presence of these common food sources and the discovery of the pestle is convincing evidence that Garrity geek was definitely a seasonal site to harvest suds. Discovering the small seed pestle by the north and east forks where the creek joins is even more compelling evidence. The pestle was but a short distance from a few patches of seed bearing grasses. On a small hillock over looking the Garrity geek site are a series of three Gild live oak trees. In late September, October and early November, the acorns start to ripen and are ready for harvesting. Almost all residents of the Wildcat Canyon geek village went to the oak groves maybe five or ten miles from home. So again during the acorn harvest season, Garrity Creek becomes a seasonal campsite. Soon the acorn harvesters would take acorns back to the Wildcat Canyon Creek village by the ton. The acorns were ground with pestles in mortar baskets. After the pounding the woman put the acorn flour into a shallow sifting basket and would shake the fine flour from the coarse. Even when the acorn flour was refined, it was still nasty and bitter. The woman would now go to the east and north fork of the creek and scoop out a hole in the sand. Using a watertight basket, she would allow the water to run over the acorn meal for a great period of time. This process removed the bitter tannic acid. Some acorns could be leeched more quickly than others could; some batches of acorn meal could take all day. After the leeching process was completed,she would take another large watertight basket and drop great quantities of both the acorn flour and water into the basket, At the side of the basket she would have a small fire going with numerous round, spherical stones sitting in the fire. When a stone was hitt enough, she would use long wooden prongs to pick up the hot stone and drop it into the basket (See attachment-9), adding many of these hot stones until the water would actually boil. These stones were called 'cooking stones'. (See attachment-10) She would use the wooden prongs to keep stirring the cooking stones so it would not burn her basket. Soon the boiling water and acorn flour turned into,mush. The mush could then be baked like fry bread or eaten as soup or a thick cereal. Oak trees capable of yielding acorns for Huchiun harvest flourish near Garrity Creek. I also found another important exposed artifact there: a perfectly round, spherical cooking stone formed of granite. Good cooking stones, like the one that I found made out of granite, could not be cracked or shattered.. They were .highly prized by Huchiun women. The fact that this cooking stone was located where the north and east forks of the creek join is equally as significant. 'Water is needed in order to leech acorn flour, also, the cooking stones in the fire had to be near where the water and flour were boiling in the basket. All this bailing process required a ready source of running water to complete the final phase of making the acorn flour into mush. I could only conclude that a Huchiun worm utilized the cooking stone at. this site during the annual acorn harvest. Also there were several buckeye trees from which Huchiun could harvest nuts if the acorn harvest fell short. The next exposed artifact found where the east and north fork of the creek joins together was an abrader. Abraders are commonly found important tools that vary in size and shape, depending on the stone. Many of the Huchiun abraders are made of gritty stone shaped or in a natural form. Abraders seared to sharpen, smoothand shape stone, bone antler, shell and wood. Rough-textured abraders fumction much like files or coarse sandpaper. Whetstones sharpened the edges of points of tools. (See attachment-11) The Huchiun abrader fits comfortably in one's hand, however, it was designed for the smaller hands of a Huchiun male. The first question l asked myself, "Why was it discarded or left behind at this particular site?" I recalled seeing a black tail deer earlier in the afternoon at the Garrity Creek site. One of people who belong to the Friends of`Garrity Creek informed me she had seen a huge fill grown stag around the perimeter of the site. Then as I carefully examined the physical terrain. more, I discovered that in the tall dry grass that there were some thirty indentations that had flattened out the grass. Looking more closely, I realized that this was where a herd of black tail deer bedded down to sleep. Then it dawned upon me that this was an area where Huchiun hunters came to kill deer. Huchiun hunters used bow and arrows in their pursuit to successfully kill members of the black tail deer herd. Though I spent several hours looking for flaked obsidian projectile points or arrowheads, none were visible. In Contra Costa County, obsidian is very scarce, and the Huchiun obtained it solely through trade from Napa, Santa Rosa,and the east side of the Sierra Nevada. I returned back to the creek area where I had found the abrader originally. I looked down around the creek itself and saw fresh deer tracks from the animals drinking from the creek. I saw two or three trails that led directly away from the creep in opposing directions. Here, from the cover of the coyote brush,would make a perfect ambush site to get closer arrow shots at the deer. I had found the artifact sitting right next to the coyote brush that would offer the most ever. I theta realized the abrader had belonged to a Huchiun archer, who would use it to sharpen his projectile points to be razor sharp when he would be hidden in the coyote brush awaiting to ambush the black tail deer. The archer could have misplaced the abrader after sharpening his projectile point, or it could have fallen from his person as he took aim at the deer. The Garrity Creek site is a popular area for deer to graze and sleep in the summertime. From the vantage point of the hillock with the oak trees, Huchiun hunters would have the perfect view of how best to encircle the deer herd and get terrific body shots while following the deer to the creek.. The small Huchiun abrader gives the lead clue that the Garrity Creek site would indeed be a fabulous summer hunting camp. We found the last exposed artifact in the same area where the north and east fork of the creek join. In this case, it was a piece of volcanic black pumice. (See attachment-12) In quite a few cases at Huchiun villages and seasonal campsites, black pumice is strewn throughout these prehistoric locations. I noted that the pumice was not far from where the abrader had been located. Pumice definitely was a part of the hunter's archery gear. The archer used it to aid in the beginning phases of smoothing out certain kinds of projectile points. The pumice acted as a prehistoric `steel wool pad,' so coarse and yet also soft. When old projectile points became damaged or destroyed, this pumice was a critical tool in producing replacement projectiles. The hunter used pumice to initially rub out the rough edges of the newly fashioned projectile point or arrowhead until it had a semi- smooth texture, ready to begin the next phase of further smoothing. Carrying pumice would be an indispensable part of the prepared archer's gear on the hunting trail. This is another case in point of an archer in a seasonal location having the required tools to have a successful hunt. Conclusion In summary, I found compelling evidence that the Garrity Creek area between Manor Drive, Hilltop Drive, and Hilltop Green was a seasonal big game hunting and seed/plant gathering camp for the Huchiun. I found a number of exposed artifacts -- a seed pestle, a granite cooking stone, an abrader and a volcanic pumice whetstone -- close to the locations where Huchiun people would have utilized them in daily life,close to the riches of plant and animal life regularly utilized by the Huchiun in their diet. It is my recommendation that this area be evaluated very soon by professional archaeologists whose knowledge is grounded in a strong understanding of the native customs of the Huchiun. This evaluation should take place prior to any disturbance of the area by future construction. Recommendations for further reading East Bay Express "Return of the Native"by Louise Lacey Oct 11, 1996 Volume 19, #1. Stone, Bone, Antler and Shell: Artifacts of the Northwest Coast, by Hilary Stewart. University of Washington Press, Seattle WA, 1996. The Destruction of California Indians by Robert F. Heizer. University of Nebraska Press, 1993. The Ellis Landing S ellrnound. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and.Ethnology,Berkeley CA, 1910. The Native Americans: The Indigenous People of North Arner ca, by Colin F. Taylor, Salamander Books, London UK, 2002. The Ohlone Wav,by Malcolm Margolin.Heyday Books,Berkeley CA, 1978. The Pomo Indians of Californi by Vinson Brown and: Douglas Andrews. Natturegraph Publishers, Healdsburg CA, 1969. The Stege Mounds at Richmond California, University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology,:Berkeley CA, 1924. ww�z'.,tcsc.edu/ucsc/nat-reserves/papers/Ld-nish ihira-reservefhtm[ Editor's note: A very thorough description of the way of life of the Huchuin can be found in chapter 4 of the following study housed in the Richmond History Room, Richmond Main Library. Investigation of cultural resources within the Richmond Harbor Redevelopment Project 11-A Richmond, Contra Costa C2gM, California. Prepared by California Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Peter M. Banks and Robert I. Orlins. March 1981. Photos: Map 2.1 Location of study area This snap, showing the various forks of Garrity Creek, delineates the area of the 1981 archaeological study prepared for the city of Richmond prior to the beginning,of work on the Harbor Redevelopment Project. Map 2.3 Map of Richmond vicinity 1856 -- Garrity Creek is shown in the upper right hand part of this map. Map 2.6 Geologic neap of study area This shows the location of a probable fault near the El Sobrante area. The Hayward fault is to the east, thus this area is located between two fault areas and may be in a structural trough. Map 2.7 shows the plant communities along Garrity Creek to be Riparian Woodland. Map 3.1 Location of prehistoric sites within the study area Map 4.3 Landmarks from historic documents Portrait of San Francisco Bay peoples by Ludovic Choris, 1816 from "Voyage Pittoresque" 18i25: Platte VI. Women of the Huimen tribelet#1,3; a woman of the Huchiun tribelet in 2,and women of the Saklan tribelet in 4825. 3 . EL SOBRANTE VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING ADVISORY COI1MI''I'TEE P.O. BOX 20136 EL SOBRANTE, CA 94820 May 25,2004 Afshar Project-- Subdivision SDO4333 My name is Eleanor Loynd. I am a resident of the El Sobrante/R ichrnond area. I am here representing the ESVP&ZAC. This Committee was established by the El Sobrante Chamber of Commerce in partnership with the Richmond May Valley Neighborhood Council. I have been involved in the review of this project since at least 2001. 1. Procedural Question: I need to start my presentation with a question on County procedures. The agenda for tonight's meeting states that Sf}01-8533 will be the review of a vesting tentative map. There is no mention on the agenda that a mitigated negative declaration has been recommended for this project or that it will be discussed. Are we correct that the request for a mitigated negative declaration will be discussed this evening or does that have to lie put off for another meeting? 410 f`-e-- 34 brske u L `"Ve,;, t •� . P, w v 2. Comments on the Staff recommended Wtigated legative Declaration: This Committee requests that the recommendation for Mitigated Negative Declaration be denied and that an Environmental Impact Report be required. Here are some of the reasons: a. Concern about slides/soil goblems. In County Planner.Bob Drake's letter to the applicant of 5/17/01,he stated that an exhibit provided by the applicant"indicates that over 80%of the site has a slope of more than 15%, 15%of the site has a slope exceeding 260/o." Mr.Drake goes on to state that the approval of development in areas subject to slope failures"shall be contingent on geologic and engineering studies which define and delineate potentially hazardous conditions and recommend adequate mitigation." We respectfully call your attention to these county slope protection policies from the General.Plan Safety Element: 10-28"Generally,residential density shall decrease as slope increases,especially above a 15%e slope"and 10-29"Significant hillsides with slopes over 26%or more shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading or other land disturbance." An EIR needs to be done to define which land is actually buildable. The Richmond Hilltop Green subdivision is located immediately adjacent and downhill to this subdivision..'A soil compaction report was done by Globe soil Engineers for the hilltop Green HOA in 1994. Page 3 paints out that"five slides or potential slides were observed in the subdivision." Page 4"Based on our field,' laboratory and office studies,it is our opinion that from a geotechnical and foundation engineering standpoint,the slides occurred as a result of poor drainage, excessively steep slopes,and weak soilsJfills." ESVP&ZAC Comments on SDOI-8533 5125/04 mage 2 This statement is from a June 7, 2002 letter sent to the County by Stephen Linsley, Laboratory Supervisor for the Water Pollution Contol Plant in Richmond. "If more impervious surface is created in this area,the peak flows will likely increase downstream. This might well have a significant impact on the waster and landslide problems which already are barely contained in Hilltop Green. So the proposed project should not be allowed to proceed without a focused environmental impact report." Statement: The staff report states on page 18,number 15 that"at least 30 days prier to issuance of a grading permit or installation of improvements or utilities, applicant shall submit a final geology, soils,and foundation report". That is not acceptable. The recent County staff report stilted on page 19, condition 17 D, "Slope stability analysis shall be provided for major slopes in the project." That means the information will be provided after the approval of the project without any notification or involvement of the neighbors. The homes planned near Marin Road are being built on a-hillside where some slides have occurred. In the interests of safety for the existing and new residents,you cannot approve a mitigated negative declaration. A full and complete geotechnical and engineering report needs to be done novo before work begins. b. Concerns about Drainage Problems. This Committee and area residents are concerned about flooding and water quality,especially as it affects the drainage system in Hilltop Green. This subdivision will be draining into that system. Can the existing system handle the increased roan-cuff from this new subdivision? The 1994 Globe Sails Compaction report done for Hilltop Green states on page 7, "Improvement of bath the surface and subsurface drainage conditions is recommended to insure the stability of the site and to improve hydrologic conditions." "Good surface drainage is essential to intercept water runoff in order to minimize erosion and to limit infiltration into subsurface layers." The staff report,page S-17 states that"The Public Works Department, as part of the final design and plan review process, requires submittal of a detailed hydrology and hydraulic analysis of the downstream facilities to verify their adequacy prior to allow to discharge to those existing drainage facilities. This may require off-site improvements to increase capacity should those facilities prove to be inadequate as defined by the Subdivision Ordinance." The staff report on page S-21 states that "Public Works requires that the applicant prove that downstream drainage facilities are adequate." Statement: The project should not be approved without the County,the residents, and the applicant knowing the details about the existing Hilltop Green drainage system and its adequacy to handle the increased run-off from this project. The County cannot sidestep its obligation to get all the facts about the existing drainage problems in Hilltop Green. An environmental impact report should be required so that information on the drainage system is known before the project is approved. ESS'`&Z.AC Comments on DOl-8533 5/25/04 gage 3 c. Concerns about Wildlife: This 10 acre valley serves as one of the last wildlife corridors in the area to connect this side of the freeway with the other. An EIR should include information on the Finds of wildlife in the area and the impact this project would have on the wildlife. d. Concerns about Traffic: Hilltop Drive is a two lane rgad heavily used by parents bringing their children to Juan Crespi Middle School,El Sobrante Elementary School, and several other nearby schools. Because both entrances to this project are off of Hilltop Drive,there will be times when the traffic into the subdivision backs up. Another concern is the steepness of the Marin Road exit. There is no mention of the steepness of the road out of the project which will join onto.Marin Rd. It is our understanding that the road will be at least a 14%grade. Will.fire trucks be able to use Marine Road as an entrance? An EIR.could evaluate the traffic patterns,the use by fire trucks,and perhaps suggest some modifications to the entrance ways. 3. Conclusion: We ask that the vesting tentative map approval be denied. We ask that the request for a mitigated negative declaration be denied. We feel that the Community has presented or will present substantial evidence that significant impacts from this project may occur and therefore,an Environmental Impact Report should be required. Thank you. Attachments: Page from Globe Soil Engineers Report to Hilltop Green HOA 9/7/94 Letter from Hilltop Green HOA to Planner Darwin Myers 1/21/02 Letter from Richmond'Water Pollution Control Plan to D. Myers 6/7/02 Letter from ESVP&ZAC to Darwin Myers 8/1/02 Letter from ESVP&ZAC to Darwin dyers 1/30/43 r HILLTOP GREEN HOlEf?V4'NERS ASSOCIATION 1095 PARI SIDE DRIVE RICHMOND,CA 94$43 January 21,2002 Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street,4th Floor, North Wing Martinez,CA. 94555-b095 Attention: Darwin Myers,Project Planner Subject: SD418 33/Hilltop Road Area DearMr. Myers: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject project. On behalf of the 521 homeowners of Hilltop Green, we submit the following comments for your consideration. We appose the proposed project for several reasons. Traffic on hilltop Drive. Thousands of cars travel Hilltop;Read each weekday. The City of Richmond performed a traffic study of Hilltop Road sometime ago. Many complaints were'received from the surrounding residents. 'There have been many automobile accidents at the intersection of Hilltop Road and Park Central. Visitors to the Jewish Temple Beth Billet as well as the Montessori School(also at Park Central and Hilltop Road),corning from the direction oft-80 are always in danger of being hit by oncoming cars. There aro ingress and egress problems for our community and a<large amount of tragic is generated from patrons of the gas station on the corner of Park Central and Hilltop load,. We definitely do not want or need a mor traffic on this road. We are sure that if given the opportunity,these two institutions would also oppose this development, This would add to the already dangerous condition that currently exists. Flooding/Drainage, Our ongoing concern stems from our own problems with continuous slide repair issues,correcting poor soil conditions,constant monitoring of common grounds for springs underground'and educating each homeowner to potential water damage to their private property. In one of several Soil/Geotechnical Reports done for us it was established that"the old Garrity Creek runs through(our)subdivision and near the slides". It also states,"Published data indicate that(our)site lies at or near an area associated with shallow,intermediate„and sleep landsliding,soil erosion and creep" Mr. Darwin Myers Page 2 January 21,2002 Please be aware that Hilltop Green opposes any new development in this area,especially without a report that assures us of no impact from and around activity with Garrity Creek. Overcrowding of Schools. Our children already in the community will suffer with the addition of more children to an already crowded school and classroom. We respecdWly request that you take our comments,into consideration as you review this application. Although we are zoned in the City of Richmond,we write as part of the El Sobrante neighborhood and as concerned citizens of Contra Costa County. Sincerely, Shirley Pe President Board of Directors cc: Dan Kirtland,City of Richmond,Planning Dept. Eleanor Loynd, Chair,El Sobrante Valley Planning& Zoning Advisory Committee P.O. Box 20136 El Sobrante,CA 94820 f *JIVN.07'2002 06;52 510-235-3354 W'TP #5851 P.001/002 Ir»wv.+K.cm.ra» PUBLIC SERVICES: WASTEWATER City of Water Pollution Control Plant 609 Canal Blvd, Richmond,CA "804.3541 (510)4922001 FAX 510)236-3354 i . June 7, 2002 Darwin Meyers Community Development Department Contra Casts.County ABuilding 651 Pine Street,41*Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 9455395 A't`'1N, Fite No, SDOI-8533 Dear Mr.Meyers: The City of Richmond storm water prom involves outreach to creek support creeks within its jurisdiction, In the course ofworlang with the Friers ofGarrity Creek,it has come to my attention that a developer is planning to consLyact 41 homes where City Creek flags above ground just before entering Richmond.As the person responsible for stmm water issues in the City for uy yc XrFt this lamjcctwill urease Iant#slidg and ficrzn downstream around the creek in am inside the City omits. HilItop Green within;Richmond is already subject to water problem and landslides from several "springs"where Gerrity Creek flaws underground.'1 hose"springs" are no doubt weak points where everything in excess of what fits into the existing pipe bursts to the surface and floods Hilltop Green durum wet weather,The channel just upsturn of Hilltop Green now has natural ability to slow peak stone flaws via.the soil,vegetatfon,swag,etc. Hthe creek i diverted by the proposed project construction and more impayfous surAce is thea created in this area, the peak flows will likely increase downs.This might well have a significant impact on the water and landslide problem Which already am barely contained in Hilltop Green. So the proposed project should not be allowed to proceed without a focused environmental impact report. Furthermore,Garrity Creek should be fully protected as providod by the Clean'tater Act. SIU Asn-ssn4 WWTP A #5851 P.002/002 Tf YOU Dave any questions,please feel c to contact me, yours imly, i Stephen.Linsley Labommy Supervisor copies:Robert]Drake,C"DD Fl Sobrante Planning and zoning Committee Friends of amity Creek Shirley Petty,Hilltop Green _ �0 �QL4JtQfl( t 'I Page:D-i APPENDIX 12:-- LANDSL SCRIE:EJON The five landslide areas that were recently observed have been nutibered and are identified as follows. 1. An area at the left side of the residence at 1352 Parkridge Drive. This is a relatively small slope between adjoining building pads and shows evidence of soil creep and potential sliding. 2. A previously repaired slide at Itbe edge of Park Central, op- posite the intersection with Parkridgf, Drive. There was a major slide at this area that was repaired by excavation of the failed material., keying and benching of the slope, installation of drains and replacement, of full on .the slope. There are some minor tension cracks that have developed near the edge of the pavement- on Park Central . These cracks are inboard of the previous headscarp for this slide. 3. A series of slides and potential slides has developed on the slope opposite the residences from 945 Parkside give to 991 Parkside Drive. These features extend ,from the concrete lined drain ditch, near the upper portion of the slope, to the street level. Some have had previous repairs involving the use of short retaining galls at the toe of the slide. 4. A significant bulge has developed at the toe of the slope op- posite 1064 view Drive. The bulge is directly above a concrete lined collector ditch, and would pose a problem of flooding to the rear of the houses at 1048 through 1060 Parkside Drive. 5. A bulge, similar to slide 4, has developed at the base of the slope between 1080 view Driver and 1084 Parkside Drive. There is a concrete ditch at the base of this slope as well. tort 1 EL SVB ANTE X tUY PLANNING & ZONING ADVISORY COMTTEE P.O. BOX 20136 EL SOBRANTE, CA 94 20 August 1, 20012 Darwin Myers, Planner By Fax&Mail County Community Development Dept. Fax: 925-335-1299 651 fine*St., 4h floor NORTH Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: SDO1-8533, 40+unit subdivision off Hilltop Dr.,El Sobrante Dear Darwin, The ESVP&ZAC has been closely following the review of this subdivision. We are concerned that decisions will be made based on incomplete or missing information. Qur Recommendations: 1. A focused environmental impact report should be required. The study should focus ori: Geology, soils and seismicity. There have been(and are)slides and soil problems in the adjacent Hilltop Careen Richmond subdivision and on the adjacent Marin Road area. There is a slide in the northwest portion of the site. Remediation suggestions need to be studied to be sure they are the best technology available to answer the problems. This part of the focused EIR should also look at theproject's consistency with the County's slope protection policies. In Bob Drake's letter to the applicant of 5/17101,he states that an exhibit provided by the applicant"indicates that over 80% of the site has a slope of more than 15%, 1 S%o of the site has a slope exceeding 26%. Mr. Drake goes on to state that approval of development in areas subject to slope failures"shall be contingent on geologic and engineering studies which define and delineate potentially hazardous conditions and recommend adequate mitigation." -The impacts on Garrity reek trees, and wildlife. There needs to be detailed information provided on Garrity Creek and the effects of the increased run-off into the creek. There has been flooding in the adjacent Hilltop Green Richmond subdivision. A review of the State Fish&Game requirements needs to be done. Is fencing off the creek the best way to keep people out and still allow wildlife in the area? We do not feel there has been adequate study of the creek. Who is responsible for maintenance of the creek? Which County staff persons are responsible for checking to see that the creek is being maintained in a proper fashion? What are the maintenance standards? -Transl2ortation and Circulation should also be a focus of the environmental impact report. We do not feel that the traffic counts dune along Hilltop Drive were done at a time when schools were in session. Hilltop Drive is a major artery to Juan Crespi Jr. High, El Sobrante Elementary School,Ile Anza High School,and the many church schools located in the area. f ELVP&ZAC - _ £1I me is on Ma 2 (Transportation and Circulation continued) We are especially concerned that this project of 40+homes will have only a single access " point. This quote is from page 2 (a 5/17/01 letter from Principal Planner Robert H. Drake to Mr. Afshar). "Exception to Subdivision Ordinance Standards—We will also require that the tentative map be revised to list all proposed exceptions to subdivision ordinance standards. For example, we note that the cul-de-sac road system proposed for the project does not meet the design limitations of the Subdivision Ordinance that limits such:,streets to 700 feet in length and serving no more than 16 lots(see attached). The proposed project road would service 44 lots on a ctrl-de-sac with several branch streets with an aggregate length of approximately 2200 linear feet." We respectfully call your attention to these county slope protection policies from the general plan safety element: • 10-22 proposed"tensions of urban or suburban land uses into areas characterized by slopes over 15 percent and/or generally unstable land shall be elevated with regard to the safety hazard prior to the issuance of any discretionary approvals. •. 10-26 Approvals of public and private development projects in areas subject to slope failures shall be contingent on geologic and engineering studies which define and delineate potential hazardous conditions and recommend adequate mitigation. • 10-27 Steil and geological reports shall be subject to the review and approval of the County Planning Geologist. • 10-28 Generally,residential density shall decrease as slope increases, especially above a I$%slope. • 10-24 Significant hillsides with slopes over 26%or more shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading or other land disturbance. • 10-30 Development shall be precluded in areas when landslides cannot be adequately repaired. 2. The density of the project should be severely limited due to the landslides, the steepness of the slopes,and the cotnty's`cul-de-sac subdivision ordinance standard. According to information provided by the applicant(see page 1), 80%of the site has a slope of more than 15YVand 15%of the site has a slope exceeding 26%. The cul- de-sac has a length of 2200 linear feet Cul-de-sacs are to be limited to 700 feet in length and serving no more than 16 lots. Therefore, we suggest that the number of homes on this site be limited to 16. 3, Sidewalks should be required on both sides of the street. 4. All retaining walls should be designed by an engineer and made of concrete, 5. All roads should be standard county roads. ISU&ZAC Qominonts t o. With input from CA Fish&Game, a description and report on the area holding the "Wetland Spring and the Wetland Seep"needs to be done. How will this area function? Dees it require any maintenance? A copy of the needed maintenance should be provided to the Homeowners Association. Who will pay for the maintenance? Which County Dept, is responsible for verifying that the maintenance has been taken care of? NQI } The plans for the County Woodridge Subdivision at San Pablo Dam'Rd, and Greenridge Dr. called for a 4"deep vernal pond(wet only in winter), Because of changes to grading plans,that.pond is now 4 feet deep with water year round. It acts as a street drainage receptacle for theprtxject. No Homeowners Association was ever set up and the property owners haven't the slightest idea how to maintain it. We don't want this problem repeated again. 7. A Homeowners Association needs to be established and set up prior to the final home sale. The responsibilities of the HOA need to be listed in the conditions, Will they be responsible for the roads on site as well as the maintenance of the wetlands area and the creek? Each homeowner needs to be made aware of his/her responsibilities. 8. We request that one of the lots be set up as a neighborhood park with a play structure for younger children. It could also be maintained by the Homeowners A.sso. 9. The developer should be required to post a bond for 10-12 years to cover any problems that arise. If you have any questions and/or concerns,you may call me at 510-223-6398 or fax me at 510-758-7697. Please beep us irtforme 'of any meetings scheduled and please send us copies of the pertinent documents on this subdivision. Thanks. Sincerely, leaner Loynd, Chair cc: El Sobrante MAC El Sobrante Chamber of Commerce Friends of Garrity Creep Hilltop Neighborhood Association .Hilltop Green HOA __ EL SOBRAN E VrL)Y PLANNING & ZONING ADVISORY COAMMME P.O. BOX 20136 EL SOB NTE, CA, 94820 January 3'0,2003 Darwin Myers,Planner By Fax&Mail County Community Development Dept. Fax: 925-335-1299 651 Pine.St.,4s'floor NORTH - Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: SD01-8522,40+unit subdivision off Hilltop Drive,El Sobrante Dear Darwin, As you know, we have had several meetings over tate past 1 /2 years to discuss concerns and ask questions about this project. We have had few of our questions answered. The enclosed list of 28 suggestions are submitted to you for inclusion into the County's requirements for this subdivision. For your information,the mailed version will have several more attachments included. Those attachments are. I. A copy of the Still Compaction Report dune by Globe Sail Engineers for the Hilltop Green HIDA in 1994. The Hilltop Green subdivision is located immediately adjacent and downhill to the 40 unit subdivision. Page 3 points out that"five slides or potential slides were observed in the subdivision". Page 4"Based on our field, laboratory and office studies,it is our opinion that from a geotechnical and foundation engineering standpoint,the slides occurred as a result of poor drainage,excessively steep slopes, and weak soils/fills." Page 5"Must slope failures occur after heavy rainfalls." On Page 7,"Improvement of both the surface and subsurface drainage conditions is recommended to insure the stability of'the site and to improve hydrologic conditions." "Good surface drainage is essential to intercept water runoff in order to minimize erosion and to limit infiltration into subsurface layers." 2. A letter from ESVP&ZAC to Darwin Meyers re SID01-8533,•dated 9/18101. 3. .A letter from ESVP&ZAC to Darwin Myers re SD01-8533,elated 217102. 3. A letter from ESVP&Z.AC to Darwin Myers re SD01-9533,dated 8111142. We respectfully request that you take all of theme comments/suggestions into consideration as you develop the report on Subdivision SD01-8533. Because it is an in- fill development, it will have longterm and lasting affects on the surrounding lands and neighbors. Please tall me at 510-223-6398 if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Eleanor Loynd, 'r cc: El Sobrante MAC El Sobrante Chamber of Commerce Friends of Garrity Creek HilltopNeighborhood Association Hilltop Green HOA Sup. Jahn Gioia Assemblywoman Loni Hancock Mr. Sid Affshar Joe Light,Richmond Planner Mayor Irma Anderson _.. _ ......... .._........_. ..... ... .. .... ......... ....__... _.. ._. _............. .........._. ........._..._._.....__.. .......... ........ ......... .... . ........ ........... ........ ........ ":54 k - ..*war � r �•w-7�'�i°+x�'� �, �"' w.. «,e r'.�. ,:,,fir ,,,. r' .s�r� , ;� ,• � �!,� 1''ad'�r�' s ;✓' dr, }.�,} � �.._. .i.• pr .r t� "' est: 'y. Y }r}-.�s��+�a �r�� ;„&'�4j r � f� THE CALIFORNIA f 'w 1 r. J. WILLIAM YEATES, ESQ. PLAhINING ANIS CONSERVATION LEAGUE Fo NDATION 2002 F Ct}NfmuNiTy Gum Mote:You can be assured of personally receiving the notice required by section 21092 of the Public Resources Code (and all other notices required by CEQA)"by filing"a written request for notices with either the cleric of the governing board M.e.,county board of supervisors,city council)] or,if there is no governing body,the director of the agency [(i.e.,director of CDFG)J." (Pub.Resources Code,§210392.2.1 The public agency may charge a fee.However,payment of a minimal fee avoids the expense and worry of monitoring the county clerk's office or the Governor's Office of Planning and Research(OPR)for public notices,or,worse,missing a critical public notice altogether. The public comment period for a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration must be at least 213 days and ai least 30 days for any negative declarations or mitigated negative declarations submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state responsible or trustee agencies. (Pub.Resources Cade,§21091,subd.(b).] If requested,the State Clearinghouse has the discretion to reduce the 30-day public review period,but the public review period cannot be reduced below 217 days.[CEQA Guidelines,§ 15073,subd.(d),J The Court of Appeal determined that a lead agency's failure to give the Department of Fish and Game,a trustee agency,adequate notice by failing to provide the Department with a copy of its proposed negative declaration was prejudicial abuse of discretion.The lead agency's adoption of the mitigated negative declaration was set aside. [:Fall RiverWild Trout Foundation v County of Shasta(1999)70 Cal.App.4th 482,491-493.1 It is during this public comment period that you must provide any substantial evidence you may have that will demonstrate the proposed project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. (See Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies,infra:.)Failure to comment on the mitigated negative declaration within the public review period provided may preclude any subsequent legal challenge to a public agency's adoption of the document.[Pub. :Resources Code,§21177,subd.(a).] (e)CEQNs"Fair Argument"Standard CEQA requires a lead agency to prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in light of the entire record supports a "fair argument"that a proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment.Even when other substantial evidence in the record supports the apposite conclusion.,CEQA's"fair argument'standard requires the lead agency to prepare an EIR prior to approving or carrying out a proposed project.[Pub.Resources Code,§2101801, subds.(c)&(d);CEQA Guidelines,§§ 15064,subd.(a)(1);15{1717,subd.(a);StunislausAudubon Society,Inc.a County of Staxnislatus(1995) 33 Cal.AppAth 144, 150-151.] If there is any doubt about a project's significant environmental consequences, the"benefit of the doubt"is given to fail environmental review. (See CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064, "Determining the Significance of the Environmental Erects Caused by a Project,"15064.5,"DeterT ining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique Archeological Resources,,'15065,"Mandatory Findings of Significance,"1 (f)Substantial Br deuce Defined In 1993 the Legislature defined"substantial evidence"within the fair argument context as follows: 'Argument,speculation,unsubstantiated opinion or narrative,evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous,or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by,physical impacts on the environment,is not substantial evidence.Substantial evidence shall include facts,reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts,and expert opinion supported by facts." [Pub.Resources Code,§21080,subd.(c).] In other words,the"fears"and"desires'of project opponents are not substantial evidence. [Perley Y.County of Calaveras (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 424-436-4371 Speculation,uncorroborated opinion,hearsay,concerns,and rumors are not substantial evidence.[L,eonoffv.lWonterey County Board of Supervisors(1994)222 Cal.App.3d 1337,1351-1352.1 however, you are not required to provide"overwhelming or overpowering evidence"or to submit"quantitative environmental studies"to support a"fair argument"that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. [Statnislaus Audubon,supra,33 Cal.App.3d at 152.1 The California courts have held that public testimony about noise or traffic impacts or topics that you may personally familiar with(i.e.,significant view along scenic highway)are substantial evidence of a project's potential significant impact.[See Gentry,supra,36 Cal.App.4th at 13811, Caro F'ino Gold Mining Corp,x County of El Dorado(19917)225 Cal.App.3d 872,882-883.,1 10 Commuxrrr GuiDE and mitigation measures that should be'analyzed in depth in the EIR.Again,the agencies'comments daring. the scoping meetings or consultations(which are usually:, appended to the Draft EIR) give the public an early warning about the proposed project's potential significant adverse environmental effects.A lead,agency that fails to analyze the environmental consequences of a proposed project raised during the scoping process has failed to comply with CEQA. (See Sierra Club v. State Board of.forestry,supra,7 Cal.4th at 1230- 1231, 1236 1237 " .s-%x Some public agencies have public scoping meetings that invite public comment on the focus and content of the DEIR. [See CEQA guidelines, § 15083.] This is especially true if the lead igency assumes the propOsedlilt. "�M 2 project is of great iate*1 its or controversial in t ie ke: surrou-ndin • ccirr iriuixi These meetings s ofi'ei the public an early opportunity t0 comment on the content of the DEIR,as well as an opportunity to suggest or describe mitigation measures or alternatives that will reduce or avoid any identified significant environmental effects of the proposed project.Although the lead agencyhas the right to determine the scope and content of the DEIR,public comments can the scope of environmental review are likely to be reflected in the document in some mariner. (c)Preparation of the Draft EIR.(DEIR) The.California courts have consistently and repeatedly pointed out that"the EIR is the heart of CEQA."(Laurel f eights ImprovementAssociarwn of San Francisco,Inc v,Regents of the University of California ("Laurel Heights ll")(1993)6 CalAth 1112, 1123.]"EIRs should be prepared as early in the planning process as possible to enable environmental considerations to influence project,program,or design."(Laurel Heights 1,supra,47 Cal.3d at 395;see CEQA Guidelines, 15004,subd.(b),] The draft.EIR(DEIR)may be prepared by the lead agency,by a consultant under contract to the lead agency,or by accepting a proposed draft prepared by the project applicant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.1,subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines,§ 15084,subd. (d).] The lead agency must"independently review and analyze"the DEIR and when it 1 certifies the final EIR(FEIR)it most make a finding that the document"reflects the independent judgment"of the agency.[Pub.Resources Code,§21082.1.subd.(c)(1)-(3).)Since the preparation of an EIR is paid for by the permit } applicant,whether it is prepared l7y the agezicyitself or by an EIR consultant hired by the lead agency,the requirements of independent analarid,independent judginenti are intended to protect against the applicant preparing a self- y=1serving or biased environmental analysis.[See Friends of a Vina a County of Leis Angeles(1991)232 Cal.App.3d 1446, 1452--1456;Gentry,supra,36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1367-1370;compare People v County of Kern(1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 761,775;Sundstmm,suprai,202 CaLApp.3d at 307.] (i)Project,Program,and Master EIRs In order to eliminate redundant environmental review,and to allow public agencies to undertake CEQA's mandatory environmental review more efficiently,CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines allow agencies to prepare different types of EIRs.The two most commonly prepared EIRs are project and,program EIRs.In 1993 the Legislature further amended CEQA to create the Muster EIR.,untended to reduce err"eliminate additional environmental review of subsequent projects or activities which could instead be analyzed within a single broader or"master"EIR. Thetypical EIR is the prvjecf EIR, which analyzes the significant adverse environmental effects of a specific development project.A project EIR will focus on the physical changes to the environment caused by the proposed A program EIR allows a leadagencyto rev ew�the environmental consequences of broad policies or programs at the 12 ..... ....._... _.._............. _. ......... ......... _... ......... .. .... ........... ........... .......... ......... ........ ......... ........ ....... ' z i COMMUNITY GUIDE TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT t A. l NnODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA''),commencing with section 21000 of the Public Resources Code, t provides Californians with a great opportunity to influence public decision-making. 4 1). Purpose of the.Guide . This updated and revised Community Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act is intended to be a layperson's guide to California's prenuer environmental protection law.CEQA provides Californians with an effective way to participate in governmental decisions that will affect a community's or region's quality of life.When CEQA is used correctly,it lets the tpublic have a real and powerful impact on public agency decision-making.This Guile explains how to take advantage of CEQA's mandatory pdwc review and comrriene process: r The Guide will offer you a brief overview'of the law and is not intended to provide an in-depth review of CEQAs procedures or the extensive body of ease law decisions that have developed since the passage of CEQA in 1970.'Rattier,the Guide is intenders to provide you with a better understanding of CEQA`s purpose and how and when you have a right to comment i on the environmental consequences of'a proposed project. The bibliography at the end of the Guide lists excellent publications that go into greater detail.However,the PCL Foundation hopes this Guide will arm you with enough knowledge and information about CEQA so you can effectively participate in the decision-malting process.Having effectively participated in CEQA's mandated environmental review, you may be better able to influence the political process — 3 where ultimately the decision to approve,deny,or improve a project will be made. This revised and updated CEQA Guide has been prepared by PCL Director'). William Yeates.Mr.Yeates specializes in environmental w .+ law and policy, and particularly in CEQA litigation and compliance,and has authored and eo-authored articles and texts on`cEQA �`� rt He has also participated on many legal panels reviewing recent interpretations"of CEQA £ r• provisions by the California courts and recent ' changes made to CEQA by the state legislature zl Due to Mr. Yeates' extensive experience working with and representing cotnniunity groups in environmental litigation,this Guides is particularly directed at"making;CEQA's public review process relevant to the i community activist. Mr. Yeates would like to acknowledge and' V m thank PCS.staff and volunteers who took the Cfi�,i uv ry Gun)F time to review this Guide. The author would also like to acknowledge his t_ former partners at the law firm f lt rm oenty, ' z ' VU 'i'r T okiAs,,��so lvloose,who painstakingly ,� _:` �: g� rt-^ ,; prepare the Guide to the California Environmental QualityAct(CEQA),one-- of ne of the most thorough and best sources of up-to-date information on CEQA:In particular, the author wou€d like to acknowledge the editorial`suppoIT of Gary Patton., PCL's former Genera€ Counsel. Mr. Patton's organisational ideas, based on his many years as a , community activist and local political _ w j office holder,helped to ensure the,Guide's focus on public participation. PCL's Executive Director wisely.suggested the . Glossary,which is appended to the Guide. Finally,the author is indebted to Carol _1111 21K I Fulton Yeates,who edited the Guide with a careful eye toward clarity,so the lay reader is not awash in legal ambiguity. 2) Public's Role iii CEQA Process CEQA's procedural requirements encourage public participation in the environmental review process. Furthermore,the public's rights to participate in CEQAs various environmental review proceedings have been consistently protected by the California courts. For example,the California Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that CEQAs procedures must be "scrupulously followed,because CEQKs environmental review process"protects not only the environment but also informed self government."[Laurel Heights lniprovement Associaition o f$an Francisco, Inc. v Regents of the University of California("Laurel Heights I")47 Cal.3d 376,392.1 In another important decision,California's high court acknowledged that"citizens can:make important contributions to environmental protect ion."Thus,the Court declared that the California publicholds a"privileged position"in theCEQAprocess,fConcerned Citizens ofCostaMesa,Inc.v.32nd Di4trictAgricultund Association(1986)42 Cal.3d 929,935.] CEQA requires every public agency in California to have procedures which provide full public participation,so that the public agency can receive and evaluate public reaction to the environmental consequences of its action.For three decades CEQA has opened public agency decision-making to public scrutiny,and California's courts have consistently required public agencies to carefully follow CEQA's procedures. B. CEQA'S SUBSTANTIVE POLICIES CEQA requires public agency decision-makers to record,evaluate;and reflect upon the environmental consequences of their actions.to the opening sections of CEQA,the Legislature has set forth specific policies that led to the enactment of this law.[See Pub Resources Code,§§21lit}tl,21001,21002,3c 21'003.1 The Legislature's-policies clearly reflect the public's interest in and concern for the long-term protection of California's unique,diverse,and varied landscape and natural resources. For example,the Legislature forcefully declared that it is the state's policy to: Develop and maintain a high-quality environment now and in the future,and take all action necessary to protect,rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state."[Pub. Resources Code,§21001,subd.to?t] Although CEQA was unquestionably enacted in order to provide long-term protection for California's environment,the Legislature has sought to balance CEQA.'s pro-environment policies by declaring it is also the policy of the state to: CommusiTy GurDE About the Planning and Conservation League Foundation The Planning and Conservation League Foundation is a nonprofit organization founded in 1972. Its missionis to educate and involve Californians in environmental policy-making.The PCL Foundation pubQ'iis haridbooks for community action,assists decision-makers in drafting effective policies,and produces action-oriented,reports about California environmental policy:The PCL Foundation works closely with the Planning and Conservation League to implement California's policies and laws. About the Author J.William Yeates is an attorney specializing in environmental law.He is a Director of the Planning and Conservation League. CEQA Workshops This guide was produced under the auspices of the Planning Conservation League Foundation with the generous support of the Educational Foundation of America. Since October 1998,the Planning and Conservation League Foundation,as part of its land use program,has offered introductory community workshops focusing on the fundamentals of CEQA. The workshop series is intended to present useful information about CEQA, strengthen local Californians'familiarity with this important environmental law,encourage participation in local environmental decision making,and foster a broader coalition of community activists. For more information about having a CEQA workshop in your community,contact PCL at (916)444-8726,or visit www.pcl.org. The PCL Foundation Land Use program also offers advanced CEQA workshops,and workshops that focus on general plans and growth.initiatives. To Order this Report For additional.copies of the Community Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act please send a$15 check made out to PCL Foundation. To pay by Visa or Mastercard include the following information: 0 Visa 0 Mastercard Card Number Expiradon.date Signature of Cardholder Mail to:Publications Office PCL Foundation 926 J Street,Suite 612 , Sacramento,CA 95814 For additional information: Phone: (916)444,8726 Fax:(916)448-1789 http://www.pd.org Email:pcmlmail@pcl.org r a1�I I Reproduce with permission only. Credit must be given to the PCL Foundation. ri Appendix B County Planning Commission Resolution (#19-2004) and Conditions of Approval as Approved by County Planning Commission (June 86, 2004) BEFORE THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner) El Sobrante Valley Planning&Zoning Advisory Committee; and the Friends of Garrity Greer and Hilltop Neighborhood Association.(Appellants) Request for Approval of a 40-Lot Residential Subdivision El Sobrante Area, Contra.Costa County County File##SD418533 On May 3, 2001, the applicant submitted an application for approval of a subdivision with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department to establish a 44-lot residential subdivision on a 10.09-acre site that fronts for approximately 100 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection., and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road, in the El Sobrante area. The request included proposed variances to the height standard(for retaining walls in the structure setback zone); variances to the average width standard(for Lots 11-14), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). On May 17, 2001, staff notified the applicant that additional specified items were required before the application could be deemed complete, and on August 21, 2401 the staff issued a second request for additional information. On November 1, 2402,upon submittal of various technical studies, the staff determined the application to be complete for processing purposes. For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff conducted an Initial Study on the project to determine whether the project would result in a significant environmental impact; and staff determined that the project might result in several significant impacts including impacts pertaining to biological, geologic, cultural and traffic. Staff also identified measures that would mitigate each of those impacts to a less- than-significant level, and the applicant agreed in writing to those measures. On October 22, 2003, County staff posted a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, and otherwise provided for notice of the proposed determination as required by law. On February 9, 2004, the public comment period on the proposed CEQA determination was extended to March 11, 2004. On May 25, 2004, after notice was issued as required by law, the County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application. At the Planning Commission hearing, staff presented the staff recommendation on the application, and the Planning Commission accepted testimony from the applicant and other members of the public. Staff had recommended that the project be reduced from 40 to 35 lots as a method for achieving consistency with General Plan slope protection policies and related site plan considerations. After receiving testimony, the Planning Commission voted to continue the public hearing to its June 8, 2004 meeting because not all individuals desiring to speak had an opportunity to speak at the hearing. Resolution No. 19-2004 County Planning Commission On June S, 2004, the County Planning Commission continued to accept testimony from all persons who wished to speak on the application, including a rebuttal from the representatives of the applicant. Following the rebuttal from the applicant, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. Commissioners Mehlman and Battaglia indicated that based on testimony and evidence submitted by the public, they felt that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared on the project before considering any approval of the project, and expressed particular concern about the project's impact to traffic conditions in the community; further Commissioner Mehlman indicated that he supported the staff recommendation to reduce the number of lots to 35 and also indicated that an additional residential lot, Lot 29 should be eliminated and that its entire area(including required biotic habitat area)be set aside for a biotic reserve area (not just a portion) and converted to common area that would be maintained by the project homeowner's association. The County Planning Commission,having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all evidence and testimony submitted on this matter. RESOLVED, for purposes of compliance with CFQA, the County Planning Commission FINDS that: • On the basis of the whole record before the Commission, including the Initial Study and the comments received,there is no substantial evidence that the project,with mitigation measures,will have a significant effect on the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration determination reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the County Planning Commission's decision is based may be found at the Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA, the custodian of the records. Further,the County Planning Commission ADOPTS the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for purposes of compliance with CEQA, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Further, the County Planning Commission FINIS that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan including the slope protection policies cited by staff and that all the Ordinance Code findings that are required for approval of a subdivision and for approval of the associated variances can be made; and at the same time the Planning Commission determined that it would not be appropriate to make recommended findings that would allow for a reduction in the number of proposed lots. R-2 Resolution No. 19-2004 County Planning Commission Further,the County Planning Commission GRANTS approval to the subdivision application for 44 lots proposed by the applicant, with modification to the Conditions of Approval. The decision to the County Planning Commission was given by motion of the County Planning Commission on June 8, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners—Clark, Terrell, Wong and Snyder NOES: Commissioner--Mehlman and Battaglia ABSENT: Commissioner—Gaddis ABSTAIN: Commissioner—None Further, on June 17, 2004,the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, and the.Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association filed with the County an appeal of the County Planning Commission decision on this project. LEN BATTAGLIA Chairman of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California 1, Dennis M. Barry, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on June 8, 2004. ATTEST: DENNIS M.V BARRY, AICD Secretary of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California R-3 ......................... FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 018533 fAfshar — Applicant&Owner),-IN THE EL SOBRANTE AREA AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE 8, 2004 (Modifications made at the hearing by the County Planning Commission are shown with shading (additions) and strike through (deletions). Findines A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated 43 additional AM and PM peak hour trips. (This assumes 40 new residences on the site, demolition of one existing residence, and 1.1 peak hour trips per unit.) Therefore,the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. 2. Drainage and Flood Control: The subdivision conditions of approval require that the applicant collect and convey all stormwaters entering or originating within the project (Reference CVA's#50-51). No portion of the site lies within a special flood hazard zone that has been designated by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). 3. Water and Waste Disposal. The project site is within the EBMUD and West County Wastewater District service areas. The applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of these service districts (Advisory Note"I"). 4. Fire Protection: The site is in the Consolidated Fire Protection District and must comply with requirements of the District (Advisory Note "B"). The site also lies within one mile of the fire station at#4640 Appian Way. Therefore,the project is not required to provide automatic sprinklers in order to make this finding. 5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station per 1,000 population. The project will generate a population estimated at 3.25 persons per unit (an increase of 127 persons). The size of the population increase is not significant, and the conditions of approval require the applicant to establish a police service district to augment police services(COA#23). 6. Parks & Recreation: The proposed subdivision will have a relatively minor cumulative effect on demand for park and recreation facilities, and is subject to payment of park dedication fees at time of issuance of building permits. (Reference Advisory Note"C"). (Reference Growth Management Element of the General Plan) 2 B. Findings to Approve a Tentative Map 1. Required Finding- The County Planning Commission shall not approve a tentative map unless it shallfind tnd 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--Most of the site contains slopes that exceed a 15%gradient; some of the property has slopes as steep as 26%. The site is otherwise required to observe structure setbacks from a creek, and to work around a proposed creek bridge. While the Single Family Residential—High Density designate would normally allow 38— 54 dwellings to be considered on this 10 gross acre site,the topographic limitations are not suited for a project with the proposed number of units. To find consistency with general plan policies including Policy#10-24, 10-28,and 10-29,the number of lots shall be reduced by five (to 35 lots) to provide for more latitude in ultimate development of this project including functional outdoor living areas that will allow for compatible development. The Public Works Department has prepared conditions of approval (COA's) that address traffic safety,circulation and road improvement standards. Furthermore,the Public Works COA's also require compliance with the "collect and convey" requirements of the Ordinance Code. Drainage improvements within the watercourse require a Streambed Alternation Agreement from CDFG and compliance with requirements of the Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Correspondence from these agencies indicates that the project is consistent with their expectations. The final conditions of the permits issued by these jurisdictional agencies await approval of the subdivision application by the County. Q Findi gs to I.J. - .a etien in Q-:1 detefmining eleffient law. (Govt Code § 65593 (b))7 The r-e&e�ien 4em the pfopesed 40 lots(and 44 unks total for-the five affeeted pe&eels identified as the "potential" 3 a Element, 2. pr Develep4nf llaeant "potential" nter-y9 f Findings for Variances-Retaining Walls in Structure Setback Area(Ord. Code � 26-2.2006 I. Required Finding-A variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege. Project Finding= The nature of the project is to develop a residential subdivision in a hillside area while protecting an existing creek corridor and minimizing grading,and thereby controlling erosion. In the case of the retaining wall along Royal Oaks Drive, the location of the creek crossing was selected by CDFG to minimize disturbance to riparian habitat, and the vertical alignment and width are controlled by the County's private road standards. For the walls proposed along Garrity Creek Drive,the walls are proposed to avoid/minimize disturbance to biologically-sensitive lands. 2. Required Finding — Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property(e.g., its size,shape topography, location,surroundings)strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by others. Project Finding—The retaining walls are all associated with roadway. The County has private road standards. In a hillside area,retaining walls are required to comply with those standards. The proposed retaining wall along the main entrance to the project is due to the shape of this portion of the property, and constraints on the horizontal and vertical alignment of this private road. 3. Required Finding--Any variance authorized shall be substantially consistent with the intent of the zoning district. Project Finding—The purpose of the R-7 district is to provide and protect areas for residential development. The use of retaining walls is intended to: a) allow the 4 construction of a subdivision with two access road connections,b)minimize grading, and c) allow preservation of the creek corridor. D.E. Variance Findings -Average Lot Width Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14 1. Required Finding-A variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege. Project Finding — The lots are substandard in average width, but exceed the minimum standard lot area (ranging from 8,511 to 10,545 square feet). They are generally level pie-shaped lots that have an obvious building site. On that basis the approval of a variance is not a grant of special privilege. 2. .Required Finding — Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property(e.g., its size,shape topography, location,surroundings)strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by others. Proj ect Finding—The special circumstances are the location of the lots at a cul-de-sac bulb. While such lots may not meet the average width requirements of the prevailing R-7 district, they have ample area to develop a residence. The lots are sufficiently large as to have a potential building site that meets the structure setback standards of the prevailing zoning district. 3. .Rewired Finding---Any variance authorized shall be substantially consistent with the intent of the zoning district. Project Finding The purpose of the R-7 district is to provide and protect areas for residential development. The lots which have substandard average width are relatively wide and have an obvious building site. On that basis the granting of the variance is not inconsistent with the intent of the district. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Administrative 1. The application is approved WNWans,as generally shown on the Vesting Tentative Map received by the Community Development Department on November 6, 2003. Unless otherwise indicated, the following conditions of approval require compliance prior to filing the Final Map. Prior to filing a final map, site clearance or issuance of a grading permit,the applicant shall submit a revised site plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator frofA 40 to 35. The lot small be redueed consistent with the Staff Study 5 dated May 20, 2004 as follow A. The area eeeepied by Lots 2 5 shall be lets3 13. The d by Lots 6 tkough 11 shall be fe&eed to fwe lets; lets. lets: E. The ,,d by Lets 32- 4wough 34 shall be r-eEWeed to lets Ftwthef, the rveenfigufatien of lots eaused by the above listed changes shall bias the width of the twe lots beT-der-ing on Royal Oaks Dr-i The revised plans shall provide for minimum 28-foot wide road/utility right-of-way connections as follows: • From Royal Oaks Drive on the west side of Garrity Creek to link with APN 428-210-008 (Jalil) and to 428-210-008 (Alejandre); and • Extension of Garrity Creek View (Road) westward to connect with APN 428-200-010 (Mall). Additionally, most of Lot 29 (inclusive of the proposed wetlands and detention basin) shall be deed restricted as generally depicted in the Staff Study so as to prohibit the fee owner from altering the wetland conditions and drainage improvements(detention basin) on this portion of the site. This approval is also based on the findings and recommendations of the following project reports and documents: A. Biological Resource-Related Documents • California Department of Fish & Game, 2002. Agreement Regarding Proposed Streambed Alteration Notification(received by CDD on March 6, 2042). • California Department of Fish & Game, March 11, 2002. Proposed Hilltop Road.Area .Project, County File SS OI8533, Revised Vesting Tentative Map of Subdivision 8533, Contra Costa County. • LSA, March 11, 2002. Results of Fish and Came Site Visit, Hillview Project, El Sobrante. 6 • LSA,December 21,2001. Biological Resources of the Hillview Project Site, El Sobrante, Contra Costa County, California. LSA Job#AAD130. • Monk.&Associates, September 20, 2002. Hillview Subdivision (SD8533), El Sobrante, California. • Wood,Michael K.,July 1,2002. Hillview Subdivision,.Biologic Impacts and Mitigation Measures. • Wood,Michael K.,July 5,2002. Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Proposed Hillview Residential Subdivision, El Sobrante., Contra Costa County. • Wood, Michael K., July 9, 2002. Amendment to 1603 Notification of Streambed Alteration, Notification #2801-982, Hillview Residential Subdivision, El Sobrante. • Wood, Michael K., July 9, 2002. Preconstruction Notification for the Placement of Fill in Waters of the U.S. Pursuant to Nationwide Permits 14 and 33 for the Proposed Hillview Residential Development, El Sobrante, Contra Costa County, California. • Wood, Michael K., July 8, 2002. Application for Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the Proposed Hillview Residential Development, El Sobrante, Contra Costa County, California. • Wood,Michael,K., September 26,2002. Hillview Subdivision, Response to Comments. B. Geotechnical and Geologic-Reports • AMSO Consulting Engineers,2001. Geotechnical Investigation, Hillview Residential Development, 4823 Hilltop Drive, El Sobrante, California. AMSO Job#3128(report dated April 30, 2001). C. Nater Pollution Control Program • Klemetson Engineering, 2002. Mater Pollution Control Program, Subdivision 8533;4823 Hilltop Drive,El Sobrante Area(APN 426- 210-007, -182-001 and -017, and -192-005 and -008 (dated February 24, 2002). 7 D. Archaeology amort • Pacific Legacy, Inc., 2401. Archaeological Survey for Proposed Hillview Subdivision, APN 426-192-005, 426-182-417 and 426- 210-007,El Sobrante,Contra Costa County(dated April 28,2001). • Pacific Legacy, Inc., 2044. Archaeologic Survey for-Hillcrest Homes Subdivision Metter dated March 19, 2004, 3 pages). E. Traffic Report • Klemetson Engineering, 2001. Traffic Impact Analysis for Subdivision 8533. KE Job#K062 (dated December 15, 2001). F. Hydrolo .Analysis • Klemetson Engineering, 2002. Hydrologic Analysis for Subdivision 8533; 4823 Hilltop Drive, El Sobrante Area, Contra Costa County(report dated February 23,2402). 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 Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employers from any claim, action or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application,which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. Compliance Report 3. At least 60 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a report on compliance with the conditions of approval with this permit and the final development plan permit for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Except for those conditions administered by the Public Works Department,the report shall list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. (A copy of the conditions of approval may be available on computer disk;to try to obtain, contact the project planner at 335-1210.) Unless otherwise indicated,the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the conditions of this report prier to ding a final map. The compliance report shall include an intermediate site/grading plan that shows information required for tentative subdivision maps, including road improvements, drainage facilities, grading plan, lot characteristics (area, average width, average depth)and identify the potential building sites.. The Zoning Administrator may reject the report if it is not comprehensive with respect to applicable requirements for the requested ministerial permit. The permit compliance review is subject to staff time and material charges, with an initial deposit of$1,500.00 which shall be paid at time of submittal of the compliance report. A check is payable to the County of Contra Costa. Variances 4. A. Approval is granted to allow variances to the average lot width standards that meet the requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as follows: 70 feet required by zoning ordinance 56 feet approved for Lot 11 57 feet approved for Lot 12 56 feet approved for Lot 13 60 feet approved for Lot 14 B. Approval is granted to allow variances to the retaining wall height in the structure setback zone as follows: 3 feet (maximum) allowed by zoning ordinance 10 feet(maximum) allowed on Royal Oaks Drive 8 feet, 8 feet and 7 feet tiered walls (maximum) allowed on Garrity Creek Drive 6 feet(maximum) allowed on Adam Court C. Approval is granted to allow a variance in the structure setback zone to allow a 42-inch high guard rail in conjunction with retaining walls along project roadways for safety. 6 feet(maximum) allowed by zoning ordinance for combined retaining wall plus guard rail 13Y2 feet(maximum) allowed on Royal Oaks Drive 111/2 feet (maximum allowed on Garrity Creek Drive 9'I7 feet (maximum) allowed on Adam Court 9 Archaeology 5. - A. 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. B. In compliance with the provisions of the cultural resources mitigation measure, which are presented in Table 1, the General Nates on Grading Plans and Improvement Plans shall include the provisions of COA O.A. Table 1 CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURES a) If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts,human burials,or the like are encountered during construction operations,such operations shall cease within 100 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 bane artifacts,concentrations of fire cracked rock,ash,charcoal,shell,bone,and historic features such as privies or building foundations. b) 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 of the "find"or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted,per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. c) Appropriate mitigation of the cultural resources may include monitoring of further construction and/or systematic excavation of the resources. Any artifacts or samples collected as part of the initial discovery,monitoring or mitigation phases shall be properly conserved,catalogued,analyzed, evaluated and curated along with associated documentation in a professional manner consistent with current archaeological standards. Scenic Easement/Trail easement 6. A. Development rights shall be dedicated to the County for the areas along the creek corridors and the riparian portion of Lot 29,utilizing a deed instrument that is subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The easement instrument shall provide that no grading, fencing, development activity, or removal of trees may occur in that area without the prior written approval of the Zoning Administrator. Perimeter fencing shall be allowed, but its design shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. B. The applicant shall offer for dedication of a minimum 1 0-foot wide trail easement from the tributary of Garrity Creek to private roads within the project and along sidewalks in the project, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The offer of 10 dedication will not be accepted by the County unless/until a public trail is established along the reach of the tributary stream between Manor Road and the site. The granting of the trail easement does not imply trail construction. The offer shall stipulate that the HOA would be responsible for maintenance and liability of the segment of trail within its boundaries, even if it is ultimately accepted as a public trail. CC&R's 7. Draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted for review with the Final Map,and shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. This document shall provide for the establishment of a Homeowners Association to maintain common facilities within the project including drainage facilities,roads,and street lights. It shall also provide for establishment, ownership and maintenance of the landscaping along the Hilltop Drive frontage of the site and maintenance of other common facilities The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) developed for this project shall include the following restrictions: A. Inclusion of Residential Design Measures for the Stormwater Quality Control Plan -- The document shall reference the project Best Management Practices for the Stormwater Quality Control Plan for the project pertaining to residential development (e.g., permeable driveway surface). The document shall provide that construction plans submitted to the County for residential development for building permits shall comply with the residential design measures in that plan. B. The document shall indicate that Lots 11 — 14 are substandard in average lot width; any proposed development on those lots will be subject to the public notice and review requirements ofthe Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance(Ord. Code § 82-10.002(c))prior to issuance of a building permit. C. In accordance with the County Child Care Ordinance, the CC&Rs shall indicate that a child care facility may be located at any residential unit, or lot, consistent with the existing laws. D. The document shall reference the Grant Deeds of Development Rights that is conveyed to the County along the creek portion of the site,and wetland portion of the site,and shall contain any agreement entered into with the California Department of Fish & Game. 11 F. Provide a copy of a fencing plan that has been approved by the Zoning Administrator of the fencing proposed on the perimeter of the scenic easement. F. Required setbacks and off-street parking prescribed by the R-7 zoning district shall be measured from the edge of the private road easement or property line,whichever is more restrictive. C. The CC&R's shall provide for the terms of the offer of public trail to extend through this site that are approved by the Zoning Administrator, including provisions for maintenance and liability of the trail segment within the subdivision. The approved CC&R's shall be recorded with the Final Map. The applicant shall deliver a copy of the recorded document to CDD prior to issuance of the first building permit. Nesting Birds 8. A. If earthwork (or installation of improvements) is to commence during the period February 15 to August 15, submit evidence of compliance with the Nesting Birds Mitigation Measure, Item a., which is presented in Table 2. B. If nesting raptors or nesting passerine birds are identified, submittal of a detailed compliance plan based on the mitigation measures listed in the Mitigation Measure presented in Table 2, Items b. and c. for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. C. If active nests of raptors or passerine birds are confirmed, the biologist shall prepare a plan for fencing as required by the Mitigation Measure presented in Table 2, Item d. This plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. Prior to commencement of grading the fences shall be installed. 12 Table 2 NESTING BIRD MITIGATION MEASURES Prior to issuance of the grading permit, commencement of any site improvement or any tree removal, submit evidence of compliance with the detailed specifications listed below,for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. a) In order to avoid impacts to nesting birds,CDFG has required that vegetation removal be confined to the period of August I6 to February 10(Condition No. 6 of CDFG's draft streambed alteration agreement). Should earth-moving/grading activity or construction-related disturbance will occur on the project site during the raptor and passerine bird nesting season(February 15 to August I5),a focused nesting survey shall be conducted by aug alified ornithologist to determine if this activity could disturb nesting birds.The ornithologist must have experience detecting/identifying raptor and passerine bird nesting behavior. Or, if necessary,two biologists shall be hired: one with experience with raptors and another with experience surveying for nesting passerine birds. b) If nesting raptors are identified on the project site,a minimum 500-foot non-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest tree.This buffer shall be fenced with orange construction fencing.A qualified raptor biologist will periodically monitor the nest site(s)to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone disturbs the birds,and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent nest abandonment.No disturbance shall occur within the minimum 500-foot buffer zone until a qualified raptor biologist has determined that the young have fledged(left the nest),and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones,typically by August I". c) If nesting passerine birds are identified on the project site,a 75-foot buffer shall be established around the nest tree.This buffer shall be fenced with orange construction fencing. The non-disturbance buffer zone shall remain in place until it has been determined by a qualified ornithologist that the young have fledged and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones, typically by August I". d) The County shall not issue a grading permit until a nesting survey has been conducted and the non-disturbance buffers(if necessary)are fenced. Red-Legged Frog 9. A. Provide letter-report from a"service approved"biologist presenting the results of the protocol survey specified by the red-legged frog mitigation measure presented in Table 3,for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Table 3 RED-LEGGED FROG MITIGATION MEASURES Prior to issuance of the grading permit, commencement of any site improvements or any tree removal, submit evidence of compliance with the detailed specifications below for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. To prevent project-related impacts to the California red-legged frog,a preeonstruction red-legged frog survey shall be completed within 48 hours prior to commencement of any earth-moving activity or construction on the project site.This protocol survey requires two nights of nocturnal surveys. The biologist performing the preconstruction survey must hold a federal I0(a)(1)(A) permit for California red-legged frog or be considered by U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service to be a"service approved"biologist. (The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a list of Service approved red-legged frog biologists.) If California red-legged frogs are identified on the project site,all work on the project site shall be placed on hold while the findings are reported to CDFG and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,and it is determined what actions must take place. B. if California red-legged frogs are identified, submit evidence of consultation with CDFG and evidence of a detailed compliance plan based on the red--legged frog mitigation measures presented in Table 3, for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 13 Freshwater Marsh Riparian and Trees 10. A. Prior to ding of the Final Map, submit evidence for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that the project plans are in compliance with the provisions of the California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement, as prescribed by the freshwater marsh riparian and trees mitigation measure presented in Table 4, Item a. B. During grading operations and implementation of erosion control measures,the Project Restorationist shall submit progress reports on implementation of mitigation measures as prescribed by Table 4, Item b. Additionally, the Project Restorationist shall issue a report when all CDFG permit requirements have been met and shall arrange for/schedule a site inspection by the Zoning Administrator. C. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit,an Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. The Erosion Control Plan shall provide for the following measures. As prescribed by the freshwater marsh riparian and trees mitigation measure in Table 4, Item c, all grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season(April 15th through October l st)only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimenta- tion. After October l st, only erosion control work shall be allowed by the grading permit,and all erosion control features shall be installed by October 15th. Any modification to the above schedule shall be subject to review by the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Such requests must be accompanied by: a) a grading plan showing the proposed work area; b) a statement of justification from the applicant/grading contractor; c)detailed Erosion Control Plan; and d) a letter from the Project Restorationist commenting on the implications of the proposed grading on the restoration plan. 14 Table 4 FRESHWATER.MARSH RIPARIAN VEGETATION AND TREES MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures are required to address impacts associated with construction and post-construction. These measures are intended to increase the overall size of wetlands and Central Coast riparian scrub habitat on-site,preserve the riparian corridor associated with Garrity Creek and its tributary,and preserve water quality. a) Habitat and tree replacement shall be in accordance with the standards and criteria prescribed by the CDFG. h b) The Project Restorationist shall monitor the implementation and establishment maintenance requirements of all mitigation plantings. At a minimum,the Project Restorationist shall have demonstrated expertise in restoration ecology and at least three years experience in restoration design and implementation,including experience in wetland restoration.The Project Restorationist shall have the authority to stop work or request change orders as necessary. In addition,the Project Restorationist shall conduct the site and habitat monitoring programs and prepare reports documenting the restoration program for submittal to the USACB, CDFG,and RWQCH. c) All grading shall be performed during the summer months and completed before October 1'. Appropriate erosion/sediment control measures shall be in place by October I SthSince all mitigation plantings will occur on graded sites,there will be no need for weed eradication to prepare the site for planting. Mitigation planting will commence in the late fall early winter,with the onset of winter rains. d) To prevent indirect and cumulative adverse effects of the development on water quality of Garrity Creek and its tributary, grassy swales shall be constructed. The swales are intended to capture and slow the movement of urban runoff into Garrity Creek and its tributary. The swales shall be planted and seeded with appropriate native species and deed restricted from development or renovation. No direct outfalls into Garrity Creek or the unnamed tributary shall be constructed.Discharges from the swales would be over ground stabilized by erosion blankets with rock inter-plated with willows or other species approved by the Project Restorationist. e) Habitat restoration shall provide for maximum vegetative cover,conducive to the restoration of Garrity Creek and its tributary, and provide a vegetated screen between the stream channel and adjacent roads and dwellings. f) The plant palette shall be consistent with the requirements of the California Department of Fish&Game and shall be selected from the species nominated by the report of Michael Wood(dated July 5,2042). g} All container plantings shall be provided a temporary drip irrigation system. Irrigation will be supplied for up to three years, with a gradual reduction in volume of water applied in years two and three. The details of the irrigation system and watering schedule must be approved by the Project Restorationist. h) Prior to recording the final map,the project proponent will provide a signed contract with the Project Restorationist for the work done during the initial Plan review and monitoring the installation of the required plantings. The contract shall also include for five years(minimum)of monitoring by the Project Restorationist. The objective of monitoring shall be to evaluate growth of the plantings during the establishment period,identify conditions that threaten the success of the mitigation plan,and to identify the need for remedial measures. The Restoration Monitor will perform site monitoring twice annually. site visits will be conducted during late winter/early spring and the late summer/early fall. i) The applicant shall guarantee an 85 percent survival rate for the plantings over the five-year monitoring period. For this purpose,a$40,000 bond(or equivalent)security shall be deposited with the County. D. Prior to issuance of the grading permit submit drainage improvement plans that comply with the provisions of the freshwater marsh riparian and trees mitigation measure in Table 4,Item d. for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. E. Prier to issuance of the grading permit, submit revegetation and irrigation plans that comply with the freshwater marsh riparian and trees mitigation measures in Table 4, Items e., f. and g. 15 F. Prior to recording the final map, a signed contract with the Project Restorationist for the work done during the Initial Plan review and monitoring the installation of the required plantings. As prescribed by the freshwater marsh riparian and trees mitigation measures in Table 4, Item h, the contract shall also include provision for five years (minimum) of monitoring by the Project Restorationist. The objective of monitoring shall be to evaluate growth of the plantings during the establishment period,identify conditions that threaten the success of the mitigation plan, and to identify the need for remedial measures. The Restoration Monitor will perform site monitoring twice annually. Site visits will be conducted during late winter/early spring and the late summer/early fall. G. Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit, provide a financial assurance acceptable to the Zoning Administrator for$40,000,along with a non-refundable initial fee deposit of $300 at the time of submittal of the security. The purpose of the security shall be to guarantee an 85 percent survival rate for the plantings over a five- year monitoring period. Existing Trees Pre-Construction Tree Protection Measures 11. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or approval of the final map, the applicant shall provide two copies of a report from the Project Restorationist for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The report shall indicate that the Restorationist has reviewed the recommendations of the geotechnical report filed with the final map. The report of the Restorationist shall recommend appropriate measures to prevent any significant damage to trees in the project area that are not proposed for removal,including trees on neighboring parcels that adjoin areas proposed for grading. The recommendations of the approved report shall be implemented by the applicant. Contingency Restitution Should Trees Intended to be Saved Be Darnaged 12. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, to address the possibility that construction activity damages trees not approved for removal, the applicant shall provide the County with a security(e.g.,bond, cash deposit)to allow for replacement of trees intended to be preserved that are significantly damaged by construction activity. The security shall be based on: 16 A. Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements: The planting of up to three replacement trees (minimum three 15-gallons in size) in the vicinity of each protected tree removed, or equivalent planting contribution along the creek corridor, subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. B. Determination of Security Amount: As prescribed by Mitigation Measure 3.i., the required security is $40,000.00. C. AccWtance of a Security: The security shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. D. Initial Deposit for Processing of Security: The County ordinance requires that the applicant cover all time and material costs of staff for processing a tree protection security (Code S-060B). The Applicant shall pay an initial fee deposit of$300 at time of submittal of a security, in addition to the $40,000 security. The security shall be retained by the County up to 5 years following the completion of the tree alteration improvements. In the event that the Zoning Administrator determines that trees intended to be protected have been damaged by development activity, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable restitution of the damaged trees, then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees. Annually for five years following the completion of tree installation under the supervision of the Project Restorationist. The Project Restorationist shall inspect the trees for any significant damage from construction activity, and submit a report on his/her conclusions on the health of the trees and,if appropriate,any recommendations including further methods required for tree protection to the Community Development Department. 17 Authorized Tree Removal and Required Disclosure and Protection of Trees to be Protected 13. The trees identified on the Vesting Tentative Map (received by the Community Development Department on November 6,2043)for removal are approved. Other trees shall be protected. All grading, improvement plans and construction plans prepared for building permits during initial project build-out shall clearly indicate trees proposed for removal,altered or otherwise affected by development construction. The tree information on grading and development plans shall indicate the number,size,species, assigned tree number and location of the dripline of all trees on the property that are to be retained/preserved.. Tree Protection Measures to be Shown on Subdivision Grading and Improvement Plans 14. The following tree protection measures shall be printed on all subdivision grading and improvement plans. A. Site Preparation: Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on site with trees to be preserved,the applicant shall install temporary construction fencing at or beyond the dripline of all areas adjacent to or in the area to be altered and remain in place for the duration of construction activity in the vicinity of the trees. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits,the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. Construction plans shall stipulate on their face where temporary fencing intended to protect trees is to be placed, and that the required fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of any construction activity. B. Construction Period Restrictions: No grading, compaction, stockpiling,trenching,paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline of any existing mature tree other than the trees approved for removal unless indicated on the improvement plans approved by the county and addressed in any required report prepared by the Project Restorationist. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline of a tree to be saved,an arborist may be required to be present during grading operations. The Project Restorationist shall have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Upon the completion of grading and construction, an involved arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods required for tree protection if any are required. All Project Restorationist shall be borne by the applicant. 18 C. Prohibition of Parkin: No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the drip line of any tree to be saved. D. Construction Tree Damage: The developments property owner or developer shall notify the Community Development Department of any damage that occurs to any tree during the construction process. The owner/developer shall repair any damage as determined by an arborist designated by the Director of Community Development. Any tree not approved for destruction or removal that dies or is significantly damaged as a result of construction or grading shall be replaced with a tree or trees of equivalent size and of a species as approved by the Director of Community Development to be reasonably appropriate for the particular situation. E. Supervision of Work. All work that encroaches within the dripline of a tree to be preserved shall be conducted under the supervision of the Project Itestorationist. Geotechnical 15. A. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or installation of improvements or utilities, applicant shall submit a final geology, soil,and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the Planning Geologist. The report shall evaluate soils' conditions and provide specific criteria and standards to guide site grading, drainage and foundation design. This report shall include evaluation of the potential for slope failure,seismic settlement,lateral deformation of fill slopes, differential fill thickness, cut/fill transition lots, and expansive soils by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation. It shall include slope stability analysis, design criteria for the proposed retaining walls, a remediation plan, and an assessment of the effect of project implementation on stability of adjacent lots. tssu A l tepp hal ' cluired fir ��: f buldig r� or � � lata; Thi�ten � te t have the ng as s � g t th € ply r rm" tic rss:a d tl i .�� oft, ro � 1 otedh i'"Ira 19 ��pvemf` diihg p out + : rte.of prt goteccaggtnal be.�an site or i dig o � wcs ( C r a1 dri n ; f � b to vee � ..... � goo,0 A �l D-B.The Grading Completion Report shall include an as-graded map showing the location of fill, keyways and subdrains, as well as as- graded topography, grading pemaits for- individual lots. The intent of this update is to have the geeteehaieal 1� asseeiated grading) plans, e_;Pfin# that they eemply wi t, grading, and buil&ng plans shall eaffy e the feeeffffnendeAiens Deed Disclosure 16. Applicant shall record a statement to run with deeds to property ac- knowledging the approved report by title, author(firm),and date,calling attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is available from the seller. Graded Slopes 17. A. Graded slopes in the project shall not be steeper than 2.5:1. B. Engineered slopes on the perimeter of the graded area shall be contour-rounded to mimic natural terrain features. C. Where slopes are required that do not conform to the standards specified in COA#17.A,special engineering shall be required(e.g., reinforced earth, retaining walls). D. dope stability analysis shall be provided for major slopes in the project. The standard for the project shall be safety factors of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.1 for pseudostatic conditions, and a seismic coefficient of 0.15, 20 E. During stripping, the topsoil within graded areas (approximately 2 feet in thickness) shall be salvaged for use during final grading. For engineered slopes more than 10 feet high(with gradients of 2.5:1 or flatter)topsoil shall be "track-walked" onto finish graded slopes to facilitate revegetation. Geologic Hazard Abatement District 18. A. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project shall be incorporated into the established Hillcrest Heights Geologic Hazard Abatement District(GRAD)or equivalent. The Plan of Control for the CHAD shall include maintenance responsibility for drainage facilities within the scenic easement. B. The Plan of Control and financial aspects of joining the GRAD, along with review of grading plans and field observations of the earthwork, shall be performed by an engineering geologist retained by the County. The applicant shall be responsible for funding these technical reviews. Erosion Control 19. At least 30 days prior to requesting the issuance of a grading permit, an Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. The Erosion Control Plan shall provide for the following measures: A. The Erosion Control Plan shall encompass the applicable provision of the Freshwater Marsh Riparian Vegetation and Trees Mitigation Measure(see Table 4, items c. and d.). B. The Erosion Control Plan shall encompass the Erasion and Sedimentation Mitigation Measures presented in Table 5 following. Construction Period Restrictions 20. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction, noise,litter,and traffic control requirements. These requirements shall be printed in the General Notes portion of the grading and subdivision improvement plans: A. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m.— 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays. 21 Table 5 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MITIGATION MEASURES i; Mitigation Measure: Grading activities shall be restricted to the summer construction season(15 April through 1 October). Any earthwork done after 1 October shall be limited to activities directly related to erosion control. The applicant shall provide an erosion control plan prior to issuance of the grading permit. The following interim control measures shall be employed based on site-specific needs in the project areas: a) Grading to minimize areas of exposed,erodible material adjacent to Garrity Creek, and avoid over-concentration of rapidly,flowing runoff in unprotected,erodible areas; b) The erosion control plan should include water bars,temporary culverts and swales,mulch,erosion control mats/blankets on exposed slopes,hydroseeding,silt fences,and sediment trapslbasins; c) Because the biggest problem with effective sediment control is lack of maintenance,the erosion control plan must have a comprehensive program for inspection and maintenance during the winter rainy season, including provisions for documenting maintenance activities. To reduce the potential impacts of long-term erosion and sedimentation,the project shall incorporate the appropriate design,construction and continued maintenance of one or more of the following long-term control measures. The specific measures shall be based on the recommendations of the project geotechnical engineer and civil engineer. d) Construction of grassy swales at strategic locations,as shown on the VTM. e) Provide downspout collection systems that outfall to splatter platesfor individual structures. j} Track-walk b inches of salvaged topsoil on all 22:1 slopes that are 1 S feet or more in height. g) Concentrated runoff shall not be permitted to drain over cut or fill slopes. i B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors 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 area 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 vehi- cles, 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. 22 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. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Construction-related vehicle access to the site shall be limited to Royal Oaks Drive. E. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to week days between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. and prohibited on Federal and State holidays. F. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. G. Prior to issuance of a graving permit, the applicant shall provide documentation to the Community Development Department of the proposed approach to achieve full compliance with COA #20 requirements by all contractors and subcontractors within this project (i.e., reference "general notes" in the grading plan, provisions in building and grading contracts or other equally effective measures). 21st Century Conditions 21. The project shall be designed to include the following measures: A. Provide housing units wired for electronic technologies that accommodate telecommuting by residents. B. Provide, within the garage area of each residence, a separate electrical conduit for charging of electric-powered vehicles. This shall be accomplished by specifically labeling an extra electrical outlet on the electrical plans for the garage. C. Should downstream drainage facilities prove to be inadequate, construct off-site improvements to prevent the project from worsening the existing conditions. Alternatively, construct on-site detention facilities to Flood Control District standards. The design criteria for these drainage structures is to reduce post project peak flood flows to predicted pre-project levels. Each phase of 23 development shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department to ensure compliance with this condition. D. Maintain existing drainageways above ground where feasible (i.e., use an arch culvert at the Royal Oaks Drive crossing of Garrity Creek and only for the minimum required crossing distance). E. The arch culvert crossing of Garrity Creek shall be designed to jurisdictional standards such that they do not constrict flows, including the 104-year flood flow. Design of the culvert and associated structures must be reviewed and approved by the County Public Works Department. F. Establish a native vegetation buffer within the 2:1 slope area between the tiered walls that are west of the west terminus of Marin Road. This shall require a design acceptable to the Project Itestorationist,and a drip irrigation system to facilitate plant growth during the first 1-3 years after construction. Street Name 22. At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map,proposed street names shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department,Graphics Section(Phone 4335-1270). Alternate street names should be submitted. The Final Map cannot be approved by the Commu- nity Development Department without the approved street name. Election for Establishment of a Police Service District to Augment Police Services 23. The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain and augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by this subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per parcel annual amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) then established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to the filing of the Final Map. The property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of holding the election,payable at the time that the election is requested by the owner. 24 Landscape Plan 24. A landscaping and irrigation plan for the Hilltop Drive frontage and to soften views of the tiered retaining walls adjacent to Garrett Creek Drive, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator at least 30 days prior to filing a final map. The plans for the Hilltop Drive frontage will include provision for a six- foot tall decorative masonry wall. Proposed trees shall be a minimum 15- gallons in size; proposed shrubs shall be a minimum 5-gallons in size. Plans shall include a color spat. At the same time, the plans shall make clear that the plant selection at maturity complies with the Sight Distance at Intersection Ordinance. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be certified to be in compliance with the County'Water Conservation Ordinance 82-26. Interior Street Tree Plan - The plan shall provide for the planting of at least one 15-gallon tree along the frontage of each property, except that corner lots shall be required to plant at least one 15-gallon tree along the frontage of each lot. These trees shall consist of a single species. The plan shall stipulate that at least 15 days prior to requesting a final inspection of a residence on the respective lot,the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator in the Community Development Department that the tree has been planted in accordance with the approved plan. The proposed plans shall be accompanied by a labor and materials cost wet-stamp estimate from a licensed landscape contractor. Security for Street Tree Program and Hilltop Drive Planter Landscape Improvements 25. Prior to filing a final map, the applicant shall provide the County with a security that is acceptable to the Zoning Administrator for 125% of the estimated cost of the landscape improvements. The purpose of the security shall be to ensure timely completion of the required landscape improvements, and shall be retained until the required: landscape improvements have been completed and accepted by the Zoning Administrator. If compliance is not achieved within one year of the completion of the subdivision improvements, then the County may contract for the completion of the landscaping and irrigation improvement using the landscape security. 25 Signs, Walls and Lighting 26. The design, color and location of any project sign at the entrance to the property shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. 27. Street Lighting Plan—The applicant shall propose a street lighting plan for the review and approval of the Public Works Department and the Zoning Administrator. The Plan shall provide for aesthetically-designed light standards. 28. The design, color and location of the proposed retaining walls identified on the subdivision plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. Traffic Calming and Hardscape Entry Resign Measures for Royal Oaks Drive 29. Improvement plans for Royal Oaks Drive shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, following opportunity to comment by the Public Works Department. The plans shall provide for: A. The installation of at least two speed bumps intended to slow traffic along this road. B. A hardscape design treatment for the road entry to the project. Recycling of Construction Materials 30. A. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits, the subdivision developer shall submit two (2) copies of a Debris Recovery Plan demonstrating how they intend to recycle,reuse,or salvage building materials and other debris generated from the construction of new buildings for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, following an opportunity for review and comment by the Resource Recovery Specialist in the Community Development Department(Lorna Thomson, (925) 335-1321). B. At least 30 days prior to requesting a final inspection on the first residential building permit,the subdivision developer shall submit a completed Debris Recovery Project documenting actual debris recovery efforts (including quantities of recovered and land filled materials)that occurred throughout the project's duration. 26 Application Processing Fees 31 . This application is subject to a deposit of$12,831.00 which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100 percent of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION SDO18533 COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A FINAL MAP. General Requirements 32. 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 statement. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the revised Tentative Map dated August 28, 2003. 33. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division. Roadway Improvements-hilltop Drive 34. Applicant shall widen existing Hilltop Drive to provide left turn channelization at the project entrance at Royal Oaks Drive. Channelization, tapers, and transition flares shall comply with Caltrans Highway Design. Manual standards based on a design speed of 40 miles per hour.These improvements will include relocation of existing utilities, 27 and pedestrian paths, as well as possible reconstruction of driveways of existing adjacent homes to adequately conform to the widened street section. 35. Dedicate additional right of way as necessary to accommodate the above pavement widening and appurtenant improvements and utilities.This may require the applicant to obtain off-site offers of dedication from neighboring property owners. 36. Applicant shall install safety related improvements including traffic signs and striping, as approved by Public Works. Roadway Improvements W Marin Road 37. Applicant shall construct off site improvements as necessary to transition from the existing public street to the new on-site extension of Marin Road. Pavement transition and vertical alignment shall comply with Caltrans Highway Design Manual standards based on a design speed of 30 miles per hour.These improvements will include relocation of existing utilities, and pedestrian paths, as well as possible reconstruction of driveways of existing adjacent homes to adequately conform to the revised street alignment. 38. Applicant shall install safety related improvements off-site along Marin Road including traffic signs and striping, as approved by Public Works. Roadway Improvements - On Site 39. Applicant shall construct curb,a 4.5-foot sidewalk(width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage and street lighting within the project as shown on the tentative map. Sidewalk will only be required on one side of streets as shown. Pavement and right of way widths shall conform to those shown on the tentative map as well. Although the streets are to remain private, they shall be constructed to County public road standards as to horizontal and vertical alignment (using a 30 mile per hour design speed)as well as the pavement structural section. Turn-arounds shall conform to Public Works and lire District standards. 28 Access to Adjoining Property Proof of Access 40. Applicant shall furnish necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site,temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. 41. Encroachment permits from the County are required for all construction activity within existing County right of way. Off--site street or drainage improvements within the City of Richmond will require the appropriate permits from the City. Parking 42. "leo Parking" suns and pavement markings shall be installed along all streets subject to the review and approval of Public Works.Parking will be allowed one side of the street where the curb-to-curb width is at least 28 feet.Parking shall be prohibited altogether along roads with a curb-to-curb width less than 28 feet. Sight Distance 43. Provide sight distance at all intersections for a through traffic design speed of 34 mph. Sight distance easements shall be dedicated on the final map in accordance with the currant Caltrans intersection "Stopping Sight Distance"requirements or Chapter 82-18 of the County Ordinance Code, whichever is greater. Structures greater than 30 inches above top of curb grade will be prohibited within these sight distance easements. Utilites/Undergrounding 44. All new and existing utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Maintenance of Facilities 45. Property Owner shall record a Statement of Obligation in the form of a deed notification, to inform all future property owners of their legal obligation to maintain the private roadway. 29 Open Space 46. Applicant shall convey the entry landscaping/hardscape area at the project entrance along Hilltop Drive to a homeowners association, or ether acceptable entity other than the County. A maintenance plan of operation shall be submitted for Public Works and Community Development review, but the County will not accept this property for maintenance. 47. Establish a maintenance entity and develop a plan of control and maintenance for the proposed perimeter grass swales and the wetlands area within Lot 29.The plan of control and maintenance shall be subject to the review and approval of Public Works, as well as other regulatory agencies as applicable. Pedestrian Facilities 48. All public and private pedestrian facilities and access ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks,paths, trails, driveway depressions, as well as handicap ramps. 49. A public pedestrian access easement shall be dedicated over the sidewalks to be constructed within the project. Drainage Improvements Collect and Convey 50. Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires that all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property shall be conveyed, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility that conveys the storm wasters to a natural watercourse. Garrity Creek is not considered an acceptable ultimate discharge point for the purposes of the County Ordinance Code. Additional drainage inventory and analysis of downstream facilities is necessary to determine the ultimate point of discharge into a natural watercourse,and additional off-site construction and/or an-site mitigation per said Code may be required. 30 51. Storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 shall be designed and constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements 52. Storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk(s)and drive- way(s). 53. The applicant shall dedicate a public drainage easement over the drainage system that conveys storm water run-off from public streets. 54. In the absence of public drainage easements, the applicant shall create private drainage easements over portions of the drainage system that convey storm water run-off from more than a single lot or parcel. 55. Private on-site storm drain easements,if necessary,shall have a minimum width of 10 feet. Creek Structure Setback 56. Applicant shall relinquish "development rights" over that portion of the site that is within the setback area of Garrity Creek. The structure setback shall be determined using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14,"Rights of Way and Setbacks"of the Subdivision Ordinance.Development rights shall be conveyed to the County by grant deed. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) Requirements 57. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)for municipal construction and industrial activities promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards(San Francisco Bay B Region I1). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMPs) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate, wherever feasible, the following long term BMPs in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage: • Provide educational materials to new homebuyers. • Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins. 31 • Provide options for grass pavers or other semi-pervious paving systems for walks, drives and patios. • Slope driveways and weakened plane joints to sheet flaw onto planted surfaces where feasible. • Prohibit or discourage direct connection of roof and area drains to storm drain systems or through-curb drains. • Other alternatives, equivalent to the above, as approved by the Public Works Department. ADVISORY DOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER.LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER.TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. The Building Inspection Department will require three sets of building plans which must be stamped by the Community Development Department and by the West County Wastewater District. B. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Fire District,the Health Department and the Building Inspection Department. It is advisable to check with these departments prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project. C. Vesting Tentative Map Rights. The approval of this vesting tentative map confers a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with ordinances,policies,and standards in effect as of September 21,2001,the date the vesting tentative map application was accepted as complete by the Community Development Department. The vested rights also apply to development fees which the County has adopted by ordinance. These fees are in addition to any other development fees which may be specified in the conditions of approval. 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 obtained by contacting the Building Inspection Department at 335-1192. 32 D. Expiration of VestedRights. Pursuant to Section 66452.6(g)of the Subdivision Map act, the rights conferred by the vesting tentative map as provided by Chapter 4.5 of the Subdivision Map act shall last for an initial period of two(2)years following the recording date of the final/parcel map. These rights pertain to development fees and regulations. Where several final maps are recorded on various phases of a project covered by a single vesting tentative map,the initial time period shall begin for each phase when the final map for that phase is recorded. At any time prior to the expiration of the initial time period,the subdivider may apply for a one-year extension. The application shall be accompanied by the applicable filing fee. If the extension is denied by an advisory agency,the subdivider may appeal that denial to the Board of Supervisors by filing a letter of appeal with the appropriate filing fee with the Clerk of the Board within 15 calendar days. The initial time period may also be subject to automatic extension pursuant to other provisions of Section 66452.6(g)relating to processing of related development applications by the County. At the expiration of the vesting time period, remaining development (i.e., new building permits) within the subdivision shall be subject to development fees and regulations in effect at that time. E. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules,regulations,and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems(NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Beard, or any of its Regional Water(duality Control Boards(San Francisco Bay-Region II). F. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources,per the Fish and Game Code. G. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. H. Police Services District Costs and Necessary Processing Time. The applicant is advised that the tax for the police services district is currently set by the Board of Supervisors at $200 per parcel annually (with appropriate future Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments). The annual fee is subject to modification by the Board of Supervisors in the future. The current fee for holding the election is$800 and is also subject to modification in the future. The applicable tax and fee amounts will be those established by the Board at 33 the time of voting. The applicant is advised that the election process takes from 3 to 4 months and must be completed prior to approval of the Final Map. I. Requirement of Special Districts and School District. Comply with the requirements of the East Bay Municipal Utility District and West County Wastewater District. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. At time of issuance of building permits, comply with the fee payment requirements of the Richmond Unified School District. J. The applicant is required to pay an environmental review fee of $1,2.50.00 to the Department of Fish and Game at the end of the appeal period. Failure to do so will result in fines. In addition, the approval is not final or vested until the fee is paid; nor may the County post a Notice of Determination until the fee is paid. A check for this fee shall be submitted to the Community Development Department made out to Contra Costa County for submittal with the final environmental documents. K. Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the Richmond/El Scbrante and West Contra Costa Regional Areas of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permits. L. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS,OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000,et. seq, the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees,dedications,reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a ninety-day(90)period after the project is approved. The 90-day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication,reservation,or other exaction required by this approved permit,begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. DM/ss GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\SDOi 8533rptMayl9fmdC0A-c1ean-bdm.doc Rev. 7-8-2004-rd ? CIA SEMEss' Lot 29-GDDR(Grant Heed ofDevelopmed 1 der-ti Ri&s) convayed to County for wetlands x x , ' ', �° ,ai•,er = portion of site,but allowing for development of reside=in NE corner of lot, E i x it x a i 2 1'.TFy A-14) 3 1. !yJN 8i i itY 3,Yxx x '� t i Y X aN Y q`,A 7 AA, 1 Y Y Y Y i �_" .�. xYi i xx �? �C I I .✓. y ; zc tz�.a'T 4 eerrs wms2-01 .ei t � r < � 13893 123-432-3t'I 7a.E, 43.,0 7 St3' .33 x 449 Redu PO t 1 14 313 f{ `✓ d. AND 42i�� 0,3 `v v . -1 - @ CREAUER 423-sco—oto t , HALL @ — ,oa» + y ~1 (D sn ✓ p tEr 2 7 dei bYe°tee ice toe yt id bey n aa d rec t rtFigttre /2 MIZ o 't �kt l te o �d.#e tie IL u. 4*> 3 429-200?-003 •n� '�Qa�. � A- Reduce lot yreld in ares of Lots .g to three lots. Passible aaamnent to allow for future extension of road along south side of Garrity Creek B- Reduce lot yield in area of Dots#6-11 to five lots. The inomase width ofthe r=mining lots is desirable because of the 50 foot setback from creek required by � ?' CDFQ,which results in loss of rear yard areas for use by residents. C- Reduce lot yield in area of Lots#36-40 to four lots,and extend the Garrity Creek View road easement to the west boundary of site. D- Reduce lot yield in area of Lots#26-29 to two lots. This allows for a standard �. t—um around that does not encroacb.into the€rout yard or driveway area of the residential lot lv- Reduce lot yield in area of Lots#32-34 to two lots. This reduction in lot yield l allows for the width o€the rer mainiug lots to be increased and for design flexibility. Figure 17 Staff Study May 24th, 2004 Graphic Scale. Appendix C May 25I Staff Report Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA. COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 25,-20-04 0-04 I. INTRMICIMN ASIAy. ASH A-H l =I.iganefly, County File#SDO18533: The applicant/owner requests vesting tentative map approval to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height (up to 10 feet in height proposed),and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 132 feet in combined height)within the required yards(structure setback areas); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots(Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet;minimum 70-foot widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. The property is addressed 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante Area (R.-7) (ZA:H-6) (CT 3630.00) (Parcels 426-210-007; 425-182-001 &-017; and 426-192-005 & -008). II. RECM-ENDAII A. Find that on the basis of the whole record, including the Initial Study and the comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the project with mitigation measures will have a significant effect on the environment; and find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis. B. Find that the documents or other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the County Planning Commission's decision is based may be found at the Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, CA,the custodian of the records. C. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as adequate for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). D. Adopt the attached recommended findings indicating that the County slope protection policies can only be made with a reduction in the number of proposed units. S-2 D. Approve the tentative map application with the recommended conditions including a requirement to reduce the number of lots from 40 to 35, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. E. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. III. UENEROEMATIC►N A. Gey .tel PIa : The 10.09 (gross) acres site is designated Single-Family Residential -High Density (SH). The SH designation allows 5.0 to 7.2 units/net acre. Assuming that net acreage is 75 percent of the gross acreage,the net area of the site is 7.57 acres (10.09 acres x 75%). Therefore the range of dwelling units that normally could be considered on a site such as this is 38 (7.57 net acres x 5.0 units per net acre) to 54 dwelling units (7.57 net ac. X 7.2 units per net ac.) The Land Use Element contains policies for the El Sobrante area General Plan,pages 3-73 and 3-74)that also affect the unit yield and how property should develop. Policies most applicable to SDO18533 are presented in Table 1 under :Land Use Policies for EI Sobrante." Briefly summarized, the policies encourage "infill development" and encourage aggregation of deep narrow lots to yield better-designed projects (Policies 3-204 and 30205). Because of the limitations of the existing road network, new development should be approved in the Iow- to mid-density range (Policy 3-203). In the case of a property designed SH, the low range is five dwelling units/net acre; the mid-range is 6.1 dwelling units/net acre. The policies for El Sobrante recognize that some channels and drainage facilities in El Sobrante are inadequate, and call for implementation of measures to avoid inundation,ponding and sheet overflow during storms (Policy 3-202). Policy 3-198 calls for retaining and reinforcing the semi-rural and suburban character of the community, with strong emphasis on single-family residences. 1. fQV Element. The Safety Element of the General Plan includes a number of policies that require evaluation of geologic hazards for proposed land development projects in areas of potential hazards. On page 10-25 the Safety Element states that geologic conditions should be a primary determinant of land use, Table 1 presents ground failure and landslide hazard policies from the Safety Element that are most applicable to the project. 2. Tranapa kation.aadir�dation,tel went. Hilltop Drive is designated a collector. According to this Element of the General Plan,there are no officially designated scenic routes in the project vicinity. S-3 Table 3 SELECTED LAND USE AND SAFETY ELEMENT POLICIES Land.Use Poli * Qt Etib a= 3-198 The overall goal of the area is to retain and reinforce the semi-rural and suburban character of the community with its strong emphasis on single-family residences,the feature which has drawn most residents to the area. 3-202 Upgrade the community's drainage system to eliminate problems caused by local inundation,ponding and sheet overflow during storms, and eliminate open drainage ditches along portions of Appian Way and San Pablo Darn Road and throughout the community. 3-203 In view of the existing traffic problems and the limited ability of the circulation system to adequately handle substantial growth in traffic volumes,new development should be approved at the low to mid range of the respective single-family residential land use density designations. 3-204 This plan calls for residential development to be directed primarily to areas where infilling of previously"passed over„ property can occur,as well as to a limited number of larger parcels of undeveloped acreage. These larger parcels include the western slope of Sobrante Ridge,and the lower portions of the north face of San Pablo Ridge. 3-205 A major policy of this plan is to eliminate deep,narrow lots through the aggregation of land parcels in areas designated for multiple-family use. Every effort should be made to encourage the aggregation of such Iots to provide for better designed projects. Qro tnd Failurt and Landslide Hazard P li i s 10-22 Slope stability shall be a primary consideration in the ability of land to be developed or designated for urban uses. 10-23 Slope stability shall be given careful scrutiny in the design of developments and structures, and in the adoption of conditions of approval and required mitigation measures. 10-24 Proposed extensions of urban or suburban land uses into areas characterized by slopes over 15 percent and/or generally unstable land shall be evaluated with regard to safety hazards prior to the issuance of any discretionary approvals. Development on open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County shall be restricted,and hillsides with a grade of 26 percent or greater shalI be protected through implementing zoning measures and other appropriate actions. 10-25 Subdivision of rural lands outside planned urban areas down to the allowed minimum parcel size shall be discouraged, if the parcels are within,or only accessible through,geologically unstable areas. 10-26 Approvals of public and private development projects in areas subject to slope failures shall be contingent on geologic and engineering studies which define and delineate potentially hazardous conditions and recommend adequate mitigation. 10-27 Soil and geological reports shall be subject to the review and approval of the County Planning Geologist. 10-28 Generally,residential density shall decrease as slope increases,especially above a 15 percent slope. 10-29 Significant hillsides with slopes over 26 percent or more shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading or other land disturbance. 10-30 Development shall be precluded in areas when landslides cannot be adequately repaired. Table 2 SUMMARY OF ZONING STANDARDS FOR THE R-7 DISTRICT • No structure shall be permitted in the R-7 district on a lot less than 70 feet in average width(84-6.604). • No structure shall be permitted in the R-7 district on a lot less than 90 feet deep(84-6.606). • Structures are limited to 21/2 stories or 35 feet in height(84-6.802). • Aggregate side yard setback shall be 15 feet. No side yard shall be less than 5 feet(84-6.1002). • The front yard setback shall be 20 feet. On corner lots the principal frontage shall have a setback of at least 20 feet and the other setback shall be at least 15 feet(84-6.1004). • The rear yard setback shall be at least 15 feet(84-6.1006). S-4 3. Ho ,Sing FIgmen — The Housing Element has set targets for development of housing units for the unincorporated portion of the County,including a Vacant and Underutilized Site Analysis that indicates the potential for development of various sites within the County. That Inventory of parcels indicates that the five parcels constituting this site have a potential for development of 44 units moderate income housing units. B. ,g: The property is zoned R-7 (single-family residential, minimum standard parcel size 7,000 square feet), The Zoning Ordinance provisions regulating this district are found in Chapter 84-6. The standards of the District are summarized in Table 2. C. CEQA..Satm: For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project which found significant biologic resource, cultural resource, and geologic/soils impacts (see Appendix A for the Initial Study). Two impacts have been identified and the applicant has agreed to the Mitigation Measures. The Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was posted on October 24, 2003. The comment period closed on March 11, 2004. During the review period, comments were received from the City of Richmond,LAFCO,WCWD,EBMUD and the El Sobrante Valley Planning & Zoning Advisory Committee, along with public comments and comments from neighborhood/environmental groups. Table 3 provides a summary of agencies, organizations and individuals who submitted comment letters, and copies of these letters are presented in Appendix. B. Staff s response to these continent letters is presented in Section VI of this staff report. D. &gulalary Programs: I. Elood Hazuds. The project site is designated Flood Zone C. (Source: FIRM Panel 0235, dated September 7, 2000) 2. I've Fault =: The project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. (Source: CDMG Special Report#42, 1994) 3. Noise Hazard: According to the Noise Element of the General Plan, the site is not within an area experiencing noise levels of_> 60 DNL. (Source: Noise Element, page 11-23) 4. Hazardous Wastes: The site does not appear on the Cortese list,which lists all sites known to the State of California. S-5 Table 3 COMMENTORS ON THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A=r.y.C-omments{I&iter Date} BubULQwmw=continued LAFCO(10/27/03) Nancy Mariner(11/20103) West County Wastewater District(10/30/03) Evelyn Slessinger(11/20/03) West County Wastewater District(11/18/03) Saundra England(11/21/03) East Hay Municipal utility District(11/20/03) Ed Ballou(11/22/03) Office of Planing and Research(11124/03) Doris Alsing(11/24/03) City of Richmond(12116103) Bob Joyce(11/24103) East Bay Municipal Utility District(11/20103) Selya Gomez-Suiter(11/24/03) East Bay Municipal Utility District(3/1/04) Margrit Haaf(11/24/03) Community Or F Aronmenntgl Orggpi .az tions Miguel and Edna Hernandez(12/13/03) Et Sobrante Valley P&Z Advisory Committee(11/03/03) Claudia Crandall(12/19/03) Friends of Garrity Creek/Hilltop Neighborhood Assoc.(email Janet Laughlin(12/21103) 11/16/03) Steven&Linda Everett(1/23/04) Friends of Garrity Creek/Hilltop Neighborhood Assoc.(11/17/03) Kent Brandenburg,Bethel Baptist Church(1/2'7/04) El Sobrante Valley P&Z Advisory Committee(11118103) Mathew L.Rei;Kister,Savio&Rei,Inc.(1/27/04) Richmond Greens Local,Green Party of Contra Costa(11120/03) Kathy Dunham (1/29/04) Urban Creek Council of America(11/21%03) Steven D.Benson(212/04) El Sobrante Valley P&Z Advisory Committee(11123103) Araceli Munoz(2/3104) EI Sobrante Valley P&Z Advisory Committee(12/4/03) Sandy Fitzgerald Higgins(2/3104) Friends of Garrity Creek(Booklet on Garrity Creek)(12/31103) Kimberly Chan(213104) The Fund for Animals,Inc.(1/4/04) Ron Frank(214/04) El Sobrante Neighborhood Council(2/13/04) Bethel Christian Academy(2/11/04) Tami Davidson(2/12/04) EI Sobrante Elementary—4th Grade Erika&John Applin(2/12/04) Juan Rangel Baroo Ahmadi(2/17104) Khirey Diane Carter(2125/04) Alexus Kathleen Braun(315/04) Ariana J.Martinez Marilyn M.Thompson(3/5/04) Dominica Patterson Jesse Golden(3/6/04) Ricky Bryant Joan C.barker(3/7/04) Rebecca Scott V.L.Bressen(317104) Jasmine Doris Alsing(3/7/04) Frank Carel Osmer Newhouse(318/04) Chanay Bret&Wanda Smith(3/8/04) Gregory Ann M.Hershey(3/8/04) Chanelle Jose William&Evelyn Slessinger(3/8104) Jason Factora Tejada Janet Laughlin(3/8/04) Daniel Marten Fisle(3/8/04) Christy Mike Pelton&Jain Hutzell-Pelton(3/8/04) Audrey Vi&Robert Bressem(3/8/04) Marlena C.Subia Shelley Mazer&Julius Baker,Jr.(3/8/04) Den Joan&Robert Bracken(3/8104) Taivon Bennie Saville(3/8/04) Lovell Claire W.Bleset(3/8/04) Jeremy Thomas A.&Susan Wright(3/8104) Harun Juanita Greengard(3/8/04) Public C-M11=1 Brian Scott Creamer(3/8/04) Erik Wheaton(11/15103) Annie Hershey&Carol Osmer-Newhouse(3/8/04) Janette M.Numes&Charles Proctor(11/16103) Selya E.Gomez-Suiter(3/10/04) Mike Mantell(11/17/03)Tracy Taylor(11/18/03) Maybe]L.Draxton(3/10/04) Kim Dixon(11/18/03) Doris Petersen(3/11/04) Phil Covet(CDD on 11/19103) Thomas Wuttke&Victoria House(3/11/04) Katherine Perez,NVY(Ohlone,Miwok)(11/19/03) Kenneth A.Peterson(3111/04) Michael Ali(11/19/03) James Ruppert(3/27/04) P.and Gloria Alejandre(11/20/03) Chelsea Marion(3/29/04) Winifred Tong(11120/03) S-6 5. aevigas Applic t ms: On March 30, 1990 an application was filed for a 24-lot single-family residential subdivision(SD7504). That application encompassed the southern half of the 10-acre site of SD018533. The proposed density of SD7504 was 4.8 units/grass acre (approximately 6.4 units/net acre). The application was approved by the Zoning Administrator on February 3, 1992 subject to 27 conditions of approval. The permit had an effective date of February 13, 1992. This approval expired on February 13, 1995. In summary, the Final Map was never recorded and the approval expired without a request being filed for a time extension. Apparently the project proponent lost interest in the project. Even if an extension to record the Final Map had been requested by the applicant and granted by the County,the approval would have lapsed two years ago. E. PeMit SlreuWidug A . The application for SDO18533 was received on May 17, 2001. At that time the request was for approval of 44 lots. On May 17, 2001, the applicant was notified by the Community Development Department (CDD) that additional information was needed, and the required data was listed. A revised Vesting Tentative Map and related information was submitted. On August 21, 2001, CDD issued a second request for additional information indicated that the application remained incomplete, identifying the specific items needed to mare the application complete. A revised plan was submitted, along with the other items requested by CDD. The application was deemed complete on November 1, 2002. The posting of the CEQA notice and completion of the initial Study was delayed to allow the applicant to work with representatives El Sobrante Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee. Specifically,review of the project had resulted in submittal of all of the data required to satisfy provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance and all tecl-tical data needed to prepare the Initial Study. During the 18 months between the filing of the application with CDD and deeming the application complete, the plan was revised and the lot yield reduced from 44 to 41 units. However, the correspondence in the County-file indicated considerable opposition to the project. In an effort to resolve these differences outside of a public hearing, staff recommended that the applicant go back to the El Sobrante Valley Planing and Zoning Advisory-Committee, get a list of their issues/concerns/recommendations, and then strive to modify the project to incorporate those "concerns" into the proposed VTM. Based on staff s suggestion the applicant obtained a list of issues from the El Sobrante P&Z. That list, which is dated December 23,2002, is presented in Appendix C,page C-11 and Cµ12, it lists 26 recommendations. The applicant made changes in the plan to address the issues identified by the El Sobrante P&Z. Those changes included increasing the road widths in the project, connecting the project roads to Marin Road, thereby avoiding the need for an emergency vehicle access (EVA), and assigning S-7 duties for maintenance of the creek channel and common improvements to a homeowner's association. Staff reviewed the revised plan and a) suggested that the applicant seek an endorsement of the newly revised VTM from the El Sobrante P&Z , and b) staff made additional suggestions pertaining to the grading and retaining walls, along with requesting more details on the measures intended to keep post-project flows at the pre-development level. Staff also advised the applicant that while he may wish to include a tot-lot in the project(an issue of the El Sobrante P&Z), the Ordinance Code does not allow the cost of that land (or the improvements) to be deducted from the park dedication fees. The reviews by the P&Z resulted in an updated and expanded list of issues and concerns presented in a letter dated April 19, 2003 (see Appendix C, pages C-8 and C-9). This list contains 29 suggested conditions/changes. In response to the 29-point P&Z list,the applicant revised the plan for a fourth time and issued a 29-point response (see Appendix C,page C-6). In summary, the lot yield was reduced to 40. Grading was substantially reduced; padded lots nearly eliminated from the project and the proposed slope gradients flattened from 2.5:1 to approximately 5:1.' This has eliminated the retaining walls in the project,with the exception of walls needed for roads in three places within the project (i.e., to comply with the Public Works standards for road gradients). The applicant also modified the road design to eliminate an EVA-only connection to the north via Road 24, and instead provided a connection with Marin Road. Through negotiation with the California Department of Fish & Game (DFG), the applicant reached a tentative agreement which is documented in a letter received by CDD on March 6, 2002. The Initial Study was then completed which identified Biologic Resource impacts and mitigation measures. CDD then referred the Initial Study to the applicant for the purpose of securing agreement to the mitigation measures. On October 20, 2003, CDD received a letter from the applicant agreeing to the mitigation measures. Four days later (on October 24, 2003) the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted. In summary, the project was deemed complete on November 1, 2002. In the following 12 months the applicant negotiated with the El Sobrante P&Z and made other changes to accommodate staffs concerns. Since the revised VTM was received by CDD on November 6, 2003, CDD has prepared the Initial Study, CEQA notice and staff report. 'The Grading Ordinance allows use of 2.1 (horizontal to vertical gradients)so the design that is currently proposed can be considered sensitive to geologic constraints. S-8 IV. AREA AND STTE DESCRIPEON Figure 1, Vicinity Map,shows the location of the site with respect to Interstate 80,nearby communities and San Pablo Bay. Sobrante Ridge (located east of the site) and Pinole Ridge (located 1.75 miles northeast) are officially designated scenic ridges by the Open Space Element, but the property is= on a scenic ridge. Figure 2, USGS Topographic Map, shows the topographic setting of the site on a base map that shows the local road network. The property is in an upland area that is drained by Garrity Creek which is shown on the map as an intennittent stream. The main stern of Garrity Creek drains to the west. Just west of the site the creek is culverted in the Hilltop Green development. Figures 3, 4 and 5 present color General Plan, Zoning and Slope Maps. The portions of Figure 3 and 4 that are= colored are lands within the cities of Pinole and Richmond. There are five properties that are outlined with a black line and which are numbered"1" through "5". These are recent subdivision applications (i.e., they are proposed in-fill projects within the northern portion of the El Sobrante area). The site of SD018533 is labeled 5. The property is designed single-family-high density(SH), as are adjacent lands to the north,south and east. Other General Plan designations in the project vicinity include multiple-family -- medium density (MM), multiple family -- low density (ML), single- family — medium density (SM), single-family — low density (SL), open space (OS), commercial (CO), and office (OF). Figure 3 also shows the prevailing parcel sizes in the area. The area along the south boundary of the property (between the main portion of the site and Hilltop Drive) are narrow, deep parcels that are underdeveloped by the standards of the General Plan Land Use Map. They range from 0.5 to 3 acres each and typically have one residence per parcel (see Figure 6 for a parcel map of this area). The reminder of the adjacent area is fully developed. There is an undeveloped road right-of-way that runs along the western side of the property,Road 24. Except for the portion that adjoins immediately to the north of this site, it appears to have no functional purpose. Figure 4 is a Zoning Map. The project site and adjacent parcels to the south are Zoned R-7. The area to the east and northeast of the site are designated R.-6. Both the R-6 and R-7 districts are consistent with the SH General Plan land use category. Figure 5 is a slope analysis map of the property. The categories shown (0-15%; 15-26%; and >26%) correspond to slope categories cited in Safety Element Policies 10-24, 10-28, and 10-29 (see Table 1 on page S-3). Policy statements in the General .Plan Safety Element that are applicable to hillside land development projects (see Table 4). The major geologic hazards in Contra Costa County, aside from earthquake rupture and direct effects of ground shaking, are unstable hill slopes. Slopes may suffer landslides, slumping, soil slips and rockslides. Landslides and other ground failures occur during earthquakes,triggered by the strain induced in soil and rock . f S-9 Table 4 GROUND FAILURE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD POLICIES 10-22 Slope stability shall be a primary consideration in the ability of land to be developed or designated for urban uses. 10-23 Slope stability shall be given careful.scrutiny in the design of developments and structures,and in the adoption of conditions of approval and required mitigation measures. 10-24 Proposed extensions of urban or suburban land uses into areas characterized by slopes over 15 percent and/or generally unstable land shall he elevated with regard to the safety hazard prior to the issuance of any discretionary approvals. Development on open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County shall be restricted,and hillsides with a grade of 26 percent or greater shall be protected through implementing zoning measures and other appropriate actions. 10-25 Subdivision of rural lands outside planned urban areas down to the allowed minimum parcel size shall be discouraged,if the parcels are within,or only accessible through,geologically unstable areas. 10-26 Approvals of public and private development projects in areas subject to slope failures shall be contingent on geologic and engineering studies which define and delineate potentially hazardous conditions and recommend adequate mitigation. 10-27 Soil and geological reports shall be subject to the review and approval of the County Planning Geologist. 10-28 Generally,residential density shall decrease as slope increases,especially above a 15 percent slope. 10-29 Significant hillsides with slopes over 26 percent or more shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading or other land disturbance. 10-30 Development shall be precluded in areas when landslides cannot be adequately repaired. by the groundshaking vibrations, and during non-earthquake conditions, most frequently during the rainy season. Bath natural and man-made factors contribute to these slope failures. As a practical matter, compliance with Policies 10-28 and 10-29 are subject to interpretation. Slope characteristics may be a limiting factor in determining suitable development for a site. In the case of Subdivision 8533,there are 14 distinct areas of>26 percent slope that total 1.62 acres (see Figure 5). The two largest areas of>26 percent slope are at the following locations: a) Immediately north of the access road crossing of Garrity Creek; and b) Just west of the existing terminus of Marin Road. The location of the Garrity Creek crossing was selected by CDFG because it avoids disturbance to riparian vegetation; the Marin Road connection proposed by the V'I'M is a response to the Ordinance Code requirement that addresses the length of cul-de-sac (and which therefore encourages two ingress/egress road connections for this project). According to Figure 5, 6.81 acres(67.5 percent) of the property possesses slopes of 15 to 26 percent. The VTM proposes 40 lots, which is in the lower one-third of the allowable range (40 units / '7.57 net acres = 5.2 units per net ac.). The pertinent facts may be summarized as follows: S-10 • A computer-generated slope map of the property indicates the following: SIQPe Cate A=ag % of Sit 0-15% 2.62 16.1% >15-26% 6.81 67.5% >26% IIJ5 Totals 10.09 ac. 100% Figure 7 shows parcel sizes north of the site (Manor Road and Marin Road lots). The Marin Road lots are lie on top of a flat ridge and are approximately 60 feet(wide)x 150 feet(deep), which corresponds to 9,000 square feet. The Manor Road lots are deeper and average 12,000 square feet±. Figure 8 shows parcel sizes in the northwest portion of the site. The site is bounded on the northwest by four parcels that are approximately 2 f o acre each(APN's 426-192-403, -004, -006, and -007). The applicant has negotiated for a sanitary sewer easement across APN 426-192-004 that will allow all lots in the proposed subdivision to be sewered by gravity to the existing Manor Road main. V. PROJECT DISC TION Figure 9, Vesting Tentative Map, shows the configuration of the proposed 40-lot subdivision. The road system within the project is designed to comply with private road ordinance standards. The main entrance road(Royal Oaks Drive) is to be single-loaded and have a paved width of 20 feet, and a grade with a slope as steep as 15% near the proposed creek crossing. No on-street parking would be permitted on either side of the entry road. The lots on the segment of the site just north of Garrity Creek(lots fronting on Garrity Creek Drive) are 70 feet wide, and 100+ feet in depth with the exception of Lots 11 thru 14 at the cul-de-sac. These four lots are 56 to 70 feet in average width. They are pie-shaped. This road is 28 feet in width, which allows for parking on one side only. Garrity Creek Drive is to have a paved width of 28 feet from its intersection with Garrity Creek View to the Marin Road intersection. Garrity Creek narrows to a 20-foot paved width north of Lot 26. With regard to circulation-related items,the project connection to Marin Road is consistent with the Ordinance Code,which places limitations on the length of cul-de-sacs. The Marin Road connection will function as the secondary project access. Marin Road was stubbed out at the project boundary, indicating that the road was always intended to be extended to serve the SDO18533 site. The VTM also indicates improvements to the Hilltop Drive/Royal teak Drive intersection,including a left turn storage lane on Hilltop Drive, and a landscape statement on the southernmost portion of Lot#1 to create a formal entry to the project. Each street would have a sidewalk on one-side. S-11 Table 5 APPLICANT'S PROJECT OBJECTIVES FOR SDO18533 • To encourage unique,imaginative architecture and site design which integrates into a setting that is well planned and environmentally sensitive. • To provide executive-style,two-story homes with useable outdoor yard areas with sweeping views of the adjacent hills and creeks,and with easy access to 1-80,shopping and other community facilities. • To retain and enhance water courses on the site,and comply with all permit requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game and Regional Water{duality Control Board. • To limit grading to that required to provide roads meeting standards of the County Ordinance Code for private roads, and restrict grades of engineered slopes to 2.5:1 (horizontal to vertical)and design hillside residences that conform with the natural terrain. Where slopes with 21/2:1 gradients are not feasible,special engineering will be utilized(e.g., engineered,permanent retaining walls). • To keep post-development runoff from the project site at the pre-development level for the design storm. To provide low-rise street lighting throughout the project,with the design based on recommendation of a lighting engineer. s To establish a homeowners association with maintenance responsibilities for roads,street lights,drainage channels, fencing along the Garrity Creek channel,and riparian landscape planting materials. I Figure 10 shows the approach to grading and development. It indicates that grading will be minimized,with nearly all proposed residences tucked into the hillside. This allows for an approach to grading that is conservative on the side of safety. The slopes indicated in Figure 10 have gradients of 3;1 to 4:1. The project objectives, which are presented in Table 5, indicate engineered slopes will not exceed 2'/2:1. Figure 11 shows the details of the improvements at the Hilltop Drive/Royal Oaks Drive intersection. The applicant has provided conceptual building designs to show how both uphill and. downhill lots might be developed as split-level residential designs. These building elevations are presented in Figures 14 through 16. Figure 14 presents an elevation of a lot that slopes down toward the creek. It is intended to be representative of lots that front on the south side of proposed Garrity Creek View(i.e.,proposed Lots 6-11 and 36-40). The purpose of the illustration is to indicate a residence on a sloping lot with attractive architectural details could be constructed on the downslope lots. Figure 15 is a view of the same downslope residence as seen from the rear yard(i.e.,view as seen from the grade of the creek). Figure 1.6 is an elevation for an upslope lot. This illustration is intended to be representative of the types of dwellings that could be constructed on Lots #14 through 21. It has a street in the foreground, with a garage at the grade of the street. A two-story dwelling is shown which is setback from the roadway, and is one floor above the elevation of the garage. (This design would require filing of a request for a variance to the front yard setback standard of the R-7 District.) Nevertheless, the design shows that there is potential for architecturally interesting hillside residences on upslope lots. _. _ _..__. S-12 The site contains a number of trees (almost entirely non-native species). Most of the trees are relatively small in size,but there are several eucalyptus with trunk sizes greater than 50-inches in diameter. Most of the trees are concentrated in a glen in the northwest corner of the site. The applicant proposes to retain most of the existing trees. To satisfy the requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game, the applicant is proposing to enhance the creep corridor and to preserve a wet meadow area(in the northern portion of the site on Lot 29). The applicant is also proposing to satisfy storm water quality control requirements by providing for grassy swales that would collect filter runoff before it leaving the site. VI. AGENCY COMMENIS A. Grading Division. The County Building Inspection Department provided comments in a memorandum that indicates the project must comply with the standards of the County Grading Ordinance and Clean'Water Program requirements. B. California Historical-Resources Information System. CHRIS issued a memorandum indicating that the site had the possibility of archaeologic resources and they recommended a survey prior to project implementation. (In response to that request the applicant retained Pacific Legacy to conduct the required investigation; see Initial Study,page 14 for further details.) C. Public Works Dkpa�rtment. The Public Works Department has provided recommended conditions for this project addressing drainage, traffic, and utility requirements. D. Chi y of Richmond. In a letter dated August 18, 2001, the City provided comments on the project, expressing concerns about traffic, drainage and grading(see the City's response to the NOI for recent comments on the project Appendix B, page B-50). E. California Doart-m=t of Fish and Gam!-,. In a letter dated August 18, 2001, the CDFG indicated that they were satisfied with the project design and mitigation measures. The project has evolved since then,but the treatment of the creek corridors are unchanged or are now more sensitive to creek protection. The Initial Study was referred to CDFG for comment by the State Clearinghouse. CDFG elected not to comment, which is an indication that the project design and the mitigation measures remain satisfactory to CDFG staff. F. Contra Costa County Flood Co trot and Water onservation District. In a memorandum dated May 12, 2003, the District indicates that the District has no knowledge or reports of drainage deficiencies affecting the reach of channel from the site to I-80 that have been alleged by the City of Richmond. However, they do not S-13 have copies of improvement plans in their files, and the downstream area is within the City of Richmond. G. California Regional_Water Oual' , Control ward—SF Bay Rem. In a letter dated February 2, 2002, the Regional Board indicates that they have seen documentation of consultation with the CDFG regarding the Streambed Alteration Agreement, and the Regional Board reminds the applicant of their routine permit requirements, and of the need to obtain a Clean Water Act- Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. In a letter dated January 14, 2003, the Regional Board indicates that the project complies with all permit requirements. H. Co=a_Cpsta County Fire Protec 'on Distdct. In letters dated August 27, 2002 and September 26, 2002, the District outlined its standard requirements for: a) reliable water supply,b) hydrants,c)road improvement standards, d) addressing, e)roofing materials, and f)provision for plan review by.District staff. 1. E1 5 brante Valley Planning nd Zming Advisory Committee. In a letter dated August 1, 2002 the P&Z Committee recommended: a) a focused EIR (addressing geology, soils, slope stability; protection of Garrity Creek and its habitat; and transportation circulation); b) reducing lot yield to 16 units (i.e., net density of approximately 2.1 units/net acre); e) sidewalks on both sides of the street; d) permanent/engineered retaining walls (no wood walls); e) all roads to be standard County roads (public roads?); e) further details on the tributary of Garrity Creek coincides with the northwest property boundary; f) homeowners association, with duties spelled out clearly; g) a neighborhood park on-site, maintained by HOA (tot lots); and h)posting of a general liability bond for 10-12 years to cover any problems that arise. J. Friends of Garrity Cree"illtop Ne' UorhoW Aasociatinn, Briefly summarized, a petition signed by over 330 persons was submitted. It indicates the following opposition to the project and requests the following: • Prevent degradation of the natural environment. • Prevent negative impact on traffic,wildlife, Garrity Creek, and the semi-rural character of the area. • Take all possible steps towards park development in this area. • Update and modify the General Plan for the area with substantive input from residents in order to protect the semi-rural environment and the quality of life in the area. A July 31, 2002 letter from this community group requested: a) the project be designed to comply with applicable County ordinances; b) protection of the creek S-14 channels and associated habitat; c) soils and slide issues, d) traffic and pedestrian issues; and e) storm drainage. K. inn Crfeks Cwancil of CalifQmia. In a letter dated August 1, 2002, the UCCC indicated concern about creek crossings and an EVA that was proposed at that time; potential environmental impacts to creek habitat and wildlife; the loss of coast live oak and Fremont cottonwoods; and requested more details of the NPDES measures proposed for this project. VII. SIGNUSCANCE A. C e o,c C. to Ag ,X,Co,MM= 1. Office of Planning and Reserct . The State Clearinghouse assigned the SCH #2003102107 and referred the NOI and Initial Study to the Department of Fish &. Game, Department of Parks and Recreation, Department of Water Resources, Caltrans, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Native American Heritage Commission. State and regional agencies had"no comments" on this application or the environmental documents. 2. West Co„ity Wastewater District ()YCC. The letter indicates that the site is within the district, so annexation is not required. WCWD indicates that a sanitary sewer plan is required, and the letter indicates the District's requirements. With regard to the Initial Study, WCWD provides information on a downstream drainage problem on Garrity Creep. Specifically, sediment was allowed to accumulate in the channel downstream from the Hilltop Green Park. The sediment (and vegetation) obstructed the outfall of a culvert and caused water during a rainstorm to back up to Hilltop Green. WCWD obtained a grant to correct this problem during the late 1990s, and the improvements were made. In summary,the deficiency that triggered flooding was not related to the capacity of the culverts, but was the result of an erosion/sedimentation problem at the channel downstream of the Hilltop Green culvert. 3. .tv_of Ric ond. Because of off-site landslides in the City of Richmond, the City concludes that the geology of the site needs to be thoroughly examined, and should give consideration to the effect of the project on adjacent areas. In response see COA's 15-19 and Initial Study pages 17-20. With regard to drainage facilities,the City suggests that there may be deficiencies to drainage improvements downstream from the site (in Hilltop Green) and indicates further studies are needed to assure impacts to surrounding areas are minimal. In response, the project's design is intended to minimize impervious surfaces, and the S-15 County's Ordinance Cade requires all subdividers to either prove that downstream drainage improvements have adequate capacity to carry runoff from the design storm; provide downstream drainage improvements; or reduce flows exiting the site to the pre-development level. According to the County Public Forks Department there are no known significant drainage impacts, and COA's#50-51 requires hydrology studies and improvements to ensure proper drainage design. Furtherniore, the hydrology analysis must comply with the hydrology modeling requirements of the Flood Control District. Finally, because of these two issues and traffic, the City requests at least a focused EIR to thoroughly address these areas. The staff response to the geology/stability and drainage issues are presented above. With regard to traffic, the project has been analyzed by the County,both in terms of the circulation effects in the neighborhood, and internal circulation and parking. The data gathered indicates that the project will not result in any significant traffic impacts. The key point pertaining to geology/grading/slope stability are as follows: • The standards for geotechnical remediation plans have improved over the years. • The two landslide maps of the El Sobrante area are those of the I.,,*.S. Geological Survey (presented in Figure 12), and a snap prepared by Alan Kropp & Associates (AKA)under a contract with the City of Richmond and Contra Costa County. The U,{i�S map shows no slides on the site. The AKA map shows a slide in a small corner of the site (in the vicinity of the proposed Adam Court). The grading plan for the project is conservative on the side of safety. • The Initial Study identified a potential landslide/slope stability impact; an erosion and sedimentation impact; and an expansive soils and/or bedrock impact. For each of these three impacts, mitigation measures have been proposed. The mitigation measures have been translated into Conditions of Approval (COA's #15-18). The key points pertaining to drainage and traffic are summarized as follows: the applicant has submitted a traffic study and a hydrology study which was reviewed by engineers of the Public Works Department and Flood Control District. No evidence of significant impacts were confirmed. It should also be recognized that the recommended conditions of approval address both traffic-related concerns (COA's #32-49) and drainage-related concerns (COA's#50-57). 4. LAE. The LAFCO letter indicates that they have no comments on the NQI or Initial Study. S-16 5. past Bay micipal Utlity,Distrifit. The District indicates that the site is in the Argyle Pressure Zone. The District has no cornnment on the adequacy of the NUI or Initial Study. B. Enyironmeto a1 Organization and Community Cr= Rtapgnse l El SQb=te Yalley Pluming and Zoning Advisgry CommiUee. The concerns raised by the P&Z focus on: a) biological resources; b) hydrology and water quality; c) transportation/traffic; and d) geology and soils (see P&Z letter in Appendix B, commencing on page B-55). Staffs responses are as follows: a. Bioluigal Re„ e . The peer review letter of Monk and Associates is presented in Appendix D. The P&Z also questions the assessment of the wildlife corridor. It should be recognized that the applicant retained LSA(and later Michael Wood)to provide biological resource assessment of the property. The data provided was reviewed by a jurisdictional agency (California Department of Fish and Game), as well as the County's biologic resource consultant. The site clearly provides habitat for wildlife,but the project is in an urban area, surrounded by residential development Because of the developed nature of the lands surrounding the site, the property is not considered a significant wildlife corridor by professional biologists. b. Nv,,�,-&olo a d Water Q la itv. The comments of the Bl Sobrante Valley P&Z commence on page B-55 (Appendix B). The first comment pertains to an existing drainage problem in the watershed along Hilltop Drive,between Manor Road and Aspen Court. This location is higher in the watershed and will not be affected by the proposed project. This location is classified `Zone C" by the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. The explanation accompanying the FEMA map indicates local areas of minor flooding may exist within Zone C. The comment of the El Sobrante P&Z provides clarification on this issue,but it is not a significant impact of the project. The El Sobrante Valley P&Z indicates that the City of Richmond has provided correspondence to the County about concerns for the project runoff to aggravate existing drainage problems in the hilltop Green residential subdivision. It goes on to indicate that Rich Davidson of the Richmond Public Services Department sent drainage information to the County on November 17,2403 (one day prior to the end of the corm-cent period on the NUI). The information referred to by the El Sobrante P&Z were drainage improvement plans for a portion of Hilltop Green project. Those plans were not accompanied by hydrology calculations or by text indicating that they demonstrate a drainage problem. They were submitted as technical data to be considered by the County. These drainage improvement plans were referred to the County Public Works Department. The S-17 Public Works Department indicates that the developer of Subdivision 8533 either be required to; a) fully analyze the downstream system (and construct downstream improvements where deficiencies are identified); or b)keep post- buildout Bows exiting the site at the pre-development level. The County Public Works Department considers the recommended drainage-related Conditions of Approval to fully respond to this situation, and considers the processing of the application in this manner to be consistent with the approach to processing other proposed subdivision applications. In summary, it is premature to perform a detailed drainage analysis until the design of the subdivision is established(by approval of the VTM by the decision-making body),and that irrespective of the outcome of the hydrology studies,measures are available and routinely applied to remediate drainage deficiencies. The El Sobrante Valley P&.Z indicate that there was a horrendous flood during the 1997 winter rainy season. At that time a culvert was blocked by sediment, and runoff that would normally have been conveyed down the Garrity Creek channel backup into Hilltop Careen, resulting in inundation of portions of that project. This problem was a result of erosion/sedimentation problems in the lower watershed area. A grant from FEMA allowed the culvert and channel to be cleaned out and stabilized. Thus, the 1997 flood event related to inadequate "winterization" of a grading project and perhaps inadequate maintenance of a culvert. The flooding does not appear to be due to the capacity of the culvert. The El Sobrante P&Z goes on to state that the capacity of the culvert through the Hilltop Breen project must be established and a determination must be made to establish that the downstream system can carry the increased runoff from Hilltop Green. Staff is in agreement with this condition. The Initial Study addresses this issue as follows: In summary,the project will be required to fully comply with all aspects of the drainage requirements of the County Subdivision Ordinance. This includes collecting all surface waters entering or originating on the subject property and conveying them in an adequate storm facility to its point of discharge into a natural watercourse. As an alternative, the Subdivision Ordinance allows the County, at its discretion, to require regulating the outflow from the project so as not to exceed the capacity of downstream facilities, and this is the applicant's stated intent. Strict adherence to these Code requirements can be expected to ensure that the project does not have an adverse effect on the reported downstream drainage inadequacies within the Hilltop Green project, Interstate 80, or any other downstream drainage facilities. The Public Works Department, as part of the final design and plan review process, requires submittal of a detailed hydrology and hydraulic analysis of the downstream facilities to verify their adequacy prior to allowing to discharge to those existing drainage S-18 facilities. This may require off---site improvements to increase capacity should these facilities prove to be inadequate as defined by the Subdivision Ordinance. (Source: Initial Study,pages 23-24). C. Tr sp=atignJrafflc. The El Sobrante P&Z indicates that the traffic analysis for the project focused on intersections immediately adjacent to the project site, but it failed to study the more heavily used intersections, including Hilltop Drive/Manor Road and Hilltop Drive/La Paloma Road intersections and the Hilltop Drive/I-80 interchange. In response the project will generate approximately 40 peak hour trips, and Measure C standards call for studies of the type requested by the P&Z when the project will generate 100 (or more) peak hour trips. The El Sobrante P&Z also expresses concern about the effect of project traffic on Marin Road, and the need for improvements to Marin Road to carry this added traffic. In response, the Public Works Department has reviewed the circulation plan for this project and found that no improvements to Marin Road are needed and that the proposed road connection at the north end of Marin Road will not create a significant traffic impact. d. ologY_and Sc s. The El Sobrante P&Z comments on this issue are presented in Appendix B on pages 58 and 59. The response to the City of Richmond's comment letter addresses staffs response to the EI Sobrante P&Z geology and soils comments (i.e., see response to City of Richmond's letter presented in Section VII.A.3 of this staff report). e. Miscellangaus C==Is,? Is, The P&Z questions whether the applicant's geotechnical report included the entire site, and the P&Z also states that the Richmond Public Services Department did not receive a copy of the NOI and Initial Study. In response, staff found that the AMSO geotechnical report did address the entire site. It should be recognized that the function of the AMBO report is to identify geologic hazards and assess the general suitability of the site for residential development. The Conditions of Approval require a final geotechnical report that will provide design-level recommendations for site grading, drainage and foundation design(see COA#15). All CEQA documents were referred to the City of Richmond's staff. f. Eaalo stn . Because of missing information for El Sobrante P&Z requests at least a focused EIR. In response, staff concludes that the Initial Study, in combination with the comment letters and responses to comments,provides the documentation needed for compliance with CE,QA. S-19 2. Eriends of Gatrity Creek .Cgg=s. The Friends of Garrity Creek and other environmental and community- based groups have raised questions similar to these posed by the El Sobrante Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee and to those posed by the public comments. See responses to those comments. 3. F1 So ante Elerngntay School --4th Graders. A total of 24 letters were received from 4th graders. The letters are all different in their approach, but each is oriented toward the protection of the creek and wildlife resources on the property. The comments do not show knowledge of the Vesting Tentative Map, and do not address the adequacy of the Initial Study. C. Response-to Public Comm= During the 140-day comment period(October 22 - March 11, 2003), 61 comment letters were received. Nearly all of these letters(48) are in opposition to the proposed project and they raise issues/concerns about subjects addressed by the Initial Study. Thirteen (13) of the letters support the project. The majority of the letters in opposition request preparation of an Environmental Impact Report,but provide no technical data to support the assertion that the CEQA Initial Study and mitigation measures are inadequate. Table 6 is a histogram identifying the issues of greatest concerns to persons opposed to the project. The categories listed on the left-hand column represent the environmental categories in the Initial study. The right-hand column indicates the number of letters that express concerns about some aspect of this category. As the histogram indicates, the nearby property owners are most concerned about traffic, flooding and maintaining a good water quality. Other issues of concern to several commentors were biological resources (i.e., protection of Garrity Creek and its habitat), geology and soils (grading, slope stability), land use and planning(density of the project, preservation of open space, quality of life). A few respondents thought the site should be acquired for a park rather than being developed. In general, there is little evidence in the comment letters that the respondents were familiar with the design of project or with the details of the Initial Study. They know the site's location and its setting. They are not comfortable with development of the site and/or with the lot yield. The comments indicate that Hilltop Drive is congested during peak hours and when parents are transporting students to and from neighborhood schools,making it difficult to enter Hilltop Drive from side streets and driveways. There were also fears of increased traffic on Marin Road. It is a public road that stubs-out at the property boundaiy. Since Marin Road was not designed with a cul-de-sac at its west terminus, it is reasonable to infer that it was planned to provide access to the subject property. By making this connection,the opportunity exists for Subdivision 8533 traffic to use Marin Road for some destinations (e.g., elementary school),but the potential also S-20 Table 6 HMSTOGRAM SUMMARIZING PUBLIC CONCERNS Environmental Factor Number of Comment Letters ,Aesthetics/Viewshed Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources 31 Cultural Resources —2 Geology and Soils 27 Hazard/Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality 35 Land Use and Planning/Density 29 Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing —2 Public Services 7 Recreation —4 Transportation/Traffic 44 Utilities and Public Services 8 exists for the residents of Marin Road to use roads in the proposed project. The Public Works Department has reviewed the design of: a) internal roads in Subdivision 8533, and b) the proposed Hilltop Drive/Royal {yaks Drive and Marin Road/Garrity Creek View intersections. This review indicates that the internal roads generally comply with Ordinance Code standards, but some fine-tuning will be needed during preparation of improvement plans. The increase in traffic is not considered to be a significant impact. It is anticipated that most project-related trips will be oriented toward the Hilltop Drive/Royal Oaks Drive entry points. With regard to the creek, the commentors see it as habitat and a scenic resource. They infer that the proposed project will significantly impact the creek. The CEQA Initial Study supports the conclusion that the project will significantly impact the creek. Mitigation measures are provided for the potential impact to: a)nesting raptors and passerine birds; b)red-legged frog; and c) freshwater marsh riparian vegetation and trees. The California Department of Fish and Game has reviewed plans for the project and provided input into the mitigation measures. The recommended Conditions of Approval #8-14 respond to biologically-related impacts, including loss of trees. S-21 With regard to geologic and soils hazards, several commenters have indicated sails on-site are "liquefiable" and the stability characteristics of the site are similar to the conditions which prevail at the site of the La Cima Road/La Colina Road slide(located approximately one mile to the south of the project, which was responsible for heavy damage to public roads and private residences in that neighborhood. In response, the soils on the Subdivision 8533 site are too clayey to liquefy. With regard to the landslide hazard comparison with La Cima-La Colina neighborhood,published landslide maps (along with subsequent geotechnical studies) have confirmed that the dwellings in the La Cima-La Colina area were constructed on a dormant landslide that re-activated in the 1980s and 90s. Furthermore, at the time that those homes were constructed, and the standard of care used by design professionals (and building codes)were less highly evolved. Conversely, there is one slide area on the site that is relatively shallow. The CEQA Initial Study identified "Geology and Soils"as a potentially significant impact. Mitigation measures are proposed for: a) landslide/slope stability;b) erosion and sedimentation, and expansive soils and/or bedrock. The implementing conditions of approval are COA's # 15-19. The commentors also raised questions about the effect of the project on flooding and water quality,noting drainage problems within the Hilltop Green project, a 500-unit subdivision in the City of Richmond located just downstream from the site. The Initial Study researched this issue, and concluded that there is no evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the existing off-site drainage problems. Specifically,the applicant's stated objective is to keep post-development runoffrom the project at the pre-development level for the design storm, and Public Works requires that the applicant prove that downstream drainage facilities are adequate. If not,then the inadequacy must be corrected or detention facilities constructed to keep peak flows exiting the site at the pre- development level. Only two letters provided technical data on an issue that was not addressed by the CEQA Initial Study. They are from.Michael Ali and Katherine Perez of Ohlone/Miwok heritage. They report what were believed to be evidence of use of the site for a hunting camp by tribal ancestors (i.e., four stone artifacts were collected that appeared to show some evidence of being used by prehistoric Native Americans.) It should be recognized that the applicant's 2001 archaeologic survey performed by Pacific Legacy included a field reconnaissance and literature review, along with contacts with both the Native American Heritage Commission and California Historical Resources Information System. That review found no evidence of significant cultural resources on-site. In response to the comment letters from Katherine Perez and Michael Ali,the applicant"s archaeologist met with Gwen O'Neil and Bob Joyce at his office in October 2003. These neighbors/interested citizens showed the artifacts reported by Michael Ali and Katherine Perez to the archaeologist. The "finds"were collected at the confluence of Garrity Creels with a major tributary. This location is off-site Gust southwest of the site), within an area of artificial (man-made) fill. Detailed evaluation of these specimens by the archaeologist found that nope showed evidence of being culturally-modified artifacts. On March 5, 2004, the S-22 archaeologist visited the two areas regarded as having the highest archaeologic resource potential by Ms. Perez and Mr. Ali: a) an old spring(on-site), and b)confluence of min stem of Garrity Creek with a tributary(off-site). Shovel probes did not reveal any surface evidence of prehistoric occupation. The archaeologist's conclusions are documented in a letter-report.2 Briefly summarized, the archaeologist concludes that no further study is required unless plans change to include areas that are currently planned to remain undisturbed; or if cultural materials are encountered during grading. This issue is identified as a potential significant impact by the Initial Study, and the associated mitigation measure was incorporated into COA##5. Some commentors have suggested that the 10-acre site be retained as open space, wildlife habitat, watershed land or as a neighborhood park. In response, the General flan designates the site Single-Family Residential—High Density(SH); not Open Space (OS). The County has not identified the site as a park. Because this project constitutes fewer than 50 lots, the County cannot require that it provide a public park within its boundaries [ref. the Quimby Act(Government Code Section 66477(a)(7))], the County may only require payment of park dedication fees. The park dedication fees collected by the County for new residential development in Bl Sobrante ($2,000.00 per unit)have historically been used to partner with West County schools to improve recreational opportunities associated with schools. There is an existing informal trail along the tributary of Garrity Creek. That trail is on private property, extending from Manor Road to the site. For that reason, COA#613 requires the applicant to offer for dedication a trail easement through the site, should a public trail be developed in the future along the Garrity Creek tributary. "VII.T. S aFP ANALYSIS A. Discussion 1. Site Ply {Qnaid i • High density single family residential development is usually proposed on padded lots; this form of development on unpadded sloping lots can be made to work„but also frequently involves special design challenges. While the proposed residential designs are workable, functional rearyards may be difficult to develop without seeking variances to normal zoning standards (e.g., for retaining walls taller than 3 feet). • A Geologic Hazard Abatement District(GHAD) should be provided to allow for maintenance of slopes including repair to any slopes that are damaged. Pacific Legacy,2004. Archaeologic Survey for Hillcrest Homes Subdivision. (Letter dated March 19,2004;3 pages.) S-23 • Most of Lot 29 containing the proposed wetlands should be deed restricted to provide ongoing protection of the wetlands and detention basin that is proposed in that portion of the site. • Several lots are proposed to be graded with relatively steep, and less functional slope characteristics that are less well suited for high density single-family residential development (Lots S, 6, 27, 33, and 40). • Several common facilities (grassy swales/detention basins/landscape area along Hilltop Drive/street lights/fencing along the creep and grassy swale) should be maintained by an appropriate local entity. Staffproposes to require that a Homeowners Association be established to maintain these facilities and monitor their performance. • Landscape and hardscape improvements should be provided to establish a project design theme, including one that might be carried over onto future projects along Hilltop Drive. Special landscape/decorative masonry wall should be built along the project frontage. A street tree program should be developed within the interior of the project. • To prevent the more steeply sloped and narrow Royal Oaks Drive from becoming a raceway, traffic calming measures should be required as part of the project improvements(e.g.,two speed bumps). • To potentially reduce the number of road connections with Hilltop Drive, a collector road, the applicant should be required to provide road/utility right- of-way stub-outs to adjoining properties. Garrity Creek View(Road) should be extended westward to stub-out with the Hall property to allow for a logical local street connection with that property(APN 426-200-010). Similar right- of-way connections should be required on either side of Royal Maks Drive on the south side of Garrity Creek. Figure 17 is consists of a Staff Study dated May 20,2004 that surnmarizes the major site plan modifications recommended by staff. 2. onsi tency with the Q= l Plan In order to approve a tentative map,the County must find it consistent with the General Plait. The General Plan consists of both map and text policies. While the zoning and general plan allow for high density single family residential development of the site, slope factors will disadvantage some lots. Selective thinning of lots would be in order so as to achieve the slope protection policies in the general plan. Staff is recommending that the project be reduced to 35 lots in order to mare the consistency finding with the general plan.. Thirty-five lots falls below the normal low end of the general plan range that applies to this site,however the General Plan provides that"unique environmental characteristics may justify a reduced number of units or intensity of use than is normally allowed under the General Plan designation." (County General flan,pg. 3-18) S-24 3. St= Law v To comply with State law,within the last five years,the County established an inventory of adequate sites to accommodate its share of the regional housing need through the planning period. That inventory has been incorporated into the County Mousing dement. Most of the parcels that constitute this site have been included in that inventory. That inventory assumed that the development of these parcels would provide for 44 moderate income units on this site. Government Code 65583 prohibits the County from reducing or permitting the reduction of any parcel to a lower residential density that is below the density that was utilized by the Department of Housing and Community Development in determining compliance with housing element law, unless the County mares written findings supported by substantial evidence of two considerations: • The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan,including the housing element; and • The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need. Staff recommends that both of these findings can be made. • The reduction is necessary to be consistent with various slope protection policies (e.g., protecting slopes with a natural grade that exceeds 26%, and slopes that exceed 15%); and similar slope protection policies are also referenced in the Housing Element of the General flan; and • The California Department of Housing and Community Development has certified the County's Housing Element within the last two years as acceptable, including the Inventory on Vacant and Underutilized Lands. The Inventory identifies dozens of other sites that will remain available for development of the overall target number of dwelling units for the unincorporated portion of the County,including the moderate income range which was specified for development on this site. B. P=Qsi,--d Variances to Average 1. ver ge 1,-Qt`t7tlidt —The variances that are sought for the four lots( 11 — 14) at the end of Garrity Creek View (Road) are due to the pie-shape of the lots. Notwithstanding that the lots do not meet the zoning criterion for average lot width, the lots are generally function in terms of lot width. The method specified in the zoning code for measuring average lot width can sometimes understate the actual working size of a lot. In this instance,the four affected lots would have functional lot widths, except that Lot 11 should be enlarged as part of the reduction and reconfiguration of lots described above to offset the portion of the site that lies within S-25 the creek structure setback area and the large proportion of its site that lies within a road right-of-way. It should also be nested that in granting a variance to lot width, future development of these sites will be subject to the review and public notice requirements under the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance. 2. Retaining —The proposed retaining walls on the downhill side of Garrity Creek Drive constitute a balancing of allowing for a road connection to Darin Road and adjoining single-loaned street while allowing for an on-site wetland on the property. The walls will face toward the wetland site and not toward any proposed residence. Their tiered design will help soften their overall appearance. The retaining walls adjacent to Adams Court and Royal teaks give will allow for reasonable development of a site with topographic and shape restraints. IX. CONCLUS {1N The proposal constitutes an opportunity to allow for infill development of a site that has been zoned and planned for residential development. Due to site constraints including slope, creek and property shape, the number of lots should be reduced. This is staff s recommendation, even though the resulting lot yield would not be totally consistent with the target number of residential units that was identified for the site in the recent update to the Housing dement. \\fs-causers$\I)drake\Pcrsotia)\SDO18533rptMayt9-clean.doe($120!2004) (v a+ k * IOWAy ! " In RE ,tufRHIA°rFFi1�. V� p.•- �"'j i 4 1 .ViN' � "t"�trb t,Si ItY i. • •� }��`(��1��'r� glfC�x r��d' rill 4`�d��a�Y" l t. -• fl y 9Pf t6�.#� ;�^ to f,,�tla'+" •t��,��•�i�j p L` +•"L. x,,71�f :a, 4DF�rth�gp ,g•- !' "�'�*. JAP ✓N"r*�aw`t�1 NOR � WR s + .,a • "+4.� gs 50 .fix ��Mil�tR �� • yMy A-0,20 . ' 4vrRltl\tiQ""''!'e Y. hip And .� i\\a ,fir .�,.,_ � „moi��f�, �� ,��i11R,r ��t+i�.11 �► OR 01 IT �� \} 4 t11�'/�..w -4 �� ,-�, ��"" '�� •�- imp I �� t lglm gg ! '� 11 a rip ANN gqu 111, . ..►+ff<rk+ /�-�a � .*�' 1I1[1r� _ • 1 man zQ r •ql►��!�'ft� ;xtrryt'!�Lt "' �*`` w "el 1 k � ,t SM 7�'� f � , Ik r �� •��+/I ,' y 1�A� ''� }� 1 i } ,n Z a z F r it v p t c 1. z R2 k c �. 4 r h f �►� �� "'��1a i�1 g,�+ 4 t't114 •llltli! IM"��`5 �d1 +✓1 f*-+1 1 4F j -♦* M14� -,.....,LIMA 3 ,x a } 1 r .c.z i +ai,"^tr,Zr}�tr Crf}r � '`:a,�,n . 1*'�� ,Sc-�1`a rM1 4it. t f '�" � {-•-k';1*�x � .:e`,f fr$y ki tZI R} ❑ �n; +z 4 1 k' nt - � }'�X z 111 s`i7r'. '�� k�^w { '71 �� x 1A1� �� i11 �. dN 1� w, f werr!•u w4t.�r -£ Im �"tx y xn t rF^3'k`,«� +�„ t sc rz ps a t i f gooi 1 M/ At 7 I tM mwlaumy i rt ri3z r{` 1 S+1 d? �d1"�,+�►��l�♦ ��*!*+'I��p*�1�� h }Gtt �t k° }. f t ams rtvl c i ' 1 }3 rsfk � 4��Ir I�Ir4(� I: i.�r�r.�,stt-ar.&e�+ as-.�'rtt �� r z 'v�. d¢ a ai'k�" t" ti s C c,,.. }j1e.:rt"r 4 �4�� "+�1�i�/'�aIP� ♦�fitt �► Y►� :-�"A�*`: N�S�S" � �i� > Aw >"k2 ft"mm, �:t /+♦.�*'wl!�'�.�t�'.��•'sl1 tS� I �I -- MEDIUMGENERAL PLAN LEGEND PUBLICfSEMI-PUBLIC SINGLE FAMILY- DENSITY OPEN vh? �� SINGLE FAMILY-HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY-LOW DENSITY 4 OFFICE ( � MULTIPLE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY- LOW DENSITY DENSITY HIGH R !� R 111 fR T f Graphic Scale: !!ff i won :yam' ► * v s" „ �I1 Huv�1��i,#w�. �w1�1� �, 10 jo 4�11T.Ir ��1;N� '�lifll►�,ItfIII !�,1�;'1�1`�*,�; ,I�i�: � ' .�,�r��►'�*w. '►+�► �,- ♦.�"�► ♦ °i' � ate"" "',� ♦ ��' ♦� �*"�.��';�,�� u '�s '!fir► �, .. '�1� �t1R� 's` �*'�'/��. *� - ♦ b t #0-* y�r'�.•d*�' a�"� r_ � ,.tet�■■ ■t■� ��'a�`+��"�� /r�� #,s�{�:■# *. ° "S"M,,/er'pf�.4 ..U+� � ✓ �.�'d"f -a quill N S�1 w My�.r I L - ',.I \`,." O Ftt..ff { �11��1�1M ��.,-n�CO 'AI� _ '„'""w w�'�a°' �♦�r timtt ,! a'a ¢ 1N��*� ��' '�Alit# �'�- f �',, 4wp ti•.��,y+tt� t� ltd**�tM+rr, _ +... F+G ♦ iwi 11'� 1*, ,,,;,•'�I��,x s�*� ,., +*! lttT,'R 11#� - w "ti+�3� Ati.-+► '4► """F�n�M'#1 { l►►F � ■� � � sllfj�,`�s .w+i1"'M4a'� � FF ww" ♦4�!/1l1�#NtN aM�* ��« *�jr,F:9"�+►t t`*'� ;~0� PM— R�� ♦,��► +.fern ��r �v��,�:�.� • .�•� IIR�'��+k��',��:• �!� � �� ±`� fps- alk��,,,�.�� _mow.il...r .. r� �� s I►�►k r�� I # •►�► 1y�# i1 4�4! �� It! r�s#'aeRwr�� t�ltl..� �,.t�:y � �." � �It�,#"#� ��" ,��"�►'J'�a»�F� `i�a!'!!Ir - �,�{��`,1• � *�, ZONING LEGEND R#wR*c r.,,,, �'�{l �; �'? ��'� 4 � I� I �` '� SII►♦ � .#acct ,�# r ��R-11M�` +� '� � '�``�r�'�* �'1"� �"' I�'!�i��i►�•A'� �. a!r � e{� �+�w" �`"'� Ary r � �1 ��1F�1'��i.�'�►�,�0�� I�+i+llae�'�s�� r/' 1�. .�.w��!l1il..► , .,�,'"�. _:w�?:�."t� ,�i.��1'��,.F'si:�'�.'��,MI+:a► t� �i'�'*'��`�'.��'��+A'►�,�...�1�!yf�'1' !'� Planned Unit M-12 Multiple Family Residential R-B Retail Business M-17 Multiple Family Residential SingleR-6 Single Family Residential M-29 Multiple Family Residential • TwoFamily Residential R-10 Single Family Residential N-B Neighborhood Business Figure 4 Vicinity and Zoning ,of the Unincorpora ed Graphic Scale: El • r s - 0 #s p s�+s t gftd '� •/mel sa s►#17l� •ate. �e>M1(is c .� a.� ►'�ss'srs'ss�au°��f �!!��tt�i°isr�l�ai�}71R?��+'uM�"'�"c'w'"-„"41�II�rur.._ iasitRe•�f#!<<d�t71Nd�#-IM3�7lll�tNi7El��r��rit��~�� :.6;tO+ri� !!; t!►zl�u �P allr t'+!`7j� liEitt�ti�fo `�R .ax ��a�l ►;% a#'�s411 �f '!L !tlR�t iy�lta./7.plc�+slc ,�w:�#7a t �"f`71i 'kk ��R tLptl7llTHN 71a'ya A jq A��71f`�iAt! ty,,�"►'�lS1�kll�l�tl �!i<g 71meul�tL��n'�tc?s#,y'�� !,a!!s!® • Rt! �- �/��e.*i�lL4 \t” sf F9 771�ltF; Di�J#!#i PF +�t�g 7L�e'.y:Ml�it� ►+ rll�yJr: »Pn��ial"' nit'�F�t !a!!3 s ?na ' •.A MM �*!`4Alfl�"«'i++'►"',J,��1r�!!�n?tsti M`��ll�r�L>�� ill 's y+at! ri r'v`1� Mgs'p°l�e..+.e •4A�'[F 941* il�'*� �� r„',{� ' '1'`s :�' `S��Aa'+�se►a""l.sil�e■■z�{�� e"1M4\� !4 ''v4,f-v .rr aaa' R�l►*��ut17 JPYA `3lriV1� Va► a' tws.., .vQi.favr+Aar»as � r .� rua,: ir' 1 !ii#+a„`��:a9 •�e_ve��e��"ani � , � �t+�1 ��T eta a�a�`s! i9i °�� ;y�� °� \ ��►�ruv�Rlr� t1 fiu i, e!� attr� )f!t tfi�L •r0 �� . �e.3 ,,�+�*>�a�""r,ti; a N` '' �� ,��r �c+R,�sr �r�<'.•! ;�r R��r..S. �'� eti rpt i \ eF +1 ] Ai li-a`� r2,1vr �"TS ♦a 9v U=ifl �'� -2 �� '`Y :4, t, �`+ Awl � �yse`�, ►`ayw '' t��slte71lFfir �ti ` ��LKn " + e� 4 seas ssn c. sss! as�,Hslat sae7ir**sU+s.C° 'Rr iii >> �4 s3eaae + *ns.s� ' a 7f FZEi..5�'tss� 7L#.'�7� �'ltR�gorr �r+�f '*a a ss I## '�►. w "'"` � �.�r fes..-..��K4-_cnNwww�!llle� #•'.- saw p7te wa'aaYtiviy► tf - `� �� v t RR r,kwwiis sail " 1 atls°xlw i al7t� �c� °.syr r r cc* !p`t "�* �##",v:.w.r`Y'h nr` rr_3 w' `Bsa*��s`sss►�le�R rss.�r�s: 16� esssirsas. uR. � !!! ,.� �. .s.�#r!asssilss,ess�ss•.s:.s.,s:,- 7c�21i!!!'s'r� c�au+,E�a1*nu�""�`w ses+cv. auatc�L�v.;►+a ” +a+rr'r�s,�l#�r�wr ENR i��si"e*w�n�',•�` ;77E+��'*,�ta��n�c 7! �har J.kr EM. ► `a tt ►tr s sssss* a+w's�s t.. `�w tisn sw wss yw� 4wstf#{�lrrs •f�1 OR Graphic Scale: i Figure 5 Slope 0 {0 f t rx s c m r 04 g l io-rs�t•�•r at LA tl'Y ct zz: em d u, to to 0 ti o 0 t v C, c�. o�l i ,fid CL w CL ua � t x l c11 IL . CL '�1 A lei y ✓ �. �, h� In LM vo 4' a rtl� _ w uti +:C11 � ■c ca iJ' s $AhC 'to +[ to0 +^ p 0 M d iv cc cots r C. a.i Cl— �rrq SIY a Ln Ly s co PJ IV• � � <3 � a�C r (O.«G 4Z •'� f � p 0 1Y o* U! ti 0 u AL 6 Li I ' J_ 1 t f (1 I asa—tat_ o4-1 ow � y 7171 , I .aa' a 'av f at].a' d+' +: r tss,ea' 44-&11 ) 6 ` ' T 7'- @ t a.ta i 9 .ars a s aas—na—a,a a� .�asaRrrEAWa lama 1 ai#I_ vsi x3w ra.aa• t i maa HkLL 10. �� '�q°°`•� \ °� �r \ ..�''� \ � 'moi ti \ Figure 9 Graphic Seale: Vesting Tentative Map �41�533 0 200' r+ fr• Type I t . Awes UPHILL HOME STYLE ROAD Type 2 �c StBeti bcKnislop�: •,.,•.A-"� Iv Type 3 t .: DOWNHILL HOME STYLE 3 5teap Llpslope AMUR aaAn. Type.4 Suv Cross.SCape FUNCTIONAL HOME STYLES DOWNHILL HOME STYLE 2 Figure 10 Graphic Scale: Hillside Home Sires 5€313185 3 3 N.T.S. (� -- `N cc CL z \` \ Ln t \1 {";i..' `. .�"`` �. `�yr"�'�,F S�•w�,�•. �``'v ..'F+�.w^' «.,a•� y ".4S� t17 }+• / * +A= l�w,�..;�„r;...+{,^"''3 =r ��.t�^''�"p �,t,'•�".�^.` �t, i '� f' S� � � ��`�. •i tY3 ��• , � ,, � 's'', ;� `. - �' �•.�.� alk �, "ti.a �°i" �,°�'� i-. CIS lsi w....t'�r� r. S « .,rr+c'+"= ^`' D"'' '•f^n ,�r *'' 1�J` .rr'".r,,,`� ` Ot' :� ... 7 `.i f{j -,� �r''t�`; lid s �i• ''LS by �':•-.. '� � '- fir, ''�- � �, Y ��• Y `w+�.{,A 1., �. �_ �^, art'�',.ii. '1•� � L,S r� " �C'- 0 CY -c3 CJ S w 0 as }., • ici CS ;-^+ "JVD `7 9 's 8 y. ad er4^ r jJ #*+ y! r F w i In y9 Air CD .10 S ... .. �'�'�.. T'• .$�fp .. �'.I't. y Al i�t wjf�y,_ # ,m+� �'A „r� t� � '��@,»�� 73 `W I \� t{"'-.. ��y➢�9A° 4r }I� f nyar,,� Yl T w� � 0 CL Alk oe no uj /,, t.` ; � t`Y l"a. � .s .. a .x, • `C �y R w A M M +.tl •4 ! � 14 � � � aY 4 a � r � : � s a 4 0 .a ■ s.6""" •. "+ X �• g.a` � mow` i w'° ffi W '" — '+ .°.O 'R Y 4 V • ,y Y � q A . • ro, • W r M ii A 8 "� � " 4 a Y • # O d a r� A n # z Y .4n s • A Y '° ° u 4 S 'k A c 4°. 6 4 A 4 � u awa .a. 1...+ � ii.1M" Y A" a r $ R � °Y. w «2 Y � ° w ° Y « a a r • t{.3 LLI is a z ` :To j �x } Y� y a w ry� 77 aY8 LM d � L S [ v ar CL t N + {,,� 7 7 r k .� rm `�'� , m n• ii a�Aa, ,n.- +fin •w. , a } _1111.. ....... . .......... ..._..... ........_. __...... 1111 _ _.._..... _11.11.._ ..._.._.. .. . { � � r y„ w K >•Z T" k i �r �.�^ «�jf -Y�E ,; � �� 1 VN y� •�yd f » t (t yt .A �Sy L s: � Lot 29-GDDR(Grant Deed of Developnied C a as t }tights) conveyed to County for wetlands ssd-19 112 } ;at36.t3• � portion of site,but allowing for davalopmMrt OfrasWenceinNEcomer oflot Y x y l � yyi !fi Ai Y. A Y A,%x .J-1 W + 7 ( r I I ' •6 Y A A Y e�i 1l fy ( } i �'�t• y� ! � S t 8 Q x AY A A;� A. b ( V k21 YLN A hS I1 jf Y A Y Y d x A x A t U C+ Y LL �• Y x x x Y x xto yyy YA Y Mar to DO 2i .,e.a I ?.2 � 3 St'20£' t2T.b`� ar �� r e ± ry 13g.4� 426-1TZ-014 -`I b.]i 76Jt Tb,31' #5.19 Z�r.1% 56.33 •CS 23.62'A&63 t a R,edtt � oti � y csaallo y}p {2, .11. CJf1 p{�i' rt t5 �"#2s-iT2-b1s _ N 53]JO p ( B .i { r \ e @ HALLP7 426-264-b10 + Tb OC �p � � � �.:/ �,;,J m `✓ LJ � t� r P�42��1363 ,:o•, ae,,b � 4 � o Ace lot yi ld7 i. 7 one std re c of€gt2re •x �t e 2b3J 'art 'Syd3 ARCM µ7S{i3+3�Z' PatOCt� .• �,_ `�." •. ", M1l\ \ 4 ?p 01 a KkLL 426-296-00s A- ILdriuce lot y d in area, 2-S to three Iota. Possible easement to fixture extension of road along south side of Garrity Creek. B- Reduce lot yield in area of Lots#6-1I to five lots. The increase width ofthe � remaining lots is doairabie because ofthe 50 foot setback from creek,required by CDFG,which results in loss of rear yard areas for use by residents. C- Reduce lot yield in area of Lots#36-40 to four lots,and extend the Gerrity Crack \ � View road casement to the wast boundary of site. `4 \ D- Reduce lot yiald in area of bots#26-28 to two lots. This allows for a standard! ` twin-around that does not ancroach into the front yard or driveway area of the( residential lot E- Reduce lot yield in area of Lots#32-34 to two lots. This reduction in lot yield� l allows for the width of the remaining Iota to be increased and for design flexibility. Figure 17 Graphic Scale: Staff Study May 20th, 2004 6 160` 5DO18533 Appendix D Correspondence Received Since Issuance of May 25th Staff Report (Includes Materials Submitted at Public Hearings) a 141 vi s is Cj `a ro a S : - - 1 y ri -4 d 4 � � � P' p3-37 12- 91 S � �sas fir' f ,w FORT MASON CENTER SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 (415) 474-4020 FAX (415) 474-5323 p email:vhandleyQfund.or C� I , 4, Virginia Handley June 8, 2004 California Coordinator To. Contra Costa County Planning Commission From: Virginia Handley The California office of The Fund for Animals is in opposition to development SLS-8533 along Garrity Creek. In addition to the impacts it would have on traffic, fire safety, floods and slides, them are the damaging effects on wildlife which are of particular concern to The Fund for Animals. Among the birds are hawks, woodpeckers, humming buds, jays, sparrows, meadowlarks, and finches. Many of these birds are nesting by Garrity Creep. California Fish , Crane Department has found that to be a concern. So-called "mitigation" can never make up that loss. The plan calls for the removal of trees that provide irreplaceable habitat and protect the quality of the Creek water. That water is used by the wildlife for drinking. Among the wildlife there are deer, fog., raccoons, opossums, skunks, frogs, salamanders, toads, and snakes all of whom seek shelter in this riparian woodland. Rodents provide a prey species for many animals. Doss of the important wildlife corridor would be devastating to the resident wildlife whose movements will be made impossible causing chaos and destruction. to their lives. It is imperative that this area be preserved. 200 WEST 57th STREET • NEW YORK, N.Y. 10019 o V ex- Telephone: (212) 246-20951 (2'12) 246-2632 FAX: (21:2) 245-2533 Cleveland Amory, Founder I am the California representative for The Fund for Animals for 30 years and I am also a 10 year resident of El Sobrante, The fragile beauty of our area and open space is threatened by this development, An Environmental Impact Statement is needed and a reasonable request when there are so.many unanswered questions and concerns. There is the real possibility that this area can be bought for open space. This alternative should certainly be completely explored and supported by Centra Costa County's representatives. inc ely, Vi nia Handley Before the Contra Costa Planning Commission Jane 8,2004 Shirley Petty,President,Board of Directors Hilltop Green Homeowners Association My name is Shirley Petty, President of the Board of Directors, Hilltop Green Homeowners Association. 1 represent an elected Board of(5) and 541 households which translates to 2,000 or more people residing in Hilltop Green in the City of Richmond. We oppose this development. Having a home in Hilltop Green means that residents must at all times be aware of all soil impacts on the properties. We are very concerned that a housing development as the one proposed by SD O1 8.533 will ruin the ground equilibrium we have worked so hard to achieve. Garrity Creek runs through our subdivision,under the main street, which is our only way in and out for the entire community, and all the way to Freeway 80. Anything the developer does to Garrity Creek will definitely affect not only this street but our community. Since the creation of the Hilltop Green subdivision in the late 60's, early 70's, we have had over thirty(30)slides of various sizes and cost. Over the years the Hilltop Green Homeowners Association has paid tens of thousands of dollars to repair earth failures, including a million. dollars to repair road collapse on Park Central, which is the main street already mentioned. The proposed development can negatively impact us in several ways which include. Project may require rerouting of roads Project may require rerouting of traffic during construction. Project will create additional traffic pressure on Hilltop Road. Project will create an untenable traffic exit from Hilltop Green. Development will increase ambient noise levels. Project may result in pollutants flowing into Garrity Creek. Project may result in construction related debris entering Garrity Creek. Project may result in contamination of underground aquifers (we have many underground springs in the area. Project may require Garrity Creek to be dredged. On April 15, 2003, we appeared before the Richmond City Council and requested that the ^ Council support us in our opposition to Subdivision#8533. The Richmond City Council concurred with our request and issued a resolution opposing development pending receipt and study of comprehensive environmental impact Study to be submitted by the developer(a copy of the City's Resolution of support is attached). Resolution attached aev . ac • duuo o. [Urm NO . IUP / P. l RESOL1 {)N Nt' A, 03' RLSf7L Qbt'. t<`fM-COV-K OF THE QTY O IUCHMQN-A:CA-IF MM ATABA I✓CCI A "T�"WAI rT t " + , cttp' a�falur of ti ,: tu ► retsi >st# epm .. t4 l 1 r;t :t#me C�alamy ofi fbsth;. to tTi1t ; e4:t" . r Ede dirty. erf`Rftr��#>a Wim; AS, the me ship of il*:Mutop own.Nobe,ownas leis ticks taken. action tui oppose,this pioposed.de"IOprms A4 kgsl 40d.,unffl *a tnAn ndientai impact (FIR)is ordered and/or d lated by the Coni ofCa .Costa;� WHEREAS, the residents of the.Hilltop Green neighborhood of the' city of Richniond are gravely conmmd regarding the impacts the subject developme:it. could have on its community and quality of life, without such impacts'l ing fully asse used and the appropriate mitigation measures taken as a result thereof;and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Richmond, shares the concern-1.3 of the residents of Hilltop Creon that proper due diligence be exercised in both the !:)fanning and construction of this proposed residential developt>nent. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Richmond, California,by adoption of this resolution, herein affirms its oppositia.n to the residential development project proposed in unincorporated territory ad,jacer is to the Hilltop Green community in the city of Richmond, and requests that an envinr amental impact report he prepared for said project by the County of Contra Crista. RE IF FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Office of the Clerk for the County Board of Supervisors of the County o I'Camra. Costa„ for presentation to said body to be considered in its deliberation r,:garding feasibility and merits of this proposed residential development project; I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the mens)ers of the Council of the City of Richmond,California, at a regular meeting thereof heli: on April 15, 2003,by the following vote: ............................................... t¢a t r N e. ty Marin Roar, El Sobrante: existing Condition View of Hilltop Intersection and Pavement Cracks ...... rkA 'q `A i P , i� C5 VER�b t 3 s r r E+J �Vn � 3 f f l �A Y MSS :._ Y �f: b �y v= ....... .... ..... .::... Xz; 3 ;f 1 a a . ti T^ a e � e �.y s w < z a 867 Matin mord Pipingl Erosion LAW OFFICE OF J. WILLIAM YEATES 8002 CALIFORNIA AVENUE FAIR, OARS, CALIFORNIA 95628 TELEPHONE. (916) 860-2000 FACSIMILE: (916) 860-2014 MARY U.AKENS J,WILLIAM YEATES info(gen viroqualitylaw.Com KErni G.WAGNER May 21, 2004 Mr. Darwin Meyers Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine St., 4th Floor, N. Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Comments on Environmental Checklist for,Subdivision 8533, CDL}File#SD018533 (Oct. 20, 2003). Dear Mr. Meyers: This letter, on behalf of our client,Friends of Garrity Creel,provides comments on the initial study that the County has prepared for the above referenced project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA").1 These comments are submitted for your and the Planning Commission's consideration"prier to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of deter .ination."2 These comments are in addition to, and do not in any way replace or supersede, any prior comments submitted by our client regarding the proposed project. The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires a lead agency to prepare an environmental impact report(EIR)whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a"fair argument"that a proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment.3 "[Sjubstantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact."4 A mitigated negative declaration,rather than a full EIR., may be approved for a project only if 1)revisions in the project,before release of the initial study for public review, will clearly avoid or mitigate effects beyond significance, and 2) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whale record, that the revised project may have a significant impact on the environment. Pub. Resources Cade, § 21000 et seq. 2 Pub. Resources cede, § 21177, subds. (a) and(b). 3 See Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21080, subd. (d), 21082.2, subd. (d) Cal. Code Regs., tiff. 14, ch. 3 ("CEQA Guidelines"), § 15064, surd. (f)(1);No Oil, Inc. tit. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75 (stating that CEQA"requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact."). 4 Pub. Resources Cade, § 21080, subd. (e)(1). Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21064.5, 21080, subd. (c)(2). Mr. Darwin Meyers ttilay 21,2004 Page 2 of 9 As plainly stated by California's Court of Appeal, "if substantial evidence in the record supports a `fair argument' significant impacts or effects may occur, an EIR.is required and a negative declaration cannot be certified."6 California.case law also makes it clear that a mitigated negative declaration cannot be approved if it relies on mitigation measures that have not been formulated at the time of project approval.' The proposed project cannot be approved at this time,because the initial study that has been prepared by the County is legally inadequate. As the following discussion demonstrates, the information that is contained in the initial study is inadequate to support a determination that all of the proposed project's potentially significant, adverse environmental effects have been clearly avoided, or mitigated to a"less-than-significant" level.$ Accordingly, the proposed project cannot be approved until, at the very least, a revised environmental document is prepared for the County's consideration. I, AESTHETICS The County's initial study acknowledges that the proposed project,which proposes to build 40 lots on a steep, 10-acre hillside, "will substantially change the visual character of the site as viewed from lots in the adjacent neighborhood."" But the initial study then goes on to opine that the project"could fairly be considered `infill' development."'° No substantial evidence is cited to support this conclusory opinion. The initial study then states that a"well planned project that protects the channel of Garrity Creek and which complies with the standards/requirements of the CDFG RQCB and Corps of Engineers,will not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site."I No substantial evidence supports the County's conclusory statements that the project will not have significant, adverse aesthetic impacts. First,whether or not the site is "planned for residential development" is not responsive to CEQA's requirement that change to the existing environment be analyzed.}z Second, none of the agencies cited in the initial study are G Quail'Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas(1994)29 Cal:App.4th 159'x, 1601-02. 7 See gentry v. City of 1tlurrieta(1995) 36 Cal.AppAth 1359, 1396(holding that adoption of mitigation measures is improperly deferred where City's mitigated negative declaration reserved the right, after project approval, to require a study of affected , listed species and compliance with mitigation measures that might be recommended by the study); Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (198 8) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306-314(holding that county cannot rely on ether agencies' ability to subsequently devise means of avoiding project's potentially significant impacts). Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21064.5; 21080. subd. (c). ' Centra Costa County Community Development Dept.,Environmental Checklist Form,Project Title: Subdivision 8533, CDD File# SD018533 (Hillview) (Oct. 13, 2003)(hereinafter"Initial Study"), at p. 5. 'Q Initial Study, at p. 5. The project consists of 1.5-30 percent slopes. (Initial Study, at p. 6.) ' Initial Study, at p. 5. z Environmental Planning and Information Council v. County of 1-71 Dorado(1982) 1.31 Cal.Aptr.3d 3.50, 355. Mr. Darwin Meyers May 21, 2004 Page 3 of 9 responsible for aesthetic impacts, and so complying with these agencies' standards and requirements regarding 1) wildlife mitigation, 2) water quality protection, or 3)wetland mitigation will not clearly ensure that the project will have no aesthetic impacts. On its own terms,the initial study declares that the project will result in substantial changes to the visual character of the area. Unless and until specific and identifiable changes are incorporated into the project that will clearly reduce such substantial changes beyond significance, the project may not be approved based on a negative declaration. II. AIR QUALITY The mitigated negative declaration acknowledges that the project may have bath short-term air quality effects associated with construction, and long-term air quality effects associated with commute trips. Rather than quantify or analyze these effects in any way,the initial study states that the Bay Area.Air Quality Management District has elected not to respond to the initial study. Again,no substantial evidence in the record supports the initial study's conclusion that the project clearly will have no significant, adverse short- or long-term air quality effects. The lack of comment from 13AAQMD's is not substantial evidence that the project will not have adverse effects on air quality. As just one example, other parts of the initial study mare it clear that substantial movement of earth and grading will be required to carry out the proposed project.13 But not a single mitigation measure is proposed to control fugitive dust associated with such earth movement and grading. Construction-level mitigation measures that are typically included in residential construction projects of this type as a matter of course include covering filled truck beds,wetting or seeding disturbed areas depending on length of exposure, and monitoring weather conditions. The initial study also fails to address all other construction related air impacts, including, but not limited to diesel particulate and volatile organic emissions. Put simply, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Under CEQA,the burden of environmental review and investigation Js on the lead agency.i4 At the least,the initial study must be'"revised to acknowledge that potentially significant air quality impacts may exist and to incorporate measures that will clearly avoid such impacts or reduce therm to less than significant levels. Since the initial study entirely fails to investigate, let alone identify, potentially significant impacts related to air quality, any revised initial study with corresponding mitigation measures would also have to be recirculated for public review and comment before the project can be approved.15 The agency cannot hide behind its utter failure to gather any air quality data., and must, at the very least,take the affirmative steps necessary to engage in a meaningful evaluation of the direct, indirect and cumulative air quality impacts that the project may have.16 13 Initial Study, at pp. 15-20 (noting requirement of substantial grading and presence of highly erosive soils 14 Cf. iWountain.bion Foundation v. Fish and Game Commission (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134. CEQA Guidelines, § 1.5073.5, subd. (b)(1). r v ASundstrorn, supra, 202 Cal.Ap .3d at 311. Mr. Darwin Meyers May 21, 2004 Wage 4 of 9 III. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The initial study attempts to re-characterize the project's biological and other impacts in a last minute "peer review"by Monk and Associates that purportedly summarizes the various biological reports that have been submitted to date. Because the standard of review for a mitigated negative declaration is whether substantial evidence in the whole record supports a "fair argument" that the project may have significant adverse effects,the Monk and Associates "peer review" cannot be relied upon to negate or discount the actual substantial evidence in the underlying studies and reports indicating that the project may, in fact, have significant, adverse effects on biological and other resources that have not been mitigated to "less-than-significant" levels.'8 In addition, our client and other members of the public have also submitted numerous questions and comments raising a "fair argument" that the project may have significant, adverse biological impacts that are not adequately addressed in the initial study. This letter hereby incorporates by reference, and re-raises as substantive objections, all such comments. IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS A. LANDSLIDE/SLOPE STABILITY The initial study acknowledges that the project is located on"expansive soil, . . . creating substantial risk to life or property[.]"19 The initial study claims that such impacts will be"less- than-significant"with mitigation incorporated. However,the mitigation measures proposed to reduce such impacts to insignificance relies on the post-approval preparation of an"Updated Geotechnical Report and Remediation Plan"thatwill include "additional subsurface exploration and evaluation of slope stability."20 The initial study violates CEQA because it defers meaningful evaluation of the project's impacts with regard to landslides and slope stability until well after the project is approved.21 This deferral is particularly troublesome in light of CEQA's requirement of a mandatory finding of significance for any potential project impacts that may result in"substantial adverse effects on human beings."` If the potential exists that grading permits cannot be issued for the project due to landslide potential,that information should be adequately investigated by the County and disclosed to the public before project approval. B. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION The initial study acknowledges that the project has the "potential to cause significant erosion of unprotected slopes, and downslope sedimentation both on--and off-site."23 In order to offset '7 fnitial Study, at p. 10. 8 Pub. Resources Code, §§21080, subd. (d), 21082.2, subd. (d). `C) Initial Study, at p. 15 (response VI.ID.). 20 Initial Study, at p. 17. 2' Gentry,supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at 1396. '2 CEQA Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (d). 23 Initial Study, at p. 1 . _. Mr. Darwin Meyers May 21, 2004 Page 5 of 9 short-term erosion impacts associated with construction, the initial study requires the applicant to submit an erosion control plan prior to obtaining a grading permit.24 However,no specific performance standards are included, either directly or by reference, in the initial study indicating how the effectiveness of the applicant's erosion control plan will be measured to ensure that the project's admitted, potentially significant erosion impacts will be mitigated to "less-than- significant" less-than- signifcant" levels.25 Again, the deferral of the development of such plans until after project approval violates CEQA. In addition, the initial study claims that long-term erosion impacts will be mitigated by "incorporat[ing] the appropriate design, construction and continued maintenance of one or more" proposed long-term measures, but again, fails to establish any performance standards that clearly indicate that erosion will be reduced to "less-than-significant" levels by incorporation of any or all of the proposed measures, Moreover, one of the proposed long-term mitigation measures simply states that "[cjoncentrated runoff shall not be permitted to drain over cut or fill slopes."27 This is a normative statement, it is not a mitigation measure.28 The initial study might as well announce that"rain exceeding 1/2 inch in any twenty-four hour period shall not be permitted to fall on the project site." The unanswered CEQA question is, what specific changes will be made in the project to ensure that runoff will not drain over cut or fill slopes, whether"permitted"or not? C. ExPANSIVE SOILS AND/OR BEDROCK As with the discussion of landslides and slope stability, the initial study admits that expansive soils may result in potentially significant adverse environmental effects,but improperly defers the preparation of an "Updated Geotechnical Report"to describe such impacts and to propose alternatives or mitigation measures to offset such impacts until after project approval. 4 V. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The initial study notes that the City of Richmond has submitted comments 1)that "identified existing water problems and landslides, as well as `springs' within the Hilltop Green development," 2)that drainage through Hilltop Green is "barely manageable at present," and 3 that drainage from the project site will flow through Hilltop Green.30 Accordingly the City requested the County to prepare an EIR to analyzed downstream effects on drainage. 24 Initial Study, at p. 19. 25 Sacramento Old City Association v. City of Sacramento ("SOCA") (1991)229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1029. 26 SOCA, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at 1029. 2 7 Initial Study at p. 19. 28 CEQA Guidelines, § 15370. 2 9 Initial Study, at p. 20; Gentry, supra, 36 Cal.AppAth at 1396. See discussion at Part IV.A, supra. ;`� Initial Study, at p. 23. Mr. Darwin Meyers May 21, 2004 Page 6 of 9 The initial study first improperly attempts to shift the County's affirmative burden to affirmatively investigate such impacts to the City.3# CEQA does not allow the County to excuse itself from analyzing the project's effects on the existing environment, which includes the existing, acknowledged drainage problems in Hilltop Green.32 The initial study then states that"[t]he problems experienced by Hilltop Green appear to be associated with deficiencies to the internal drainage structures."3' The initial study's admission that drainage problems in Hilltop Green exist (whether due to "internal"problems or not) cannot be reconciled with its attempt in the very next sentence to dismiss drainage problems at Hilltop Green as only "public controversy"or"speculation." The initial study then goes an to admit that the drainage studies that were prepared by the County for the project only "evaluated the internal drainage system of the project and not the adequacy of downstream drainage facilities."34 The initial study then notes that the applicant's drainage report,'claiming that runoff from the site will be kept at pre-development levels, only analyzed a 25-year flood event. Perhaps recognizing the wealmess of its own analysis,the initial study concludes by stating that changes will be required in the project"as part of the final design and plan review process" to "ensure that the project does not have an adverse effect on the reported downstream drainage inadequacies within the Hilltop Green project, Interstate 80, or any other downstream drainage facilities." As before, the initial study,has unlawfully deferred conducting an adequate investigation of the project's impacts on regional drainage, and alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce or avoid such impacts to "less-than-significant" levels, or establishing performance standards for such impacts, until after project approval.35 VI. LAND USE AND PLANNING The initial study recites General Plan Policy 10-29: "Significant hillsides with slopes over 26 percent or more shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading or other land disturbances."36 As previously noted, the initial study states that the project is proposed for areas that contains slopes greater than 26 percent, and will require extensive grading and other land disturbance. The initial study's claim that"compliance with Polic[y] . . . 10-29 [is] subject to interpretation°' cannot be squared with case law making it clear that land use approvals must be vertically consistent with mandatory general plan policies.37 Regardless of the County's"practice" in the 3' Sundstrom, supra, 2012 Ca1.App.3d at 311. 32 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21060.5, 21080, subd. (d)• 33 Initial Study, at pp. 23-24. 34 Initial Study, at p. 24. 35 Gentry,supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at 1396; Sundstrom,supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 311. 36 Initial Study, at p. 26, T able 9 (emphasis added). 37 families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Beard of Supervisors (".FUTURE") (1998). 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341-1342. Mr. Darwin Meyers May 24 2004 Page 7 of 9 past, the fact remains that the General Plan,forbids projects that require extensive grading on hillsides of more than 26 percent. The initial study is defective because it fails to acknowledge that the proposed project is inconsistent with mandatory policies in the general plan.' Moreover, the project cannot be approved as proposed because it is facially inconsistent with the County's mandatory general plan policies. V1I. Nom As with construction--related air quality impacts, the initial study is completely devoid of any investigation of or limitations on construction-related noise impacts.`' The initial study fails to contain even the most basic noise control measures, such as limitations on hours of construction, that are included as a matter of course in most residential projects. As stated above, the County bears the affirmative burden under CEQA of at least considering the project's potential to have adverse noise effects on neighboring residents, and to propose mitigation measures or alternatives to mitigate such impacts. Because the negative declaration fails to even recognize the potential for such impacts, it must be revised and recirculated for public review before the project can be approved 40 With regard to long-term noise impacts, the initial study freely admits that noise levels will increase as the number of residences in the area increases from one to forty.41 The initial study lists several new sources of noise emissions, including air conditioners, lawn mowing, and outdoor recreational use.42 But, the initial study makes no effort at all to quantify or analyze such impacts, and claims—with no factual support—that long-term noise impacts will be "less- than-significant. ,43 The project cannot be approved until the County provides some factual basis for its determinations regarding noise impacts. VUL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE As noted above, the deferral of investigation of the project's potential for landslides suggests that the project may have"substantial adverse effects on human beings."44 Unless and until this potential impact is adequately investigated and clearly mitigated to "less-than-significant" levels a mandatory finding of significance is required for the project based on its uncertain potential for impacts on humans.45 38 Initial Study,p. 25 (purporting to claim that conflicts with the County's General Plan are"Less Than Si nificarit"). 39 Initial Study, p. 28. 40 CEQA Guidelines, § 15073.5, subd. (b)(1). 41 Initial Study,p. 28. 46 Initial Study, pp. 28-29. 43 Initial Study, p. 28. 44 See discussion at Part IV.A,supra. 45 CEQA Guidelines, § 15065, surd. (d). Mr. Darwin Meyers May 21, 2004 Page 8 of 9 IX. BROWN QCT/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CONCERNS Finally, our client is concerned about the difficulty they have encountered in accessing the documents that will be before the Planning Commission for its May 25, 2004 hearing. Our client is under the impression that the most recent staff report for this project will not made available to the public until after the Community Development Department's close of business on Friday, May 21, 2004. For all practical purposes, this means that the earliest the public might be able to access the County's staff report for the project is less than 48 hours before the Planning Commission's proposed action on the project. California's Brown Act generally requires that any writings that are made available to a majority or all members of a board shall be made available to the public without delay.46 It is unclear whether the staff report and other documents that will be before the Planning Commission have been provided to the Planning Commissioners. If they have, the Brown Act requires staff to grant the public immediate access as well. Beyond the Brown Act, the public process is impaired when relevant reports and information regarding a project are not provided for public review with adequate time to meaningfully consider and understand their content. Without adequate time for such review, the holding of a "public meeting"becomes an empty symbolic event lacking public confidence or legitimacy. Especially in light of the well-known public concern and controversy over this project, fundamental fairness—as well as due process concepts of"open governance" and"public accountability"—require that the public should be given a meaningful opportunity to review and respond to information that is provided to their elected or appointed decisionmaking officials. X. CONCLUSION As stated at the beginning of this letter,the initial study prepared for the proposed project is legally inadequate. The initial study 1) fails to acknowledge several of the project's potentially significant impacts, 2) defers the analysis of adverse environmental effects until after project approval, 3) defers the development of mitigation measures or alternatives until after project approval, 4) fails to establish meaningful performance standard for mitigation measures, 5) improperly places the burden on the public and other agencies to identify the project's potentially significant.adverse environmental effects, and 6) fails to make required, mandatory findings of significance with regard to impacts to human beings. Moreover,the project cannot be approved because it is inconsistent with the County's mandatory general plan policy prohibiting projects that require extensive grading on slopes exceeding 26 percent. The Planning Commission should also put over any final decision on the project to a later meeting, and continue the opportunity for further public comment until all of the documents and reports that are to be taken under consideration by the Commission have been provided to the public with adequate time to allow those who are concerned about the project and its impacts to understand, and raise any concerns they may have about, the content of such information. 46 Gov. Code, § 54957.5, subd. (a). Mr. Darwin Meyers May 29, 2004 Page 9 of 9 For the foregoing reasons, our client, Friends of Garrity Creek, opposes approval of the project at this time, Our client also hereby incorporates by reference all prior comments that they and all other parties have submitted regarding the proposed project. Contra Costa County should not approve the proposed project until a revised mitigated negative declaration is prepared that demonstrates, based on the "whole" of the record before the County, that all of the project's effects have been mitigated to "less-than-significant" levels, or until an EIR is prepared to analyze the project's remaining, potentially significant adverse environmental effects. Sincerely, h { Keith Wagner ry l R May 21, 2004 4 Community Development Department Attention Darwin Myers 651 Pine Street, 4th.Floor, North Wing Martinez CA 94553-0095. Bear Mr, Myers; We continue to be opposed to development SDOI-8533. In our previous letter we explained some of those reasons. As it appears now, we at 894 Marin Road will be severely impacted by the proposal of opening road access through Marin Road to connect to Hilltop:Drive. The grading of the parcel that the county is considering for development in many places exceeds a 26% slope maximum. The variances that the County is considering will put our home at risk. We continue to be concerned with the effects of this development. Who will pay for the costs of damage and possibly life, in case of landslides? The proposed variances without a full EIR are not acceptable. We demand a complete Environmental Impact Report as it is mandated under CEQA and in response to the requests from the Richmond City Council, El Sobrante Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Urban Creek.Council, Friends of Garrity Creek, Hilltop Green Homeowners Association, and the Hilltop Neighborhood Association and hundreds of concerned individuals. Given that the slope in the area exceeds the maximum 26% of the"acceptable" slope for construction, that the area is prone to landslides and flooding, that in fact the area is a wildlife corridor for many animals and that a creek runs through it, it appears that this area is more suitable for open space. Even the County's General plan agrees with this idea. The willingness of the Community.Development Department to allow for all types of variances from those required by the zoning and planning regulations is puzzling. It horrifies us that regardless the strong opposition you have seen against this development, the painstaking explanations for such opposition known to the county, that the county is willing to allow more variances such as increased height of retaining walls to 10 feet and opening access to Hilltop Drive from a very steep upslope into Marin Road. Sind our home will be surrounded by this development, we imagine that we will have views of 10' retaining walls on the south and west part of your property. And since the _.__. _. .. _.. _ road access is right at the boundary of our house, that we will be most affected by the increase in traffic not only of the new neighbors but anyone wanting an easy access to Hilltop Drive. Recently, we experienced a medical emergency. We called the paramedics. The fire truck could not go down to our drive way and had to stay 100 feet from our entrance. We hate to think of what might happen if there is a fire in the new development and the fire truck cannot make it there. We continue to trust that the county will consider the concerns of the many citizens that oppose this development. We invite you to visit the site and appreciate for yourself the beauty, and uniqueness of this place. Indeed you will be able to see that this is open space worth saving and also that a development is a risky business for the community. Sincerely, Miguel A. Hernandez Edna Hernandez 894 Marin Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 Susav� K� $ On iv 76 �.t L2 is�`j h jjv2 , �iqS3"� �f�QD 04JUN-/2� PM 2103 tk ro ��ee�- i ✓� C l 5t) nz Pi �e , e CA,N- 15 dp- \j � � has � � Y-2co e�C)p yyl n� wvA He- C�XeCl\ 2�VlSr Si kic e r-e March 6, 2004 Len Battaglia, Planning Commissioner World Trawl - 2300 El Portal Drive San Pablo , Calif. 94808 RE: Comments on revised plans for Hillview SD 01-8833 Dear Len Battaglia, Planning Commissioner, I am a concerned citizen who OPPOSES the approval of subdevelopment SD 01-8533 in El Sobrante. This matter will be before the Planning Commission on April 13 1 urge the Planning Commission to, at minimum, insist on a full EIR which adequately considers the many issues raised by concerned residents, including: - Engineering and flooding issues - Traffic and roads issues - Creek and wildlife protection - Need for open space in the area Sinperely, ff } ,j Jese Golden '63 8'13 Pebble Drive El Sobrante CA 94803 510-758-9355 email: jessegoldencomcast.net if i1 ii ... ._..__...��_.._..__..».�.,,.___-_..,.,____�-177 _-..__.-.................___,...._-..._...._.._ .__..___...,,.- .__....._...,.._..,...,.» .-..._..,_.... .:.._,.........._._....�....e_._... i ' ��,.,�;,`� r i"^d:'-y'�V, k✓'�r+✓'��[ tlCh..-�_- -P l>�+'��'i.•�Y'�t{ ,._..`�-�i,J23�l,.wt,lr7'a'dG9+,^,tiR'�?" . s t^y � + rt i DATE .w . -40 .__L.. )t _ „_......._..................,_..<..,..,.,.....i Y .C1.,:.._,.G.Z'!w`4 V1!"�� ......_-S'.`�. '. 0_.7_'b.`..:..,�. ..m.....__ dLL.I __ t•_ .` 1 _ i �} ?t-........G�.Av"1. `.��.p_..a'C'�.{!..,,....."S"I!4�a--_�`�`.moi»tL�✓�3..._ 4�+r'�.�..�-. �t 61r"4. �..�c_� .,..:._..,,.».._......__,_ _.,.,,................__._._.....__.A ,.'T s„ .W1..Y1., ..............,.,.. S.w._..._`"1. 4S ell,�...._._...�. ,,.__..^_.__..»......__..�..,,»x._..._.»._..._......v._...�.. ..W.:...._. _,_.._...w..__.....�..»,.»,,._...».._..�.._...,...,......-.__..., _.__...___ ... . _;:�,CY--��.-+e _..,:'K�'>+.. �rt..,..»_�r�.... 1N��,p[..�.x'�+�-�,. .. r'!".+nG.►Yt.m !.^�' . d...�"�:�t2�..,. �-..�±'m�! .+i�... ..___-, ell .. __a..__. ..._....�3.�ra.-.../-Zf4fJ'f�-�1i,�tlr._.. ..G...+�°t_r��"',.�._.,.�!''Y�..'X'''±.'Y""`�._..rs.tex.�'�r�'_.»..Y;�_'!w.__ L.l'CL+y✓ _.'�. �'�._._.. ._..�.»_...._w_,..-,.�,. _.. b.G +t.tt�. ..._.ic+J'76f i i y� / t'�+�k.7 ,�j T ...j. '7' +L. Y'f tL�P't,f�.✓t V-0..45 4&-^..,..: _.,,. __. ,�.� ��.�c►�a.vr�-ti.a.�,+�:e!r'_.�._t.�c��r,�'!e�r__�.�. �.5.,�5ra+�rw,a��Ip4,r�.5.��'�`�w_�",,.,�C.�..'�..,.. �..�.�+�5. `� ,__. . 3 u s ,_wti •_...' -* 1. .c �! 1 .i I� _c�J�r:�.�+?-'"� ?'rato±>1hr,.. t:!'' ..�.../ �".. �.�..`ur!+��} ft f BY CATE so —17 r-gym., ar__e ._.. �! rtz+ .:...._ ►" +�s_ren , w _ !' ' .._ ''�!? __M..._. A f f X*k tC_.,v 5�+!.rt d/ 04/-- Cal aal 7�►�CJ"" Lijf� c+il,.,,.,.._��.�'�.� i��_,.»s�±!�.� Lr!o?t..,l�fr,.,.__J;_.�_.��i.�r__..+�.�',�!'IOLir .t.i,i. _......__.,.._.__.__...,�_.. _._.. C + S.......:....., _. sk ------- re z, -n� j� �r►`6Z y�""11„'!'L+6t�l,'.,� �T"" GJ CL wYi [�...r1'I.+il.�+C 'l1X"+�„_...d�' Y"l,. .C� �_._.,_46-Y`�0 ._..�.................. .... ..... �i«.i-r?.,Sf%_?""�T+�►.•.-_:. __.."`-":�.�'�iL'!C7,Y'1..._L�3�'r-+�r, GQ..�'C�i ./t?.� _,�!""'._..,,✓61____ ¢t J✓�w e.+,_��r 3 --_ + i i c> t' rxrc ggd.d 1 ert, r v not ro-e t .AotTi';_ _j/ eu'yrt1EY/fsutr R_d( !"" ,..__�._,�.�..._.. -�.�i rtr' f"K�;►Y'tt�rsc.i�°t�.s�' a'� +dt �f�.fl �''i�►rw�,eL,�'' �4t.-�O+.. ',�.",,�.-lD,� �f Date. 05-25-2004 To: Contra Costa County Planning Commission From: Barbara A. Pendergrass, member of"Friends of Garrity Creek." and the "Hilltop Neighborhood Association"'. Subject: Opposition to the approval of SD 018533 On Friday, May 21", 2004 I received notification that two copies of the County staff report and supporting addendums would be available at the El Sobrante Fire Station after 2:00 P.M. I retrieved the two copies at 2:30 P.M. Each report contains two sided documents equaling one inch each, the equivalent of a two inch thick.report. I assume the planning commission members received their copies around the sane time frame. The time frame doesn't give the law firm that we have engaged enough time to review these latest documents nor does it provide adequate time for"Friends of Garrity Greer" and the "Hilltop Neighborhood Association". The law firm of J. William Yeates, in a letter to Darwin Myers and the Planning Commission writes and I quote "Without adequate time frame for such review, the holding, of a"public meeting" becomes an empty symbolic event lacking public confidence or legitimacy. Especially in light of the Nell-known public concern and controversy over this project, fundamental fairness- as well as due process concepts of" open governance" and "Public Accountability" requires that the public should be given a.meaningfully opportunity to review and respond to information that is provided to their elected or appointed decision making officials." On behave of the "Friends of Garrity Creek" and the "Hilltop Neighborhood Association" I respectfully request that you withhold approval until our members and the law firm of J. William Yeates is given the time to review this latest documentation. I also want to address the misconception that only a few residents are in opposition to this project. County staff reports that they have received over 1 _._..... .......................................................... .......................... 330 signatures in opposition to this project. I would like at this time to give you another 67 signatures in opposition to the project bringing the total to 397 and counting.the 540 residents in Hilltop Green you are looking at nearly one thousand residents opposing this project. The reasons almost one thousand people are opposed to this project are: I) A Negative Declaration in place of the required Environmental Impact Report was issued stating no significant impacts or less than significant impact on the environment. I want you to visualize the beautiful green setting you saw at the beginning of this meeting and then picture Mr. Afshar's bulldozers coming in and scraping every blade of grass leaving bare dirt as he did on his Renfrew Court project. I might add that the Renfrew Court project is still bare dirt with some cement work after over a year and a half. What will the animal and bird life exist on during this time? Will the retaining walls come down as they did on the Renfrew Court project? Picture in your mind the quiet setting that now exists next to the main proposed entrance to the project. On the left lives an. 80 plus year old lady who has one neighbor. Now visualize what she is going to experience when the house next to her is turn down and a left had turn lane created in front of her yard. Visualize the cement trucks parking double in front of her home as they did in front of my home on the Renfrew Court project. Visualize the bulldozers and dozens of cars going in and out, the dirt, the. noise and the affect on this lady. This construction will have a drastic affect, a disaster for the residents, the wildlife and the bird population. Now tell me how a County report can state, no or less than significant impact on the environment. 2) What happens to the flooding in Hilltop Green when the willows, grasses and other shrubs that currently absorb the water, are no longer present to perform that function? This question is only one of which remains unanswered and is the reason "Friends of Garrity Creek" engaged the law firm of J. William Yeates. 2 I have submitted to you numerous letters listing detail concerns and problems with this subdivision and I respectively request that all correspondence be made available to Planning Commission. Again we respectfully request that you delay any approval of this project and have a full environmental 'impact report prepared that address's all of the unanswered questions and concerns. 3 abdut.bla>f7k Good Evening. I'm askinggou all,to Mand with us,your friends and neighbors. Mg name.is Errol Kuhn. M9 wife Kerry and I purchased our home, on Marin Rd,ten years ago. We were attracted to the s semi- rural c6racter of tke area. Just this morning, I walked mg dog to tke end of Marin fid, and tried to imagine what the view would 6e like if this development were in place. What I see now is a green, steeply sloping hillside, which falls away to Garrit.9 Creek below. On the opposite hillside, which rises ust as steeply to the West, a half dozen horses gaze,their tails blowing in the breeze. There are lame trees scattered around the frills, and along the creek.,a dark green swath of vegetation and a huge grove of very lame trees grow around the spring which feeds the creek year around. The air smells fresh, despite the freeway off in the distance, across Hilltop Green. I've walked down alongthe creek., seen the comic Frogs whose croaking ends at the first footfall. I know where the Racoons Dave their den, and tiny Grey Foxes hide;the secretive Skunk family, which mg dog has learned to avoid.Two small boys are playing in tyre grove of trees,their chatter and laughter reminds me of mg schooldags.Th£s place is magical. The County's initial study states, that the proposed project"WILL SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE.THE VISUAL CHARACTER Or THE SITE". I am now standing in someone's driveway, leaning against an SUV, and the owner Eras Just called the Police. California case law states that a mitigated negative declaration cannot 6e approved if it relies on measures that Dave not been formulated at the time of project approval. So, how do thirty five rooftops mitigate the lass of this lovely green vista? How does a concrete drainage channel mitigate this dark green swath along the stream, redolent with life? How can the loss of these trees 6e mitigated lay concrete driveways, each with thee or four vehicles?What happens to all of these animals?The children? I 'm aslc£ g you all. Please, stand with us.We are rgour friends and ne£gk6ors... Thank: You- x of 1 5/2.5/04 5:5 PM __.. (5) "Disapprove the development project" includes any instance in which a local agency does either of the following: (A)Votes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved. (B) Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph. (i) if any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes restrictions, including design changes, a reduction of allowable densities or the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of restrictions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d) and that the findings are su ported b When a proposed�hous`ingdevelop�mentproject complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development projects application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. we:30163421.1i3000e79-0000302893 Subdivision Map Act Excerpts Government Cade: § 66473. Noncompliance with statute or local ordinance; waiver of technical or inadvertent error A local agency shall disapprove a map for failure to meet or perform any of the requirements or conditions imposed by this division or local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto; provided that a final map shall be disapproved only for failure to meet or perform requirements or conditions which were applicable to the subdivision at the time of approval of the tentative map; and provided further that such disapproval shall be accompanied by a finding identifying the requirements or conditions which have not been met or performed. Such local ordinance shall include, but need not be limited to, a procedure for waiver of the provisions of this section when the failure of the map is the result of a technical and inadvertent error which, in the determination of the local agency, does not materially affect the validity of the map. § 66473.6. Consistency with general and specific plans No local agency shall approve a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, unless the legislative body finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1. A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a general plan or a specific plan only if the local agency has officially adopted such a plan and the proposed subdivision or land use is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in such a plan. § 66473.7. Water supply; availability; conditions for map approval; verification; exception [Text not included because this section applies only to subdivisions of 500 units or more] § 66474. Findings justifying disapproval A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it makes any of the following findings: (a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicablegeneral and specific plans. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. W0:30183418.1]301}067$-t30003026$3 .,y (e)That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f)That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 3 66474.4. denial of map where parcels following subdivision of land would be too small to sustain agricultural use or will result in residential development not incidental to commercial agricultural use of land; further conditions with respect to denying map; criteria for evaluating parcels; conditions allowing parcels smaller than these specified to be approved; application to other parcels or land; authority of cities, counties or legislative bodies [Text of section not included because it applies only to agricultural land] § 66474.6. proposed waste discharge violating water quality requirements The governing body of any local agency shall determine whether the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California regional water quality control board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code. In the event that the governing body finds that the proposed waste discharge would result in or add to violation of requirements of such board, it may disapprove the tentative map or maps of the subdivision. W 0:30163418.113000879-0000302$93 25 May 2004 1 live on Marin Road with the proposed development site directly behind my home. Our attorney's letter informs you that a mitigated negative declaration cannot be approved if it relies on mitigation measures that have not yet been formulated. Siavash Afshar asks you to approve extensive development on steep areas of a site which the initial staff report states is located on "expansive soils creating substantial risk to life or property." He wants to build a road and seven hones on land with slopes steeper than 26% to connect to the end of Marin Road over a known landslide. I also bring to your attention that Afshar's geologists never located bedrock when they slid their surveys. His entire project plan ASSUMES that bedrock exists in this area. County staff relies on a post-approval future "updated geotechnical report" to address landslide-related dangers. Deferring meaningful evaluation of landslides and slope instability until after project approval directly violates CEQA. CEQA requires a mandatory finding of°significance for any potential: project impacts that may result in "substantial adverse effects on human beings." I urge you to reject approval unless and until the geotechnical reports locate bedrock and Afshar presents complete geotechnical mitigation plans prior to approval as CEQA requires. I propose a compromise solution to these problems which will eliminate any future liability the county might incur from Afshar's current risky development plan. This compromise still allows building behind my home. Limit SD 8533 to a development of 16 homes on a cul-de-sac, using one exit/entrance to the property. The steep 26%+ grade slide prone area could remain undisturbed, as is required in the county's General flan Policy 10-29. The developer will have reasonable use of the property and make housing available for future residents. A 16- home project would not overtax existing reads, schools, etc. and is in keeping with community services now in place. The community, future home buyers and the county would be better served by a reasonably sued, development that actually improves the neighborhood and also proactively prevents risk by leaving areas of 26%+ slope undisturbed per the county's general plan. ., J Jamie McGrath, 836 Marin Road, El Sobrante 04 tfA Y 24 PH 3; 4 9 i; i 3 16 Greenbrae Court r: E1,Sobrante,CA 94803 May 19,2004 Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 pine Street Martinez,CA 94553-12.29 To Whom If May Concern: We are unable to attend the Planning Commission Public Hearing on Tuesday,May 25,2004,but we want to express our opinion about the proposal to build 40 homes behind Hilltop Drive in El Sobrante. We are vehemently against this proposal. The roads in that area were not designed,and have not been upgraded,to carry as much additional traffic as this development would create. Other roads,such as Appian Way and San Pablo Ilam Road,would also be negatively impacted creating hazardous conditions for everyone driving in El Sobrante,especially near neighborhood schools. With the flooding that occurs in that area,as evidenced by homes being sandbagged during storms,it is inconceivable that no Environmental Impact report is required. Many residents chose to live in El Sobrante because its somewhat rural atmosphere that will be destroyed with continued development. How long do you think the owner will reside in El Sobrante once he/she has created so much destruction to the natural and perceived ambiance of the community? Please do not approve the request to subdivide this property. Sincerely, Charlotte M.Bemardin John E.Bernardin .•-t .-r rs- N N C^l t!1 M en. 'd' +e't t"- CitS.x C7.•-� .--. � � C3. V7 bD Ok (7 to W IV) CIO VaC7t J' v7rra{strw z W @ <C 91 to v r_a cq t c Q5 Lu CZ �OE y c 0� C �c V NC> cur 0 43 a m chi { au Uc a5 :EJ 45 ri CJ a bii ep, AM a>i as °} e g -Saa. ° '� G v C TI 14 4 � 23 {}? ". , Ei o f 0, ro ,, ot3' a a} ;a'' u a Cl c' o- N "G a, a as ❑ ni ff3 C a t9 g w ° c - y �1 C Ca 4,. ca Fa C�5 .`y�",� C•� .,d b. �•�: .g�+-. y �0 F"n � •� as � , > . U 10 }'+may O ,n 'G • J-1 0 f3 OCD • in ro ry u ai u tb o c 0. 3 ca . � g E � & ro L) , ° o c w ?3 N � �� O � .��:.��. � � fes' �•C�'J :'�" . rami v� y;•3' b ca rdA to o N a.? n C c ' = as .r � v " i'' baa . a m E 0 v .w' 10 0 KO 79 43 J 1} qa .b as v� rbc d�,pl 'y� _ �Q � � •"' '.� '[y �� ",� ea ..' a} ..� '� ,ahs �d o w A�(b'? Q �' N O i. 641 `v y- a N a• t ' _o C as H u • °' , 41 � -8a . � wcba 81, ' c a� o o eta _._. _......... _.. . .................................................................. ................................ 4. Jr 6 a t3 0 `d f`1 �ryry •{n S tap'G o o d tri as w ,`n 78 ,A =3ni b M W U L �'•,":a%r�r k'i CJ V7 C5 U v'}' z otu .�.� "" �, •C7 C � Q w � "� ;� "s C� 5Ei `4 Q1 rC y w rJ.y� en 6 ai o 33°p °' o Cb F. w ''1 O r., ta W ✓J ' 4. �� w � � � .�� ani � � � � >'� ,o" o ❑ ob o o u. b 0.o ` 0 3 r tl.i L1U CEJ y-. 4• a .� � � 3 ' U� vroufo ` 6 .2 43 75 48 ol ixD y A C] IV bh tv ws o ,r •. w � A Of �° ' , fl cy � V1 .� Olt N '0 cd 00 rc �� o °�. �� (�{�pj1��++�•� �� ' � :v.° tri � �y�� _� �� '� ✓ ..CCS-<3 .cn t -d fl G c��{ .'.', "�' •Q c> tv a> v a3 .. fin. oB,may C b ty� C1, •.0 {�. .S' .'� c"7s 'j bn � ,,,,:, u u ` , n C1 y - tj,t Lx 00 •� �,� ck`$•�}, �.,,ri �.,.� $, '� o, '� u ,� � � �``� '�..� � to N }^^ ,d O•� fl .:rS � ��• yrj � � c`v � b � y � D� .�-^ C�7 •� C7 fl-+ �°�� y7 4-3 ,41 .a,d> +y' ,`flims. UAntl x3 0 td Ln ZA n ° In Ci vi Cir au� MG 71 � . a .�. a � � �, �., c� #��•� �y `ad � ✓ � Np .fl� '�..`t'� a-+-� rp V� .� � '{�� fl 8) � bA�LC bD �" � �.-{ sr+%.. '" � � ",t � '� r; "fir � t�•``�° �/}vY •� � � � c� `ani -c -� •{dQ�},��a � o f3•� ?Sr "� j U VT '" y !; yt�' "O Vu'.; N C+n fl .i �+ N In all °� � � - �, ;; cs�` q `�:� ami KS� -� .�,�.� ao°'� � �� •� t'� ,S�. Gnat > � �� °�� °� ��,`� ..� � ��' ��•� � m� c� '� ,�sY. o t.7 en oil I In o 3 00 m3 ,p cdK ' 64 re; aai c°s ; Cl, •p ,e t�' "" 'D A c�"b 17 "v7 �..may •s � � � c. 40."K cd •"'w`'� .U'"'4.,. .:ay s� 'cfy3 " •' p c ," .7 C d : " 24-1 m a o aq •a ttS QJ b!42 4 C C q lu4. •� di cz nW b4 cS�«° �.�'.tt�qt} ro � � �, � cC�ddp�.r dam} � ^.��f ,a� e+�i. so .-y © Lir kr � � .''r� �`" G:� C} ''� 41. a tl) 'V W ar> air ' ° � ZI CJ a' + U !.J O- (� yy C] �} C'•) y Y '"� L7 ['7 C3 bYl Y } 4; 43 ,``v •� � zJ . cai ci v5 C1.� 3 a u be S 0w " - ,o lu 0' a3 ..may bz ti U emacs mai mon+ ao a ° RZa .a k .. 0,0 72 Bo a`sem o a a - _ Vq 0 bz * Y c o cq ao a a H u ' > CD oma otLo ��t . 0 ro co cin p a cr rr . Ej Vol P. ��, -;�, " „M. � •;� � � to v Y„ c .v4 a 4, My aro • . �' eo 00 '�5 A CA ep qD o N bA ? P. a3u�yyee�� A C7 a6 -A ,'sJ + A r i f3 yA 0 c uY w, J G1. 7 ."r,n. '.tf'7 > a p� •a O, c,It U .y pry•r? °c� ,Ci G y' cd o � td c � � � � � � � n •dam ,' ; ,.., � � �„ ��, � �; � � "� 2sw C7 . s zo 13 50- lo o A• 3a'' b �J ..F-� �, � N� �. � .�:. ��-vim -ti.; � ;�'�,� 'A .� y .v�y.•� t5 0 63 � '�:,°' °�, •� ,� ��` � .ss ,� asp,,� � 3� �,.� � � �; � �`� k+�� A `t�JV. 0�, gclp d V, rJ � ro bp bb ' •fir Rt •..tt 'x�i{ c �: � �`�` �. taw ;��o ,.� ' •� � � � r,� ." � � �. '>�a': �y. a u ¢ a na a 8 r a tao ,� � a `� � ,�' a � q ro5 ° } n°R 48 cam W r Gy u4 us m o zi v LR z.�a 'd •- c�'' w � au�, a pct , u , 2, o $ adv � b � � "els .cd w 111 aso � C ay.? �'a g H Ls . cl � p os O 79 fig}) `y C3 R2 O epi 4k C.• 4 .: doh oa"iu ' ems, cv F2 �. ','C "y ed , "t a•�j �u an .� ° yt t"� b° °8 a ` m r c $ ' '.4) o C5 C . cw a fr n t� 's v' U-0 G C G3 Ys h v N *y G T3 d? OD �'' nti , cn O o cr M �' O -rA-1 114 s ��#l a $11i do 9 a�,to � z� aq.;pinoys stnauea;n¢{p¢{tad'sect{d pslos gfinot4l .acct do teal f lWet,18,pftiag T� ,``�. � i:�:. :.uta; so pina45 ,. dat{ssatl}ngral{a t¢I>�'u6am '}Y:, fir�a ,. saga7lR�n ues#1;alA eoe;:nsons u#pdiaatiaa.:+a#aM res �r $ 50104 19)aLLiEip t{alp`iU Is i ptsi s°a q;;n;uE,i{aeq-8a{do;5,(It_ti� 'I Iuoz q te6ie ou sao sne4 Alnays ad 3 r rasa;3ua Ilos ayk Kq palest{p # I W aseq sk;.x{':;frx'a{�;ra;aa�g#sen};a d4 Pfda4s fsusgat0i .. se is jnotpaq'.ro^{1as;ti.&Lloa;. pakadalrad at{;,'1s;19;aw a5auia. fiu dais tza p a0s1d{0 mwiinq 1 i bntYs�o;:�a aal tk a. p p -' .w-,....,..._. # .��o#af pUe auetd spf#s�lJtsla'q#aa�t z - �!!to cue a aul rasa„uric ;ssa;;a.0ukpuakxa sa#;airaq 19491, sajot„p9oaid ad#d paietoua 18 i talawa{p 4ou{b a dq p85tsy5s, pue`pakae#1aa aG pinoys tettekes s�y1Yt£f tp ,q tIfos#�;Qa trsa t } ' .t3. r ,.a6aylatP:eak ut a;sinwnoo .. a sif Ui3 ud}d{ #1' #a b iau!6u i { E#s {;apua otlgKasse3 g x cv. taosfos#¢U#9 pe oedd { .s m ,. ,. n ,hey ,. _ s oitge7 �frt rs11ur1s a iii 5�t3Ckt!+ejll r dq ks;uaoefPalie�wott pa)a.+ede a bino4s;r'1e},ta;ewa6sulel . at#}sfrdsafjo 51 eje8a:66a as;ao aWi.3�, al>rBa}069'8Ste00 algetn gofii k 01.trjr to'uor11A t n s v� '�' ;sa;et seal#aaliaadg p ep�ck it 6 + {t 21i fb i aq;is s9 ual#aa ,� r �; k r � Mks ` 1q4 0hkt;Sldwop#ai2ak�Yd akgaau}sa, #slsuoo pinoy i b s i s Odes 1 ' ;erlataw e6aujetp 941'apt ..Z r pa; #a j3} a da s ppp - e es r ksaa;jr aq,pinotr :utPt 1}acus;. ti 1^ f f3�xd a d ti iki Z7 1p�jgac#k� �e( PlF3arifSi fat a�ati jla;�r#�bsu� �4 b3not#siYa�aje#Ili sp.vmo{pe;oastp aq pino4s sA;n,,�'aoepns'sa�7aif1?ah cYati�i batsao`� 01 t + 0 ; cn � C w Pit tr# 3:Lu u' } w 1 o k LRJ N i �Via}r 1 t tri R u a� �_ &+d34#iOtQtliS �nlssaadwbtl •- t'• 1 I%i NIYSii9 3'�111tV! 0.. La T 6} O Z IVS pWf101,LfiVld} - In r ;y iry=tr+o�Havu, otit _. _. .._. ,.._....�_...._—,._ .._......_.__...�_._ o # Y a dY til G'+n}3WYAN41 Luj1J d d bc7 N3d 13%:7Cd (� i 10(:d U34 5M iO F- 43$3tl N t*5 •a,{ Ii"I i� t•. � 53 a � `.�- .�- ."�- eri 1 rn � m tTt t'� � \ 4 Z LU 0 ' 41 � r d N IQ C J N N cr i L In � a � W j 3 z c m re 1tL > m xr r z � o 0 'O a t] C7 U 'cp •a � .. E z g3 ' 'av C h i'b 7 :WO vx.•Z r ' m a� r uri t ILI z wo 3� a, q � � p I.v tp.� a �u � � i � � -• w�-,ra, a� is ` In u In •ter°,•� n � to $ a g V�.! � s r. � x t w w ay C> ��...�a .G �� r��;� r9 �'�t�� mmti � b � +:}�� vpS ;va°� �� , b� oz �` � 1� v, s• �,� - °n' � �',� � I� Cf} �. ( i w v In R A I } 1-"iXJ 'ar m 1 y a cn us _ C1JE3 In r� z zIn ; � l �':i 5..�' C�:b ro an 'S w ,ro +n 5 - 4 U n a , O r ro I, m } r I, 0 In 74 16 WO In Tli E4 N o n w o I �. w t !r •z a ry cx ,L ,u .� b u r ; r y X C�s �nissaadwna 1 � � r i aaw Na n mi :n n n � a � twi NrvatS stnvvd � 'r' ux .r�. � � i � SN3SNaJ a3iYM� t4 ht N D o � i� txi smma!non � c° v 5 LU i;ni 9ttw.liat fl. ibOd iiia 9MtY'19� ... _._.»...._._.. ...�_.__.._...��.._�,,.._.•.__.�._..�.._.._...�� ._-_........_�.`_.. �{� � i 3�tdwY$ t X X J X X X • � v--::zza�a� N c� er +n m r, ab cn Z 2 9du'4a5 U } J 1"l W 2 0 > ( ? LD o W � r Z '�r} I„r- �.. 10 o V.e1 rtcerNaazs 't . 9NSB3Ndwast f .- a�alloarm k CV lx1+:tYkfi93tif)tiF`d - . 1 to (A J�°Y AtISN9a Aw p�j CS C7 I i r V U {xJ Um1:Ni9Y'td� tp uj 4 o f NJ alnon I � LU �r � Sn73NV.tiipi uj N Seo N3a Lys:m LU `o e3 3ldWVS X X .._.. _.....�.. 2 y+Vi+yy Htd3a 'r h.. M wi' a to cb h 63 tl1 C? e _ N M t' ta_ tD I� Atl Kn LL t7 _t u > e a jm ria 1M c`n > fjAd'f vttON`k1S 3Af:S3NdW"J�. 0:4NiMt?�,tlR �' ;v,3 N,vyyS$tiftyYj C1. G) t7 Q w � o�Z 4xtzlwit OfSSY�d J m O f0 f d tsi #i 5 O � � tR3}IWIS tl4'IOII I v u fiill)3.Yfmm uS Lll SdOk li3d SNSJ78 N M � � � 0 > w � a Wd 0ir }qIj tE m 12 <- ro 1>a v z U ; ' w aof10a i { exa53NeYYa:r r t � y l co ffJ Oua1.:u5N3a zu(i i Oz . 6 � 'c v � �y o z tw>awri ausnd 63rv. tv cv tion M'611 ztL � U J � pati 3NYA`JtYt � cv si Z ibp. A4010 w ti wI 3ldWYS I .�.. x 0nid$� -�w N M st U'S f3) h. CC} ..•.Ot_...—d ii'lY d' � F D2 U� d of 0 w xf to � w ;ut�1 E u uj m o. it ro a 3 L U J I0 > .(() fY tC Q' ti i d m i 2 A �— ''} d.�lMflO7Wn. t 7� _y _ rv" P 1147 TN`/tI7kY 3tlflllYa Q. n y� �� (9Y711Yt(T`JIISb"Vd .:. r�.. .. •. . ••++yy CU W J i 6 16 � u. a. i LU o c Cb rte' v a u t m� it;f +' 4-)"l Nt3a19 ..� 4WOLdwm QSNtdri6::5Ni' , r is "`- 1{( ifl UA�i AllAN34 TNO b G5 $ x S x f' :: 4N31itt.1a MVM; O p a (961 lmI1 fl1ion Lii , Qf133NbAbaA Ld J uj 15 4.0 r+ad l3uDDd' A ' lona ead sena^,s i `ry° ,p. ��, UJ tb h LKl t]t Q Nkd�O. N tY5 '0' tin tO h � m t7 � rn ('7 3dA111D3 ' y C) 4.J 1 1 :7 LLI j.Co 3 � di � , VI I .. � •,!'fa N}YNi$3U77•IIV3 t•• p M1 :} y :m ':t tvdlAlisrf3oAn�s r ;°' o . v • O � W LN31NfYJ Na1VM' '�".. Lrt ... � - F-•- U7 m W �._ A X X K —`--- c,J rFr v-' y sa o-. �. m M o cn " m ;A; w ti o- o .'c.. {�., l m CO D �s(... I _ 12:1 ttt - E N10N3H{b: SMI a ,�i t� tx>rvroais�timrva r ""-' rV o m � { 0^�).WBN3w.Ab.^. DS p W 1N31No3-b3.VM , a w t 'r,.! X O• 'Ixi 21wt7 ctrfgf} .� 3�tv/.Fxiz co, ap d w f ' : •lood 3{3d SNA"6.. ,,y. -----•-•--N - ._. LU .. :.., � .;,+Ud3n v :rs�'.:' � f,,:, � � ccs �� . v m to n �,n" m o �•� Ti ,a r # i, 0 i� i a. l I >Ld : o U, CL o n z ar'z 4 0 - ........ ......... ......... ......... ....._... _ - - _ ....... .......... .........__.. ......... ......._... ......._. .__...... ......... ............... -_ __ _.. _. _. ....... ........_ ......... ......... -- .. ................ 44 rrTyy py }, • .:,f` _ -' fk�Li{�+�`'h A�i' X41 1 R 1 u r iuSe 1il.,Hv: LL7 .. t. " ¢a t ,•,r � n x *� �t Y't 3 a IVIOU - iit 4•''.�' � V r fb)1AYHL43ee}IYd �r U+ h-,. t , r .. m � Uodl.wsrf3d xkaLLj Z ,(s;uwnousvld O 0 U I $ >7 }j: lmtsm'a'J x31YM r �' 1� OZM63WA�;W- Cflb*ikey3d a�x3od '- - 4 ol 1 1COd kid vN le '' •til. r• ,nJ - hr. t!Jd3a YDe._ 7 Of M V thot f6 r CCY' k•�'- j 0 K. 3d'Ilo3 up 0 w Lu W of ✓Y I f�Y yv -.t ydn' a-T 2,4 F 03 APR 5 AM 8,CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 07 �� 1~ i� Fitt,+,� • r�.ri { t'Y,KU ii i DFVEL f I•M ,4 i *EP T, 1 OT 09 GOT 09 0 LM ot g j `�s 1 uta A{r;*�ctrt „� 'K•'� tIW}i ' ( �ia•£2 ,16'21 CY � � t T1 ya Ii• t � 1fX , rr w: h �,l .. _ �# sCA-t70E-%Ex �y by r r 513'SFMii7X - - ,�( ,ataIm 6a am a mo L✓ N3rtY1,7 �} 1 TN�l. tio-LLi-%t}�. � g �,i} l'.J t•.J � i ' � ' IL JC"Lt grtvXn - •tr LC !n SMA Z tt3MLLi�%Ex k{ .5 iC'xt#p• ! y` .t} SJsa"Nt?MV A'L eZ11Y4 k f •T a t ¢ 2Ex s 7K R ' l✓ TA t +r t n 777$ S i R an , I I _ t r FR f ZFtYrO i.s—d. . id 05/25/2004 17:00 4088679562 LONGS DRUGS STORE 1 Cotte Planning Commission Martinez,CA Attention:Matin Parks S*ect: Tuesday May 25 hearing reg ng A bar subdivision application 1 Dear Commissioner: I ovm a single detached house at 1156 parlttidge Dr,Richmond„CA 948153. My Track yard looks over a ravine that is part of the Afshar PraP=W• Needless to say,my vier*would be ruined. , I would re4ueet that the County Planning Commission turn dog the subdmsionapplication for the i following reasons. The subdivision would chime a,rumt hilly lot,prone to landslides into a densely populated housing div % ,sada 40 families to an area that does not ctt=tty hem the lic scrvlcm to support the divmon. It would negatively affect our overcrowded schools,traffte,t iansit systems,and add pedestrians and cars to ars area that is unprepared to service them, May more children would be walking to school in an area where there an no sidewalks and few t iMc lights to ensure their safety. i In addition,Mr.Sikh A£cltar has requested varionecs that add no value to rhe community and only I it1c;rcm his profits by ignoring the zoning laws that were written to ensure quality and safe development for the community. Request.A,.for comttuction of retaining waw 7 feet higher than permitted is to enable him to build Turd houses on an unstable hillside. For pears,the city of Richmond has had to do Monsive m=xW landslide repairs in Fl lltop t'lr+rren which is situated downhill frornthe proposed subdivision because of landslides M ' that area. Request B for conettuction of retaining walls up to 13 V7 fed in combined height further blights the views of neighbors and is only nwded to mitigate subdividing lots in sn area previously considered unsuitable for ; building. I , Request to mange the minimum lot width from 70 foot to as low 6 fed further changes the character of this suburban and nunl neighborhood to an extretmely dense and crowded howing development which will have a negative impact out the values of homes in the cormnu ity at large We will all have to ask for lower assessments that will reduce tax rmxme and further limit the"ity Of community to provide services to the additional residents. I also object.to the removal ofprotected trees. This fttrtha degrader the txualnature of the neighborhood. Please consider these issues and the negative ad dangerous offect that flus subdMsion would have on the cortrmttnitjr. Diane Carr j I i i s i `r When I went to Martinez yesterday, I left at the private office of Darwin Myers, ai packet of documents referring to the site of the proposed development. He said he would deposit it with the county later. These documents show that the developer bought studies of this site, the Klemetson and the Amso studies, that were done previously to this involvement and which therefore have different project numbers than SD 01 8533. Myers happened to mention that the Amso information has not been given to you. It seem bizarre to me that he would kid about this, and more than bizarre if it is true. This project is based on the Amso study since Amso reports on the soils and geology of the site. Therefore, i have made copies of this Amso Consulting Engineers report for each of you. This study mares boring holes of only 16 feet deep, fails to find water even next to a year-round spring, does not find bedrock, but at least it does characterize the soils. I think you will find especially this part very interesting The main biological study that has been dune was by a company whose competence was exposed at a recent El Sobrante Valley hearing where its study located only seven out of the actual 27 springs there and missed an historic oak. I am told that it has a reputation to snatch this level of competence. These peculiar reports are among the best the developer has to show us because they are better than nothing. In violation of CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, the developer submits no studies AT ALL on many issues, including for example the important issue of mitigation, but instead makes,non-specific promises and expects to get his project approved before those studies are done. Why does he expect this? Because it is county policy to do this, to approve a'project BEFORE the studies have been done. This is in complete violation of CEQA, as the lawyer's letter states. Meeting the"conditions of approval" AFTER the permits have been granted is in violation of CEQA, whether it is county policy or not. This is just as true for a mitigated negative declaration with its much weaker requirements as it is for a full environmental impact report. I ask that you review county policy itself, regarding all applications as well as this application, with the intent of bringing the approval process in line with CEQA. Ihave been involved with Garrity Creek for 3 years. The first time I saw it I was amazed. Here is a lush, secluded, quiet area, with both wide, sweeping views and also intimate places like a secret garden. And yet you would almost not know you were right in the middle of urban sprawl. It surprises everyone who sees it. It is a very special place. It would be tragic to lase it. Gwynn U"Neill Z 10 Tunnel Ave. Richmond, CA 94801 � 1 � K DoI - 95 3 -lAt uk� f J°,e- , - vna r� . -� "5po . ve i- e-. _...... ......... ......... ......... ......... .................................................................... _. . .y..... ......_... .......... ......... ......._. _...__._...__......._..._..__._... _...._..... ......_._.. _..__................. f y Ael ' ` � � -- April 7, 2004 Mr. Darwin Meyers County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4th door, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: Sid Afshar Development Dear Mr. Meyers, Thank you in advance for considering my views regarding the development of land off Hilltop Drive. Briefly, I manage a family owned business located in Richmond, California. My commute consists of traveling through the Hilltop Drive area of the Sid Afshar Development. Like many Californian's I feel the pressures of the influx of people into our great state mostly by means of increased commute traffic; but this is progress. I am writing because my father has a similar situation as Mr. Afshar. Where there is a vacant lot, there is a local dump. He removes drug paraphernalia, feces and other unmentionables from the lot repeatedly. The property owners do not care about the "debris", because they do not live in this county and do not care to maintain the property. That is where there is a difference in these two situations. Unlike this previously described vacant lot owner, Mr. Afshar does care about the property. Mr. Afshar has cleaned up this site and is willing to leave an entire acre untouched to preserve wetland and spring. New homes will increase home values, and provide additional revenue to improve the roads and help schools in this area. It just does not make sense that local homeowners would not want to see the improvement and cleanup of an eye sore in their neighborhood. It would appear the people who are complaining are those outside of the local area. Yes, I can understand there will be a few more cars on the road, but Contra Costa County will be relieved from yet another place for the local dump and vagrants to inhabit. Sincerely, '91 j/ 4 Sonya �jphet 701 South 32nd Street Richmond, CA 94804 May 21, 2004 Community Development Department Attention Darwin Myers 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez CA 94553-0095. Dear Mr. Myers; We continue to be opposed to development SDOI-8533. In our previous letter we explained some of those reasons. As it appears now, we at 894 Marin Road will be severely impacted by the proposal of opening road access through Marin Road to connect to Hilltop Drive. The grading of the parcel that the county is considering for development in many places exceeds a 26% slope maximum. The variances that the County is considering will put our home at risk. We continue to be concerned with the effects of this development. Who will pay for the costs of damage and possibly life, in case of landslides? The proposed variances without a full EIR are not acceptable. We demand a complete Environmental Impact Report as it is mandated under CEQA and in response to the requests from the Richmond City Council, El Sobrante Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Urban Creek Council, Friends of Garrity Creek., Hilltop Green Homeowners Association, and the Hilltop Neighborhood Association and hundreds of concerned individuals. Given that the slope in the area exceeds the maximum 26% of the "acceptable" slope for construction, that the area is prone to landslides and flooding, that in fact the area is a wildlife corridor for many animals and that a creek runs through it, it appears that this area is more suitable for open space. Even the County's General plan agrees with this idea. The willingness of the Community Development Department to allow for all types of variances from those required by the zoning and planning regulations is puzzling. It horrifies us that regardless the strong opposition you have seen against this development, the painstaking explanations for such opposition known to the county, that the county is willing to allow more variances such as increased height of retaining walls to 10 feet and opening access to.Hilltop Drive from a very steep upslope into Marin Road. Since our home will be surrounded by this development, we imagine that we will have views of 10' retaining walls on the south and west part of your property. And since the road access is right at the boundary of our house, that we will be most affected by the increase in traffic not only of the new neighbors but anyone wanting an easy access to Hilltop Drive. Recently, we experienced a medical emergency. We called the paramedics. The fire truck could not go doyen to our drive way and had to stay 100 feet from our entrance. We hate to think of what might happen if there is a fire in the new development and the fire truck cannot make it there. We continue to trust that the county will consider the concerns of the many citizens that oppose this development. We invite you to visit the site and appreciate for yourself the beauty, and uniqueness of this place. Indeed you will be able to see that this is open space worth saving and also that a development is a risky business for the community. Sincerely, Miguel A. Hernandez Edna Hernandez 894 Marin Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 Page I of 3 darwinm From: "GMA" <sung1o27@yahoo.com> To: <darwinm@pacbell.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 3:56 PM Subject: subdivision Mr. Darwin Myer, I am very concerned about the proposed subdivision at 4823 hilltop Dr. El Sobrante. This is directly next to my mother's hone/property. Upon review ofMr.Afshar's proposal, I noticed there is no mention of a wall or sound barrier. What will be enclosing this complex.? My concern is safety, trespassing, and avoiding vandalism of our property by new homeowners. Clearly no thought has been given to a recreational area for the teens or children. They will seek what open area is left, our land and property. Again any goal is to keep my mother and our home safe from the influx of new people into this low-income tract housing development. Our view of the open land and bay will be destroyed permanently. What Will be done to keep the dirt and noise and traffic down during construction? Each home will have 2.5 cars pouring onto Hilltop Dr. On any given afternoon after 400pin traffic is backed up to Pomona Drive. Often throughout the day the cars speed in excess of 40 mph. It would be a good idea to consider traffic bumps on Hilltop drive if this complex is to be considered. Lastly, the property values will drop with this type of subdivision. If the lots were larger or estates were considered the property value would increase. (IE: one acre,half acre parcels). Sincerley, Ms.Gloria Alejandre Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.coin/ 5/25/04 Re hearing-of County Planning Commissioners 5/25/04 Re Std 01 8533 �, The staff report does not list the petitions we have submitted to the tour oU M.Op &hc .ft hundreds of people appose this project. Therefore, the planning commissioners have T incomplete data on which to base their decision. This burying of the complete:recc�, misleading the commissioners about the extent of the opposition of the severaf"� 'z_ir neighborhoods adjacent to the site of the proposed project. This is unacceptable and probably illegal. ` t� Gwynn O'Neill 210 Tunnel Ave. #3 Richmond, Cit 94801 Appendix E CEQA Nonce Initial Study Community ! Contra Dennis M.Barry,AICD C�..11 L Community Development Director Development Co Sta Department County County Administration wilding 04 FEB B 2 3 AM 9-- 47 551 fine Street .__. . 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 C5. rk4 Phone: (925) 335-1210 February 9, 2044 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAMA'T'ION SUBDIVISION 8533 (Hillview) r Extension of Public Comment Perif itLD, �Clarification ofProject DescriptionF F&E-B 9 2004 CDD File ##SDO18533 S.L. WEIR, COUNIT CL R (SCH'#2003i02107) CO 'TgUNTY TYB � N PEST' Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the"guideline'.4 fob implernenta.tion of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date,this is to advise you that the'Community Development Departmentof Contra(losta County has prepared an initial staidy+on the fallowing proiect: SIAVASH AFSHAR(Ap Ip icant&Owner),County File#SD418533: The applicant/owner requests vesting tentative map approval to divide 10.49 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in.height(up to 10- feet in height proposed), and (B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height (up to 10-feet in combined height) within the required yards (structure setback areas), and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 5b feet;minimum 70-foot widths required), and approval to remove tvvo protected trees(Lots 18 and 3 8). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive,approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus ofMarin Road. The property is addressed 4823 Hilltop Drive., in the El Sobrante area (1 -7) (ZA: H-6) (CT 3634.40) (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-1.82-401 & -017: and 426-192-005 &-048). The Initial Study identifies potential biological resources, cultural resources, geology/sods- and traffic-related impacts; and'proposes measures to reduce the impacts to less-than-significant levels. The project proponent has submitted a letter agreeing to the mitigation measures. A copy of the mitigated negative declaration and all documents referenced in the mitigated negative declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration 13rnilding,North Wing,Second Floor, 651 Pine Street, Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd&5th Fridays of each month 2 Martinez, during normal business hours. Extension of Public Comment Period-The County issued,a previous Notice of Public review and Intention to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration determination on this project on October 22, 2003. That notice indicated that the County would accept public comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents cor=' encing on October 22, 2043 and extending to November 4, 2003. This notice extends the period in which the County will accept public comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents to 5:00 P.M., Thursday,March 11,2004. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Name: DART MYE',R.S Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,North`ming, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Staff anticipates that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration determination will be considered for adoption at a meeting of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday,April 13, 2004, at the MOBrien Administration Building,Room,107, 651 Pine Street(at Escobar Street),Martinez. -Staff also expects to schedule a hearing on the subdivision application at that same County Planning Commission meeting. DAR WLN MYER.S Project Planner cc: County Clerk' s Office (2 copies) \\fs-cdlus ers$\bdrakeT ersonal\SDO 16533NOI-FEB04.doc RDr i C i ENTVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Subdivision 8533, CDD File# SD018533 (Hillview) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County, Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, N. Wing,Martinez, C.A.945 53. 3'. Contact Person and Phone 1` =ber: Darwin Myers (925) 335-1210 4. Project Location: The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and is addressed 4823 Mtop Drive, in the El Sobran e Area(R-7) (ZA:H-6) (CT 3630.00) (Parcels 426-21.0-007; 426-182-001 &-017; and 426-192-035 & -408). 5. Project Sponsor's Mame and Address: Siavash Afshar, 114 Camino Diablo, Orin.da, CA 94563 6. General Flan.Designation: Single-Family Residential-High Density(SM. The SPI designation allows 5 to 7.2 units/net acre. Assuming that net acreage is 75 percent of the gross acreage, the holding capacity of the 10.09-acre site is 38 to 54 dwelling units. The Land Use Element contains policies for the El Sobrante area, (General Plan, pages 3-73 and 3-74). Policies most applicable to SD018533 are presented in Table 1. Table'1 GENERAL PLAN LA14'D USE ELEMENT POLICES FOR THE EL SOBRA1�T'E AREA MOST APPLICABLE TO SDO18533 3-198 The overall goal of the area is to retain and reinforce the semi-rural and suburban chafacter of the community Vp ith its strong emphasis on single-family residences,the feature which has drawl roost residents to the arca. 3-202 Upgrade the community's drainage system to elimivatc problems caused by local inundation,ponding and sheet overflow during storms,and eliminate open drainage ditches Tong portions of Appian Way and 5an'Pablo Darn Road and throughout the community. 3-203 In view of the existing traffic problems and the limited ability of the circulation system to adequately handle subieumfiai growth in traffic volumes,new development should be approved at the low to mid range ofthe i respective single-family residential land use density designations. 13--204 This plan calls for residential development to be directed primarily to areas where infilling of previously"passed over"prop sty can occur,as well as to a Bruited number of larger parcels of undeveloped acreage. These larger parcels include the western dope of Sobrante Ridge,and the lower portions of the north face of San Pablo Ridge. 3-205 A major policy of this plan is to eliminate deep,narrow lots through the aggregation of land parcels in areas designated for multiple-family use.Every effort should be made to encourage the aggregation of such lots to j rovide for better des` cdro'ects. 7, Zoning: The property is zoned R:-7 (single-family residential, minimum standard parcel size 7,000 square feet). The Zoning Ordinance provisions regulating this district are found in Chapter 84-6. The standards of the District are summarized in Table 2. 2 8. Description of Project: A request for vesting Table 2 tentative nap approval to subdivide 10.09 SUMMARY OF ZONING STANDARDS acres into forty (40) Tots. 'Variances to R-7 FOR THE R-7]DISTRICT standards are requested to allow retaining , No&uatnre shall be pe mitted in the R7 district walls in the structure setback zone(see Table onalot less than 70 feet in average-width(84- 3 for details). Additionally, some lots 6.604). require variances to.the lot width.standard of • No structure shall be permitted in the R-7 dist t the .R-7 district (70 feet average width on a lot less than 9C?feet deep($4-6.606). required; substandard lots are listed in Table • stractums are limited to 2�i.stories or 35 feet in ! 4). Of the gees listed in Table 5, 17 are to be height(s�-s.sp2). removed but only two trees large el3ougll tt3 Aggregate aide yard setback shall be 15 feet. No side yard shall be less than 5 feet(84.6.1002) qualify, as "protected°' under the Tree sha The front yard setback Protection and Preservation Ordinancesetbackll be 2p feet. On comer lots the principal frontage shall have a setback of at (Chaps. 816.6 of the Ord. Code). These are least 20 feet and the other setback shall be at least a 10- and 12-inch diameter Coast Live tial, 15 feet(84-6.1004). (on Lots 18.and 3 8). They have an aggregate The rear yard setback shall be at least 15 feet(84- # diameter of 22 inches. 6.1006) . l TThe project is t0 be Table 3 Table 4 p j SUA04A.RY OIC VARIANCES FOR SUMMARY OF LOTS THAT served by pnvate roads RETAINING WALLS IN STR.LTCrM HAVE A.VERACE MOTHS with a curb-to-curb .. SETBACK ZONE LESS THAN 70 FRET Loradon $eight(Ft.) Proposed Proposed Ave. width of 28 feet and a 4- ._...S..� Lot X10. Wid�i rFt . ltoysi oak&r3s�ra(Opp.Lou 1-s) <10 1� S6 one side of the street.'foot 'vide sidewalk on � rye s ° `2 Frontage) - 12 57 The onlyexceptions to 13 56 Adam Court(bots 3 2&32 � �6 14 60 this standard are as I Fronts e follows: Table 5 The main. entrance REGUL .TED TREE RNENTORY road to the project(Royal Oaks Drive) not ReMove Trmlr,Ll si eter is single loaded. It is to have a curb- No. conrmwnName (Yea/No) , anrhes) 5 Fremont Cottonwood No t 2,2,3,4,4,14,18 to-curb width of 20 feet,with a 4-foot 6 Framortt Cottonwood No 14,12 wide sidewalk on the west side of the 7 Fr=ont Cottonwood No •6,8,16 Street. 7 Coast Live flak Yes 6 8 Fremont Cottonwood No !36 The western extension ofMa=* Road 9 Fr=ont Cottonwood No 112,2 15 to have aGarb-tt�-Curb width of {� I1 Frmnoat Cottonwood Yes 16,6,6 Coax feet, with parking on the Lot 426 1$ st Live oak Yea 2,3,6,s,10 CoastLive oak Yea frontage and a sidewalk along the Lot 19 2 29 Fremont Cottonwood No 114,45 x#25 frontage. 36 Fremont Cottonwood No 112 36 Coast.r..ive Oak Yes 12,2,5 • The extension of Gravity Creek Drive L4O Coast Live oak Yes 2,2,5 (from 'Lest 425 to its northern �Coast Live OA Yes 12 terxl onus)the road is single loaded. 1t Franaat Cottoawood f Yes 2,2 3 is to have a curb-to-curb width of 2.0 feet,with parking on the Lots#26-27 frontage of this road. Project Objectives: The following objectives were provided by the applicant in support of the proposed development. • To encourage unique, imaginative architecture and site design which integrates into a setting that is well planned and environmentally sensitive. • To provide executive-style, two-story homes with useable outdoor yard areas with sweeping views of the adjacent hills and creeks. • To protect the creek corridors and associated wildlife habitat by providing a 50-foot setback from the low flow channel, and fencing to control access to the corridor by people and domestic animals. • To retain and enhance water courses on the site, and comply with all permit requirements of the California Dept, of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). • To limit grading to that required to provide roads meeting standards of the County Ordinance Cade for private roads, and restrict grades of engineered slopes to 2.5:1. (horizontal to vertical) and design hillside residences that conform with the natural terrain. Where slopes with 21/2,:1 gradients are not feasible, special engineering will be utilized (e.g., engineered, permanent retaining walls). • To keep post-development runoff from the project site at the pre-development level for the design storm.. • To provide low-rise street lighting throughout the project, with the design based on recommendation of a lighting engineer. • To establish a homeowners association with maintenance responsibilities for roads, street lights, drainage channels/common drainage facilities, fencing along the Garrity Creek channel, and riparian landscape planting materials. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is located within an established neighborhood of single-family residences of varying age, size and condition.. Topographically the site is in the upper portion of the Garrity Creek watershed, a hilly upland area. The property fronts for 100 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, and as proposed takes immediate access from Marin Road .and Hilltop Drive. The site is bounded by the Hilltop Green residential subdivision to the west of the site; on the south by a series of narrow, deep residential lots; and the east and southeast by developed residential lots fronting onMarinR.oad. Most ofthe homes adjoining the site are one-story and built more than 25 years ago. The only structure on the site is a small, one-story residence adjacent to Hilltop Drive and the property represents visual open spacefor the adjacent neighbors. 4 14. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval. is Required: The arch culverts proposed require permits from the CDFG. Permits are also required from the RWQCB and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Additionally,local agency approvals are required(i.e.,EBMLJD and the West County Wastewater District for connection to existing facilities; Building Inspection Dept, for grading and building permits, Public Warks Dept. for road and drainage requirements; County Fire Protection District for compliance with fire-related codes). ENVIR-ONNIENTAL FACTORS POTENTIAL 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: CC Aesthetics 13 Agricultural Resources Q Air Quality ER Biological Rosources ® Cultural.Resources IR Geology/Soils 0 Hazards&Hazardous Materials U Hydrology/Water Quality D Land Use/Planning Cl MixaeralResources 0 Noise © Population/Housing Public Services Q Recreation M Transportationgraffi.c © Utilities/Service Systems Cl Mandatory Finding of Significance DETERMINATION: Can fihe basis of this initial evaluation.: t l I find Haat the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. IR I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in-this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreedto by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project NUY have a significant effect on the environment, and an. ENVIRON'N S"AL EVTACT REPORT is required. © I find that the proposed project MAY have a "poterrtially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the envirorunent, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONNIENTAL DYIPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze onlythe effects that remain to be addressed. I find,that although the proposed project could have a significant effect onthe environment,because all potentially sigrifacant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately m an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b) save been avoidedd or mitigated pars aant to that earlier EiR.or NEGAT:[VE DECLARATION,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nod-iing farther is required. Darwin Myers, Project PlInner Date Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact L AESTHETICS-Would the project; A Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X B. Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a staff scenic highway? x C. Substantially degrade the=sting visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? x D. create a neve source of substantial light or glare which would adveieely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X Summary The Transportation and Circulation Element(Figure 5-4,pg.5-33)identifies scenic routes and the Open Space:Element(Figure 9-1,pg. 9-9)identifies scenic ridges and waterways. According to'these maps there are no scenic routes or ridges in the generalvicinity ofthe site. Theprirnaxy scenic resources onthe site are Gamily Creek and the associated riparian vegetation.. The VTM indicates that the creek corridors will be retained and iced. The proposed development will substantially change thevisual character of the site as-viewed fromlots in the adjacent neighborhood,but the site is planned for residential development and the project could fairly be considered"inf r' development. A. well planned project that protects the channel of Garrity Creek and which complies with the standardshequizements of the CDFG,I2WQCE,anal.Corps of Engineers,will not substanfialty degrade the existing visual character of the site. The project is topographically much lower in elevation than lots which adjoin.the,project, and lighting in the.project is exTected to be provided by light standards that are 10-15 feet in height,spaced at regular intervals along the project roads. Therefore,nighttime lighting is not expected to be an impact It should be recognized that in.general the project will not consist of padded lots. Instead, gra:ding•�vill focus on construction of private roads to County standards,with residences built on sloping lots that,generally conform with aria^ting topography. IL AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources ate signifzoant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agrioultural and farmland. Would the project A. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland or Statewide Tmportarroc(,Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monttonug 6 Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than. Significant Ivfitigation Si.gaifzcant NO Impact Incorporation impact Impact Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agrioultural use? X B. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? X C. lavolve other changes in the eadsting environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion.of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? X xnaz v: Accordingto the ConservationElement(pg.9-27)the site isnotclassified as an"important agricultural ares". The property is inside of the'Urban Limit Line(l,'LL). All areas formally designated for commercial agriculture are located outside ofthe`i1LL. Soils on the site are classified as Los Osos clay loam(LhE), 15-30 percent slopes. This is a nog.-prime(Class TV)soil whose only potential agricultural use is as grazing land. Because oftho small size of the site,an agricultural use is not feasible. With regard to engineering g properties,the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County (1975)states that these soils are highly expansive,and characterized by medium to low shear strength. M. ATR QT;ALMI-Where available,the sigrtsficance criteria:established by the applicable air quality management lir sir pollution control district maybe relief upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: A. Conflict with or obstruct iraplementation.ofthe applicable air quality plan? X B. Vxiolatc any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an exiuting or projected aur quality violation? X C. Result in a cumulatively considers- able net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(inzluding releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X D. Expose sensitive receptors in substantial pollutant concentrations? X E. Cr=te objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Susnmarp The project represents conversion of a propertq with one residence to a40-lot,R-7 subdivision. Air quality effects of tn.e project are associated with: a)construction of the residential project(e.g., emission oftrucks carrying building materials and equipment to the site; emissions of pollutants associated with operation of power tools, and Less than. Significant Potentially with. Less Than Significant h itigation Significant No impact incorporation impact impact grading/foundation.Ding egwpment; vehicle emissions associated with commute trips to work by construction workers). Over the long term,vehicle trips associated withthv residential use of the site and emissions associated with typical residential development are anticipated (e.g., landscaping-related emissions from.gas-powered equipment, barber Pyre place emissions,etc.). Due to the small size oftheproject,these emissions are not significant andprofects of this size are not reviewed by BAAQIvD because the cumulative effects are so low that the District has elected not to respond to lead agency referrals. TV BIOLOGICAL RPSOURCFS-Would the project A. rave 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 plan's,polices, or regulations,or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? X F. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitivt natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean.Water Act(iholuding,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? X _ D. Interfere substantially with the movtmtnt of any nativt resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlifb nursery sites? X R Conflict v,iith any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? X 8 Less than Sipiti,cant potenti y with Less Than Significant Mtigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact F. Conflict with the-provisions of an adopted bitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Consv.vation Plan,or other approved local,r4onaL or State habitat conservation plan? X SuMpjga: The site is traversed by the uppermost reach of Garrity Creek and by a tributary of Garrity Creek. The project proponent has submitted technical studies prepared by LSA andby Michael Wood,Consulting Biologist. The key studies are listed in Table 6. Thesestudies: a)characterize the biologic resources ofthe site;b)delineate wetlands; c)evaluate potential impacts of the project,and d)provide data needed by permit granting agencies,including a plan for mitigation ofbiological resources impacts. (Based chiefly oninputfromthe biologists the VTM was modified and thelotyielddecreasedfrom44to40lots.)Asummary ofthemitigatlonandmonitoringplanpreparedbytheapplicant's biologist in 2002 is presented in.Table 7. The mitigation standards proposed in Table'7 are consistent with.standards ofthe CalifondaDepartment ofFish&Game and.Courcy expectations,but onAugust 28,2003 the applicant,submitted a R-vised VTM for 40 lots. The biologist,IV.C`ichael Wood,reviewed this plan and recalculated impacts to biological resources. The revisions to the plan that effected biological resources include the following: Elinzinadon of the proposed emergency vehicle access (EVA) route (AKA Route 24), which would have connected to Manor Road; • Construction of a three-•tiered keystone(geogrid)wall system onthe west side of Garrity CreekDrive(below Lots 25, 26,27 and 28); Gonstrurtion of a storm drain outfall in the northwest portion of Lot 29,east of the Garrity Geek tributary. The efl`ectcts of these changes to the Vesting Tentative Map are sumr arized by Mr.Wood as follows: Elimination of the EVA avoids placement of fill in a total of 34 sq.ft. (32 linear ft.)ofunvegetated waters ofthe U.S.,which would.have resulted tom the construction of a retaining wall below the top ofbank of the Garrity Creek i butarp. The extension of an existing for the EVA is avoided. This eliminates the need to prune approximately 998 sqA.of willow riparian.habitat. Construction of the proposed three tiered keystone wall system increases impacts by renim-ing an additional 1,472sq.ftofupperrrpcarianhabitat onLot 29. Borpurposesofthsirupactcalculation,Mr.Woodassumedthat con strucdon.ofthe lowest tier ofthe keystone wall canbe accessed fromthe uphill slope,and that impacts would emend no more than 5 feet downslope of the wall edge, as shown on the site plans. For purposes ofthe calculation of mitigationneeds,willow impacts would be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio,as prescribed for "Upper Ripariiae habitat by the California Department of Fish and Game(CD CT),and as outlined in the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan(Wood,July 5, 2002), The revised siteplan.shows three areas for riparianmitigation.(designated as"CCRS"on the VTSv�.Theplans cusrentlp show a total area of 20,382sqA.asbeingavailable forplantin withnativeripananspecies. Based on.therevisedplans, a total mitigation area of 20,743 sq.ft,is needed. Therefore, an additional 361 sq.ft of mitigation is required. The additional mitigation.acreage can be acconarnodated onLot.29. Byaruterguar ingthe proposed storm drain outfall with willow pole cuttings,361 square feet of willow habitat shall be pro-vided. The storm drain outfall.is ideally suited for 9 Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Nugation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Table 6 BIOLOGIC RESOURCE-RELAXED ED DOCU ZNT SDO18533 CAEfomia Deparbnent 6fFi&&Came,2002. Agreement Regarding Proposed Streambed AltcrationNotification(received by CDD on March 6,2002). !' California Department of Fish&Game,.March 11,2002.Proposed Hilltop Road Area Project,County File 4SD018533, j .Revised Testing Tentative Map of Subdivision 8533, Contra Costa County. LSA,Murch 11,2002. Results ofFish and Game Site Visit,Hillview Proj`ec4 El Sobrante. j LSA,December 21,2001. BiologicalResources of the Hillview ProjectSite,.Hl Sobrante,Contra Costa County, California, LSA Job##.AA D130. Monk&Associates,September 20,2002. .F'iillview Subdivision(SD8.S33),E.1 Sobrante, California. Wood,MkhaelK,July 1,2002. Hillview Subdivision,'Biologic Impacts and Mitigation,Measures. Wood,Michael K,July 5,2002.Mitigation JAdonitoringflan for the Proposed.Hillview Residential Subdivision,El Sobrante.,Contra Costa County. Wood,Michael K,July 8,2002.Application for Section 401 Water Quality Certa,f cation far the Proposed Hillview Residential Development,El Sobrante, Contra Costa County, California. Wood,Michael I-,July 9,2002. Amendment to 1603 Nott;fication of Streambed Alteration,Notification 92001-:982, i Hillview Residential Subdivision,El Sobrante. Wood,Michael K,July 9,2002. Preconstruction Doti fzcation for the Placement ofFill in Maters of the.U.s.Pursuant to Nationwide Permits 14 and 33 for the Proposed,Hillview Residential Develcpmentr El Sobrante,Contra Costa County, California. Food,Michael,K.,September 26,2002. Hillview Subdivision,Response to Comments. Wood.,Mich2iL K. Se tember 30 2003. Revised Impact and Miti ation Assessment Hilltor subdivision. Table 7 SUMMARY OF MMGATION AND MONITORING PLAN PREPARED BY APPLICANT'S BIOLOGIST t To mitigate for impacts to CDFG regulated areas,the applicant has agreed to replacement planting and stream.restoration as ' prescz bed in the July 5,2002 Mitigation and Monitoring Ilan prepared.by Nfichael Wood Biological Consulting.The standards for-mitigation are as follows: Y Replacing the lowerriparian scrub habitat at a 3::ratio using pole cuttings and commercial plants; Replacing the lower riparian scrub habitat at a 3:1 ratio using pole cuttings and commercial plants; Replacing upper riparian scrub habitat at a 2:1 ratio using pole cuttings and commercial plants; Replacing freshwater marsh habitat at a 2:1 ratio by transplanting existing plants and seeding with native wetland species. I • The native oaks and cottonwoods shalt also be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with 15-gallon container sized trees. • Debris and refi:se will be removed to enlace the tributary, • Invasive exotic species will be removed from the planting areas. All existing and created riparian habitats will be protected by a deed restriction established along Garrity Creek and the • =named tributary.This deed-rtstri.cted area will be approximately 40 feet wide between the housm'backyards aad Garrity Creep's top-of-bank.A six-foot high wood and wire fence will be constructed at the edge ofthe 40 foot set back. This fence shall have signs posted along it to discourage dumping and to restrict public access. 10 Less than Signifaoant Poteptially with Less'Than. Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact laeorporation Impact Impact the planting of willows.The site is onthe same stage as the additional impacts,it is a mesic(moist)environment,and wouldre-ceivenaturaland a�cialrunoff. The use of willowswouldprovddethe addedbenefitofreducingthevelocity ofrumffembn.gtheculvert,provide slope stability,and encourageinfiltrationofstormwaternmofftherebygrservi g water quality in the Garrity Creek tributary, Table 8 summarizes the Biologic Resource impact and mitigation assessment of the revised VIM and compares it with the old 41-lotplan. Contra Costa County retained Monk&Associates to perform a peer review for various biologic studies submitted by the project proponent and to identifypotentiat impacts and mitigation measures, The letter report prepared by Monk and.Associates is presented in Appendix.A. Based on the environmental assessment of Monk. &Associates,the following impact and mitigation measures.have been identified Table 8 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND 1'V=GATION ASSBSSMXNT FOR REVISED VT M 1lirect Impacts Li&rect Impacts Total Impacts Proposed.Mitigation tsst Old flan. New Plan" Old Plan New Plan* •Old Plan. New Plan" O1A Plot NeW PIaM* CISME Jvsdsctional Habitat fJnvegetstod Waters ofth.-,"J.S. 16 sq ft none none none none none 32 sqA none 26lin.f; none, none none none none 52linA nave j 5.36 0n.yds. .none none, none, none none (2:1 ratio) none I G durisdkdmal Habitat star Coarses oval Oaks Crossing 450 sq,L 450 sq.ft now none 450 sqA 450 sgdt 900 sgfL 900 sq.& 45 lin.ft 45 haft none none 45 lin.ft 45 lin-ft (2:1 ratio) (2:1 rstio) arian Habitats resixwaterMarsh none none some none 220 sq-ft- 220 sq.fL 440 sq.ft 440 sq.ft 22lixLft 22IinfL (2:1 ratio) (2.1 ratio) r per Riparian 1,566 sgft 3,038 sq.ft. none none 1,566 sq.fL 3,038 sqA 3,132 sqA 6,076 sgfL (2:I ratio) (2:1 ratio) Gower Riparian 4,589 sgft 4,589 sgft none none 4,589 sgft 4,589 sq.ft 13,767 sgft 13,767 sqA (3:1 ratio) (3:1 ratio) 0021 WMOV urian 6,155 sq.fL 7,627 sgft 6,155 sgJL 7,627 sq.ft 16,899 sq.ft. 20,743 sq.ft r'I ndtigstionneeded rian(Fran-9 t?nly) none none 998 sq.ft. none 998 sq.fL none none none alive Trees I stivo Trees 10 10 none none 10 10 30 trees 30frees 3:1 retia (3-1 ratio *Assuming three r-ainmg vva'us as shown on glans dated August 30,2003, Source:Iyfichael Wood(2003). 1. ! estina Birds YMEact All birds,their nests, eggs, and young are protected from direct "tape"under Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code.R.a.ptors (lairds of prey),their nests, eggs, and young are also protected from. direct"take"under Sections 3503.5 of the California,Fish.and Game Code.Additionally,raptors are protected from direct take under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act In 2002, a pais of red-tailed hawks (Buteo Il Less than Significant potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Jamaicensis) nested in a large cottonwood tree below proposed Lot 29. Riparian vegetation removal on the project site could result in impacts to these raptors*or other nesting birds. Miti ag titin Measure. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, commencement of any site improvement or any tree removal, submit evidence of compliance with the detailed specifications listed below, for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, a) In order to avoid impacts to nesting birds, CDFG has required thatvegetation removal be conf ned to the period ofAugust I&to February 14'(Condition No.6ofCbFGr's draftstreambed alteration agreement). Should earth-moving/grading activity or construction-related disturbance will occur on the project site during the raptor andpasserine bird nesting season(February 15 to August I5), afocused nesting survey shall be conducted by a udli red ornithologist to determine(this activity could disturb nesting birds. The ornithologist must have experience detectinglidentifying raptor andpasserine bird nesting behavior. Or, ifnecessary, two biologists shall be hired. one with experience with raptors and another with experience surveying for nesting passerine birds. b) If nesting raptors are identified on the project site, a minimum 517!1 font non-disturbance buffer shalt be established around the nest tree. This buffer.shall be fenced with orange construction fencing.A qualified raptor b iol ogist wi ll periodically monitor the nestsite(s)to determine ifgrading activities occurring outside the buyTer zone.disturbs the birds,'and if the bufferzone should be increased to prevent nest abandonment. No disturbance shall occur within the minimum 50 foot buffer zone until a qualified raptor biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), and are flying well enough to .avoid project construction zones, typically by August I'!. c) Ifnestingpasserine birds are identified on theprojectsite,a 75 foot buffer shall be established aroundthe nest tree. This buffer shall be fenced wi 12 Loss than Significant potentially vitt. Loss Than Signifeant M"t igation Signmeant No impact Incorporation impact Impact Ara£ion Measure. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, commencement of any site improvements or any free removal, submit evidence ofcompliance compliance with the detailed specifications below for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Tc preventproject-related impacts to the California red legged frog, a preconstruction red-legged frog survey shall be completed within 48 hours prior to commencement ofany earth-moving activity or construction on the project site. This protocol survey requires two nights of nocturnal surveys. The biologist performing the preconstruction survey must hold a federal I0(a)(1)0)permit for California red-legged frog or be considered by TTS. Fish and Wildlife Service to be a "service approved".biologist, (Ihe US. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a list of Service approved red legged frog biologists.) If California red-legged frogs are identified on the projectsite, all workon the project site shall beplaced on holdwhile the findings are reported to C FG and the US, Fish and Wildlife Service, and it is determined what actions must take place. 3. Freshwater 1Vlarsh Riparian Vegetation and Trees Potential h=act:As gable 8 of the Initial Study indicates,the project involves no loss of Jurisdictional Habitat of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. With regard to the Jurisdictional Habitat of the California Department of Fish.and Game,the folloysring impacts have been identified. • Freshwater Marsh Loss of 220 square feet of the Garrity Creek channel(beneath the Royal Oaks Drive arch culvert). • LSnper Riparian.. Loss of 3,038 square feet of upper riparian habitat • Lower Riparian. Loss of 4,589 square feet of lower riparian habitat • Native Trees. Loss of 1.0 native trees,only two of which qualify as protected trees under the County Tree Protection andPreservation Ordinance(10-and 12-inch diameter Coast Live flaks,onproposed Lots#18 and 38). 46tijation .measure: The following mitigation measures are required to address impacts associated with construction andpost-construction. These measures are intended to increase the overall size of wetlands and Central Coast riparian scrub habitat on-site,preserve the riparian corridor associatedwith Garrity Creek and its tributary, and preserve water quality. a) Habitat and tree replacement shall be in accordance with the standards and criteria presented in Table 7 b) 7'het'rojectRestorationistshallmonitor the implementation andestablishmentmaintenance requirements of all mitigation plantings. At a minimum, the Project R.estorationist shall have demonstrated expertise in restoration ecology and at least three years experience in restoration design and implementation, including experience in wetland restoration. The ProjectRestorationist shall have the authority to stop work or request change ordersasnecessary, In addition, the ProjectRestorationist shall conduct the site and habitat rnonitoringprograms and prepare reports documenting the restoration program for submittal to the T-TS4CE, CDF'G, and A7 QC.li. 13 Less than sipificant 1'otcntially with Less Than Significant mitigation sip cant No Impact Incorporation impact Impact c) All grading shall be performed during the summer months and completed before October 1'r.Appropriate erosionlsediment control measures shall be in place by October 15'. Since all mitigation plantings will occur on graded sites, there will be no need for weed eradication to prepare the site for planting. Mitigation planting will commence in the late fall early winter, with the onset of winter rains. d) To prevent indirect and cumulative adverse effects o,f'the development on water quality of Garrity Creek and its tributary, grassy swales shall be constructed The swales are intended to capture and slow the movement of urban runoff into Garrity Creek and its tributary. The swales shall be planted and seeded with appropriate native species and deed restricted from development or renovation. No direct outfalls into Garrity Creek or the unnamed tributary shall be constructed. Discharges front the swales would be over ground stabilized by erosion blankets with rock inter plated with willows or other species approved by the Project Restorationist. e) Habitat restoration shall provide for maximum vegetative cover, conducive to the restoration of Garrity Creek and its tributary, andprovide a vegetated screen between the stream channel and adjacent roads and dwellings. f) The plant palette shall be consistent with the requirements of the California Department of Fish&Game and shall be selected from the species nominated by the report oft ichael Wood("dated July.5, 2002). g) All container plantings shall be provided a temporary drip irrigation system. Irrigation will be supplied for up to three years, with a gradual reduction in volume of water applied in years two and three. The details of the irrigation system and watering schedule must be approved by the Project Restorationist. h) Prior to recording the final map, theprojectproponent willprovide a signed contract with the Project Restorationist for the work done during the Initial Plan review and monitoring the installaticr0_9f the requiredplantings. The contract shall also include forfiveyears(minimum)ofmonitoringbythe Project Restorationist. The objective of monitoring shall be to evaluate growth of the plantings during the establishm.entperiod, identify conditions that threaten the success of the mitigation plan, and to identify the need for remedial measures. The Restoration Monitor will perform site monitoring twice annually. site visits will be conducted during late winter/early spring and the late summerlearly fall. i) The applicant shah guarantee an 85percent survival rate for the plantings over the f ve year monitoring period. For this purpose, a 940,000 bond(or equivalent)security shall be deposited with the CounV. V. CULTLIRRAL RESOURCES-Would the project? A Cause a substantial advcrse change in the signYmcance of a historical V r:source as dcfincil in§1'5064.57 Y 14 Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Cause a substantial,adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5? X C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological=source orsitc or•unique geologic feature? .X D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X SU nary: A mcmoraridum issued by the California Historical Resources Information System(CHRIS)indicated that the site had the possibility for containing unrecorded archaeological sites, and they recommended a survey prior to commcnecintnt of project activities. In response to the CHRIS memorandum,the applicant funded an archaeologic investigation performed by Pacific Legacy, Inc. The resulting report was titled as follows: Archaeological Survey for Proposed I3dMew,Subdivision APN 426-192-005;426-182-001 &-017;and 4.26 210-.007 E75obrante, CA (report dated,1pril28,2001) The report concludes thatthe site is free of nddence of archaeologic or historical resources and no farther archaeologic survey is deemednecessary.Nevertheless,the archaeologic reportrecomrza ends that:a)if artifacts are-uncovered during earthwork,grading be stopped until a tlualif ed archaeologist has evaluated the significance of the find and advised the County; and b)protocol are provided if remains of a Native American are discovered. Potential hunp t: Although no evidence of cultural resources was identifiedby the archaeologic reconnaissance investigation.,there is an unkmwn (but possibly significant) risk of buried cultural resources. The report prepared by Pacific Legacy,juc.recommends that: a)if artifacts are uncovered during earthvvork,grading be stopped until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the significance of the find and advise the County; and b) protocol are proiyide+f if remains of a Native American are discovered. .�� fi ggtion LI ensure. aj If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts,human burials, or the like are encountered during construction operations,such operationsshall cease within IOjeet ofthe find,the CommunityDevelcrpment Department shall be notified within 24-hours and a qualified archaeologist contacted and retained far further recommendations. Significant cultural materials include,butarenotliniitedto,aborig,nalhuntan remains, chipped stone, groundstone,shell and bone artifacts, concentrations ref fire cracked rack ash, charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations. b) In the even," of discovery or recognition of any human.remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site of the "find"or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie 15 Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporation Impact impact adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted,per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. c) Appropriate mitigation of the cultural resources may include monitoring of further construction andlor systematic excavation of the resources. Any artifacts or samples collected aspart ofthe initial discovery, monitoring ormitigationphasesshallbeproperlyconserved,catalogued,analyTed,evaluatedandcurated alongwith associated"documentation in aprofessional manner consistentwith currentarchaeologicalstan- dards. VI. UEOLOGY ANIS SOILS-Would the project? A. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recentAlqu'sst-Paolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mints and Geology Special Publication 42. X 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? X 3. Seisrrnic-relsted ground failure, including liquefaction? X 4, Landslides? X B. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss oftopsoil? C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a rcault of the project,and potentially result in on-or of site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X D. Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B ofthe Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or proptr'Y? X E. ?have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems 16 Less than significant Potentiaany with Less Than sisum ant 1169stion significant No X pact Incorporation Impact Impact wta ere sewers are sot available for the disposal of waste water? X Summar: The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Th-nearest active fault is the Haywardfault,whichpasses lxlimiles southwest oftheproperty. The.most moentgeologic _map ofthe western,portion of Contra Costa County is the mapping of the US Geological Survey(Open File Mort 94.622). This publication indicates that the site is located in the outcrop belt of Pliocene non-marine sedimentary rocks(irreghirly interbedded cong7o=rate,sandstone and siltstone). Published mapping indicates landslide deposits within the miniediatevicinity ofthe site but no slides are indicated that affeathe portion of the propertyproposed fbr grading and development The project proponent submitted a limited-scope soils report prepared by AMSO Consultixrg Engineers titled as follows: Geotechnical Investigation Hillview Residential Development 4823 Hilltop Drive El Sobrante, California (Jab#31281 dated April, 2001) The purpose of the AMSO investigation was to characterize pertinent engineering properties of soil and rock,and to provide design level recommendations for development of the proposed project, The report provides subsurface data on site.conditions,along with conclusions and recommendations that address potential geologic hazards and provide general recommendations for site development The exploration program consisted of 10 boxings drilled to depths of 10 to 20 feet(maximum). The logs of AMBO indicate 3 to 4 feet of soil and subsoil overlying weathered, weakly- consolidated bedrock,which are described in the borehole logs as silty clay,silty salad with gravel,fat clay,sandy silt rather than claystone,sandstone and siltstone. The depth of weathering exceeds 20 feet. The following is intended to summarize and highlight(not supercede)the primary conclusions of the AMSO report. • The site is in the outcrop belt of severely weathered,highly ft-actured claystone,sandstone and sil+stone(Orinda Formation). A.relatively shallow landslide is mapped in the area of the proposed Adams Court cul-de-sac and Lots 30-33. • The site is l.7 miles northeast of the AlgList Priolo zone that mconnpasses recently active andpotentially active traces of the Hayward fault.AMSO projndes L'BC seismic parameters on pages 3-4. • Geologic/geotechnical hazards include exTansi-ve soil, soil creep(and the existing:landslide). Recommendations arepiamdedfor:a)gradiugand compact ton:,b)slope gradients;c)buildingfotntdations(pier and beam.);d)concrete slab-on-gradv;e)retaining walls;f)pavement design;g)utility trench backfill; and h) surface drainage. (AMBO recommends use of 2.3:1 slope gradients for cut and fill slopes.) On page 12 of the AMSO report,recommendations are provided for follow-up geotechnical services. Since the AMSO report was prepared the VW_has been revised. However,the changes were a reduction in lot yield, so the geotechnical feasibility of the project sloes not require re-evaluation. The geotechnical report will require comprehensive updatingprior to the issuance of grading andbuilding permits. It should also be noted that the grading is npt balanced. The project engineer estimates 15,234 mabic yards of cut and 20,859 cubic yards of fill. Thisresults 17 Loss than Significant Potcatialiy with Leas Than. Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact impact in the need to import approximately 5,500 cubic Wards of clean fa dlirt.. It should be noted that.these estimates are prelinrinwy. The applicant has indicated that every effort wM be made to nur,;,,=e/avoid import. L Landslides/Sime Stability ILnR Subsurface data indicates that bedrock on the site is severely weathered,highly fractured and wealdy consolidated. One landslide is mapped on the property by AMSO,and there is evidence of groundwater seepage on the site(e g.,riparian vegetation.on.Lot 29 is more than 125 feet from the creek corridor). Based on these adverse engineering proper-ties of the bedrock,AMS O recommended that graded slopes have grad ieants of 2"/a:l (horizontal to vertical)or flatter,and specific standards and criteria were providedfor construction of fills(e g., compaction testing,keyway design). Review of the grading plan indicates that the proposed gradients for cut and slopes comply with the AMSO recommendation. there 2.501 slopes were,not feasible,the plan indicates use of retaining walls. The walls are limited to three areas of the site(along the southwest side of Royal Oak Drive; at the terminus of Adam Court; and on the west side of Garrity Creek Drive on proposed Dots 29 and 3R). 1ufiion Measure. a) Prior to filing of the FinalMMap or issuance ofagradingpermit,whichever occursfrst,subrnit.an updated Grading Plan for review and approval of the ZoningAdministrator. The gradients of cut,slopes andfill slopes in the project shall not exceed 21/2:1 (horizontal to vertical). TFhere steeper slopes are required, special engineering soiutions shall be provided (e.g., reinforced earth with associated slope stability analysis). b) .Pricer to issuance ofthe grading permit, submit an Updated Geotechnical Report and.Remediation.flan for review and approval of the County Geologist. The updated report shall include additional subsurface exploration and evaluation of slope stability. c) During grading operations, all keyways and cut slopes shall be logged by an engineering geologist. In areas of highly sheared or deeply weathered rock, the applicant's geologist shall provide supplemental recommendations, such as drainage facilities, over-excavation of the slope and replacement with engineered fill or reinforced earth. d) The Grading Completion Report shall include an original geologic map that shows the details ofobserved features and conditionsfor cut slopes,keyways and areas of continuous benching. The geologic mapping should be accompanied by a discussion of the significance of the exposed fetthdres and how design was adapted to address exposed conditions. The grading completion report shall also include a map based on field surveys or GPS measurements that show the location and depth of subdrains, as well as adequate compaction test data documenting fill compaction and evidence of monitoring foundation laying for buildings and retaining walls, along with other details(e.g., backfilling of utility trenche). �8 Lass than Significant Patentiany with Less Than Significant Mirgation' Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 2. Erosion and Sedimentation hm The proposed project involves cots and fills on moderately steep slopes, with a potential to cause significant erosion of unprotected slopes, and downslope sedimentation both on-and ofl'-site. There are maltilile faoets of the subjects of erosion and sedimentation. Erosion control requites implementation of measures afters major earthmoving activities are completed. Sediment controlrequires working in a situation where the soil is continually being slistzxrbed Excision control,requires use of techniques which prevent displacement of sail particles by raindrops,moving water or. wind. These techniques include erosion control blankets,mulching and establishing vegetation. Sediment control requires the removal of particles which are suspended in moving water,along with having a knowledge of drainage control. Neither of-thesepotentialisupacts are easilymiti.gated,andbothrequire au uuderstanding ofthel mitations of "BestManagementPractices"(BlvTs):Erosion and sedimentation arenatural.geologicprocesseswhichdonot conflict with protection of resource values. The problem anises when grading activities result in increased sediment yields that exceed historic conditions. Techniques to reduce sediment from runoff waters include the following: • restrict the amount of land disturbance, keels graded slopes as flat as possible, • restrict grading to the dry summer season; • implement EMT's to control erosion and minimize the discharge of sediment ante creels channels. There is a mistaken belief that placement of barriers(silt fences,straw bales]is an efficient method to control sediment from e%tingthegraded area and entering anatural drainage channeL Thesebarriersareimffectivewhennmoffwaters overtop,tunnel under or flow around the barriers,which is an all too often occurrence. As a result, drainage control is important and sedimemtraps/basins are avital component of sediment control. Tobe effective„they mustbe designed in accordance with the principles of physics(i.e.,viscosity,terminal velocity,Stokes Law). The following criteria are routinely used to size sediment traps/basins: • Design the containment system around a spec.&&size soil particle to be removed frommoving waters. (The EPA recommends that particles.02 Hina or larger be tapped.) • Provide a long flow path length to ensure the greatest possible opportunity for sedimentation to occur. • Design.temporary sediment traps/basms such that failure of a basin in the upper reaches of the project will not trigger failure of downstream basins. • Calculate the anticipated sed:ment;Yield from.a 5-year storm,and providee sufficient storage capacityin eachbasin to accommodate this volume of sediment. • Include a gravel filter in the sediment basin to allow waters to flow through and drain the structure. • Design the depth of the sediment trap/basin a minimum of at least 2 feet. 19 Less than Significant potentially 'with Less Than significant Mitigation significant No Impact Incorpom ion Impact Impact • provide for maintenance of facilities throughout the winter rainy season to ensure effective sediment control meas-nras. Since the proposed project would involve significant grading, mitigation measures are required for both; I) construction-related, short-term, erosion and sedimentation, and 2) long-term erosion and. sedimentation. For construction-zelated,short termimpacts,one ormoreoffthstzdappma.,heswouldbeselectedbyythep jectengineer, asappropriate,on.asite-specificbasiswithinthepmjectarrea.Forlong-farm.i iacts,Mitigatiaulvieasures6(c)through 6(f) are required. Mitigation Measure: Grading activitiesshall be restricted to the summer construction season(ISApril through 1 October). Any earthwork done after 1 October shall be limited to activities directly related to erosion control. The applicant shall provide an erosion control plan prior to issuance o,f the grading permit, The following interim control measures shall be employed based on site-specific needs in the project areas: a) Grading to minimize areas of exposed, erodible material adjacent to Garrity Creep and avoid over- concentration of rapidly flowing runoff in unprotected, erodible areas; b) The erosion controlplan shouldinclude water bars,temporary culverts andswales,mulch,erosion control mats/blankets on exposed slopes, hydroseeding, silt fences, and sediment trapslbasins; c) because the biggest problem with effective sediment control is lack of maintenance, the erosion control plan must have a comprehensive program for inspection and maintenance during the winter rainy season, including-provisions for documenting maintenance activities. To reduce the potential impacts of long-term erosion and sedimentation, the project shall incorporate the appropriate design, construction and continued maintenance of one or more ofthe following long-terra control measures. The specific measures shall be based on the recommendations of the project geotechnical engineer and civil engineer. d) Construction ofgrany swales at strategic locations, as shown on the V7M,. e) Provide downspout collection systems that outfall to splatter plates for individual structures. f Track--ia,alk d inches of salvaged topsoil on all 21/a:l slopes that are IS feet or more in height. g) Concentrated runoff shall not be permitted to drain over cut or f ll slopes. 3. Epansive Sails and/or Bedrock l4np act: Erpax&ve soils andlor bedrock have the potential to cause significant damage to foundations,slabs and Pavements. 20 Less than Signmosat Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporation impact Impact Expansive soils(those with a high shrink-swell.potantial) are described and mapped in the project area by the Soil Survey ofContra.Costa County(USDA Soil Conservation Service,19777). Damagefromexpansivetoils and/orbedrock is one ofthe most widespread and costlypToblems intlie San Francisco Bay Region. The signni- cant effect of expansive soils and/or bedrock can be mitigated by recognition of the condition and appropriate design..N Ligation measures invol-vin..gthe use of adjustable foundation systems are not generally effective against the effects of regionalwet/drnraglst cycles,and are considered midesirable because the systems require periodic maintenance. Subsurface drainage alone is also not generally e&cdve against the effects of regional wet/drought cycles. Highly expansive soils have revere limitations for use in engineered fill. Mfgation Measure: The Updated Crcriteria forfoundation design,slab-on- grade and pavement design, developed in accordance with the Uniform.Building Code (LOC)and Ordinance Code requirements on the basis ofsubsu�face exploration and laboratory testing, includingR-valve tests,for pavement designpurposes. The constraints on the use gfexpansive soil near finish grade shall be evaluated in the design-level geotechnical investigation report. VIL. MV—kRI;S AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS- Would the project: A Crests a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal ofhazardous materials? X P. Create a signifioant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release ofhazardous materials into the environment? X C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter milt of an eristiug or proposed school? X P. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 55852.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X 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 a#ort or public use 21 Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation impact Impact airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. x P. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project rtsizlt in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X G. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or tmorgmey evacuation plan? X H. Expose people or structures to a - significant risk ofloss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including cohere wildlands are adjaeentto urbanized areas or where residences are interred with wildlands? X SThe project site is not a known hazardous waste site(Source: Cortese List issued bythe State of California and list maintained by the County Health.Services Department,EmAronmental Health Division). The project is not located withthe vicinity of apublic use airport orprivate airstrip. There are no buriedfaeltanks onthe site. Theproject is consistent with.the General Plan Policies 10-E4 through 10-41,which are the public protection and disaster policies. The site is not located in a high wildfire hazard area. Vi I. =RO LOGY AND WATER QUALITY- Would the project A. 'Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X I3, Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere subsWrtsally with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer,volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been.granted)? X 22 Less than Significant Poten.:tiaily with Less Than Significant Mitigation Sigaiflcant No Irupact Incorporation impact Impact C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or Liver,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off- site? x D. Substantially alter the exi tng drainage pattern ofthe site or area,including through the -ration of the course of a steam or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off site? x E. Create or contribute runoff water - which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. x F, Cabe.-wise substantially degrade water quality? x Cl. Place housing within.a I00-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance hate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Id, Place within.a 100-year hood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? x 1. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of Toss,injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of levee or dant? x I. Inundation by sciche,tsunami, or mudflow? x Summary The site is in the upper portion,of the C-asritp CrO--k watershed.. The applicant has submitted a conceptual. storm waterpd,11-�ioupre entionplanthatoutlinesBMP'sproposedfortheconstructionperiodandoverthelongtem� r I}lernetsen Engineering,August 23,2003. Stormwater Qualitv Protection Program for Subdivision 8533,4823 Hilltop Drive,El Sobrante Area X PN 426-210-DD?, -182-00I&-017,-192-005&-008). 23 Less than Significant potentially with Loss Than Significant Medgation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact impact As proposed,urban runoff would be directed to gassy swales prior to reaching the creek. The Klemetson Engineering report estimates the impervious surfaces in the project as 37.15 percent of the site (3.75 acres of the 10.09-acre property). Anumber ofl3MP'sare proposed to,aximizepermeability,includingbiofilters,dr3Nwells(.renchdrains), foundation plantings,pop-up drainage emitter,grassy swales, and extended detention(dry)ponds. The property is not subjectto inundationbythe 100 year flood(Source:Fl 4A Panel 25013). Because ofthe small.size of the property (approximately 9 acres proposed for grading and development) and the location in the site in the -uppermost portion of the watershed,the effect of the project on peak flows in the lower portion of the watershed is exTected to be less than significant. The following comments provide background information on the site drainage: • The site is not located in an established drainage area. No drainage fees are required. • There are two water courses on the site(the mam.channel of Garrity Creek and a tributary,chamial). These channels are to be retained. • Storm drainage is conveyed to culverts that outfall into grassy swales. The grassy swales ultimately outfall into Garrity Greek and to its td-butary. • Garrity Creek is located near the very top of its watershed. Weak runoff from.the 104-year storm only generates a channel section 3.feet wide by b inches deep. The 10O year flow in Garrity Creek is well below the capacity of the channel. • The cul:verted crossing of Garrity Creek was placed at a location acceptable to the CDFG, and the design of the proposed arch culvert will have no impact can the creek capacity. The design is acceptable to C DFG. • Open wire fences are proposed to keep people and domestic animals out of the creels corridor. Fencing is required by CDFG to protect wildlife habitat values. On June 7, 2002,the County received a letter from the City of Richmond's Wastewater Pollution Control Plan that identified existing water problems and landslides,as well as"springs"withinthe Hilltop Green.development. (stop Green is a 500-unit residential project located ini mmediately west of the SDOI8533 site.) Within:i:Mtop Green the channel of Garrity Creek is culverted. The City's letter asserts that.development of the SDO 18533 site is likely to aggravate existing drainage problems in Hilltop Green,which are said to bebarely unmanageable atpresent '"he City's letter goes onto recommend that arm EMbe requiredto--valuate drainage issues and to assure that Garrity Creek is fc l y protected,as provided by the Clean.Water Act. The.Inane 71 letter frommm.the City of Richmond was referred to the Flood Control I7istdct and to the Public Wo ks Department. Additionally,on July 1,2042 the CommunityrDevelopnmentDepartn=tmade awrittentequesttothe City of Richmond for technical data on the hydrology and hydraulics of the Garrity Creek channel, along with specific informationontheproblemsintheMUtopCrreeudv`vtlopment. No information was providedbytheCity ofRichniond. The C;ountyF'ioodControlDistdzthasindicatedthatithasnokiowledgeofcapacityproble onthedouwustreamreach of Ga- ty Creek. The problems experienced by Hilltop Green appear to be associated with deficiencies to the internal 24 Loss than Significant Potentially with Less Than. Significant m1tigation Significant NO impact Incorporation Impact Impact drainage structures(e.g.,lack of subdrains,inadequate storm drainage facilities,etc.). In surly,the ead sting record doses not document any deficiencies of the downstream.cull�erts on the main.stem of Garrity Creek,and no flooding problems are known to FEMA between the site and I-80. It should be recognized that public controversy is not substantial evidence of an environmental.impact. According to CFQA, Section I5064(f)(5), ..._4rgumenf, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous,or evidence that is not credible,shall not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. The applicant had previously submitt.,d a hydrology report which was reviewed by the County Flood Control District.. This drainage analysis focuses on the capacity of the ors.-site channels, and runoff from the site.and parcels higher in the watershed.. The Public Works Department and Flood Control District have reviewed the hydrology report. The report was considered adequate and no hydrology impacts were identified. However,that report evaluated the internal drainage system of the project and not the adequacy of downstream drainage facilities. InIO03,.The proj act proponent submitted ahydrologyreportthat concludes thatrunofffrom.the site(followingbuildout of the project) can be kept at the pre-development level for the design storm.' In a watershed.of 1 to 4 square miles, the design stone is an event with a recurrence interval of 25 years. This report canbe considered preliminary data that would be-subject to hydrologic modeling,and evaluation by engineers of the Flood Control.District. It should also be recognized that according to CEQA,the duty of the project is not to solve existing problem. However,the project is not allowed to aggravate existing problems. The applicant has stated that his objectives include keeping flows exiting the property at the pre-development level. in summary,the project will be required to folly comply with all aspects of the drainage requirements of the County Subdivision Ordinance. This includes collecting all m face waters entering or originating on the subject property and conveying them in an adequate storm facility to its point of discharge into a.natural watercourse. As an alternative,the Subdivision Ordinance allows the County,at its discretion.,to require regulating the outflow fxom...the project so as not to exceed the capacity of downstream facilities,and this is the applicant's stated intent. Strict adherenceto these Code requirements can be eagsected to ensure that the project does not have an adverse effect on the reported downstream drainage inadequa:ies within the Mtop Czreenproj ect, E terstate 80,or any other downstream drainage facilities, The Public Works Department,as part ofthefnal.design andplanreviewprocess,requires submittal ofa detailed hydrology and hydraulic analysis of the downstream facilities to verify their adequacy prior to allowing to discharge to those existing drainage facilities. Thu may require off:site improvements to increase capacity should these facilities prove to be inadequate as defined by the Subdivision Ordinance. Rlemetson,Stanley,February 23,2002. Hydrology,Qnatysis far Subdivision 8533,4823.17illtop Drive,1 Sobrante Area,Contra Costa County. 'Klemetsor,Stanley,October 4,2043,Hydrology Analysis for,Subdivisinn 8533,4823 Hilltop.Drive,_Mobrante Area,Contra Costa County. 25 Less than Significant Potentially with Less Thor. Significant 1"agation. Significant No Impact Incorporation impact impact IX. LAND USE AIND PLANNIN -Would the project A. Physically divide an established community? x B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,.or regulation,of an agency Vdth jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan.,specific plan,local coastall program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural wrarnuaity conservation plan? X Sttarv: The project will not physically divide the com=rnity, It is an."in-till."project of lands designated for dedelopmentby-the County GentralPlan and Zoning Ordinance.The gross acreage oftheproperty has been established .to be 1.0.09 acres ( len etson Engineering). The General Plan designates this site Single-Family Residential High Density(SH),which allows 5.0 to 7.2 units per net acre. Th General flan.Land.Use Eleauent allows two different methods for determining net acreage,either of which are valid. If net acreage is assumed to be 75 percent of the gross acreage,the net acreage ofthe site is 7.57 acres. Utilizing this method,the p ittedrange ofdwellingunits forth site is 3g to 55 units. The 40 lots indicated onthe VIM yields aproposed density,is 5.28 units per net acre,which is at the lower limit of the allowable density. Anoth-c method of calculating the net acreage is to use the VTIvL SAAracti g the street right-of-ways from gross acreage,the net acreage of thv site is 8.28 acres. Using this method,the holding capacity of the site as 41 to 59 units. The proposed.40-lot subdivision translates to a density of 4.83 units/net.acre). Factors to consider chtring review oftbw design include steepness of slope within areas proposed for development,effect ofthe project on natural terrain features(trees,water course,rock outcrops),slope stability,and other la d use factors, indudi g the Land Use Element policies presented.in Table I (on page 1 of the Initial Stamp). The applicant's biologic consultant has prepared written coriments that address protection of biologic resources. It should also be recognized that the applicant has applied for permits from,the GDFG,RWQCB,and U.S.Arm Corps ofEngi tiers. The letters in.theGoiro.y'sMeindicate thattheapplicant ispreparedtoco lywithagen-pyregturemtents. Finally,Moxuk&Associates,the County's biologic consulmts,is satisfied with the studies and has identified potential. impacts and mitigation measures. The drainage and traffic studies submitted by the project proponent were reviewed by the Public forks Department- Memorandums from..Public Works indicate that the data pro7ided is adequate, and technical review of the submitted 26 I,css than. Sig ficant petcatialiy with Less Than Si"cant 1&tigation sipfficant NO impact Incorporation impact Impact Table 9 GROUND FAILURE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD POLICIES 10-22 Slogs stability shalt,be a p.-unary oonsiderstion in the ability oflaad to be developed or designated for urban uses. 4 10-233 Slept stability shall be given careful scratiny in the design;of developments and stractures,and in the adoption of conditions of f approval and required mitigationmoasurza. I 1044 Proposed extensions of urban or suburban laud uses into areas characterized by slopes.orver 15 percent,and/or generally unstable fi laud shalll be elevated with regard to the safety hazard prior to the issuance of any discretionary aeprovsls.Development on i openhiillsidea and sig Moaat ridplines throughout the County shall be restricted,and hillsides with a grade of 26 percent or greater shalt be protected throughh impletuenitiug zoning mawam and other appropriate actions. 10-25 Subdivision of rural lands outside planned urban areas dowuto the allowed minimum parcel size shall.be discouraged,ifthe parcels arc wittz n,or only as essible th=gh,geologically unstable.areas. 10-26 Approvals of public and private development projects in areas subject to slope failures shall be contingent on geologic and eagiatmn.g studies which define and delineate potentially hazardous ooaditions and recommend adequate mitigation 10-27 Soil and geological reports shall be.subject to the review and approval ofthe Cmmty Planning Geologist, 10-28 Ger-rally,residential density shall decrease as slope increases,especially above a 15 perow t slope. 10-29 Sigtiifacant hil3sides with slopes over 26 percent or mora shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading or other land distarbance. 10-30 Develo meat shall be precluded in areas when landslides cannot be adequately retiaired. did not identify sigma enmro:ame tal impacts. Where double loaded,the internal road system has a curb-to-curb width of 28 fee',,with.4-foot wide sideway on one side of the street. The County adopted a Slope Density Ordinance(Chapter 814-2),but it is not applied to the El Sobra me area,nor has it ever been applied to lel Sdbrante. (The ordinance is,in effect, an overlay of zoning that requires Larger 3niiiimunis standard parcel sizes as slope increases.) Policy statements inthe GeneralPlanSafety Element that are applicable to hillside land developmentprtljects(see Table 9). The major geologic hazards in Contra Costa County,aside from earthqua e rapture and direct efrects of ground shaking,areuxlstable hill slopes. Slopes may suffer landslides,slumping,soil slips and rockslides.Landslides and other groundfail.ures occur during earthquakes,triggt redbythe straininducedin soil and rockbythe groundshalsingvibra- tions, and during non.-earthquake conditions, most frequently during the rainy season. Both natural and manmade factors contribute to these slope failures. As a practical matter,compliazice with Policies 10-28 and 10-29 are subject to interpretation. In practice,the County rarelyprecludes development of sites steeper than 26 percentwitthout first giving consideration to the size and location of the areas of 26 percent slope. Jl L-�g isolated areas of 26 percent slope surrounded by development may not represent good.planning.) For example,integrated open space is more valuable as a wildlife habitat, especially along creek channels. lel the case of Subdivision 8583,there are 14 distinct areas of>26 percent slope that total 1.62 acres (see Figure 5). The two largest areas of>26 percent slope are at the following locations: a) Immediately north of the access road crossing of Garrity Creel-; and b) Just wes of the existing tmainus of Viatim Road. 2'7 Less tl= Significant Potentially with Less Than Signfcant lAitigationi Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The location of the Garrity Creek crossing was selected by CDFGbecause it avoids disturbance to riparian vegetation; the Main Road connection proposed by the VTM is a response to the Ordinance Code requixe=utthat addresses the length.of cul-de-sac(and whichtherefore encouragestwo ingress/egress road connections forthis project). Civenthese circumstances,and with the knowledge that the creek channels are to be retained and enhanced,it appears that the development/grading proposed in areas of>26 percent slopes can be considered consistent with Police'10-29. According to.the slope snap of the site,6.81 acres (61.5 percent)of the property possesses slopes of 15 to 26 percent As noted previously,the site has a"holding capacity"of 41 to 59 lots based on VTK which yields 8.28 net acres and a hurl use designation of SH. The VTM proposes 40 lots,which corresponds to the lower limit+of the allowable density. This can be considered an.appropriate response to Policy 10-18. I he pertinent in fasts may be st7=anztd as follows: • A computer-generated slope map of the property indicates the following; slo catv .Acreage °lo of Site 0-15% 1..62 16.1% >'15-26% 6.81 61.5% >26% 1.65 16.4% Totals 10.09 ac. 100% The proposed density is approximately 5 units/net acres,which appears appropriate for a project with these slopes. • The site is underlaiin.by weakly consolidated Pliocene sedimentaryrocks, Published geologic snaps indicate only one slide in the Adams Court portion of the site. Nevertheless,the site can be considered to be sensitive to grading. In recognition of the hazards,the geotechnical report for the project recommends:a)reconstruction/ removal ofthe slide inthe Adams Court area,b)detailed geotechnical studypnorto construction ontheproperty, c)use of slope gradients of 2.5:1(horizontal to vertical). All retaining walls on the site are to be engineered and no wood walls are proposed. A�RALR.ESOU S-VJouidthe project A. Result in the loss of availability of a knmAm mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the St$t-.? X R. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plar:,specific plan ar other land use plea? X 28 Less than Significant Potentially with Less Tnsn Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The Califoruia.Department of Conservationhas issued a reportthat classifies the mineralresource potential oflandsintheeSan.FranciscoBay.Region(DMGOpenFileReport 96-03).A.ccordi gtothatreport,thesiteisclassified MRS l.,whi. b incudes areas whew"adequate information zadicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence." ). NOISE-Would the project? A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? X B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground- borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? X C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X D. A substantial.temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X E. For a project located within an airport land use plan.or,-where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project c):pose people residing or worldng in the project areaa to excessive noise levels? X R For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project arca to excessive noise levels? X Sumas-v: The project wM involveuse of earthmm-ing equipmentfor grading and installation of underground utilities. Because of the relatively smaIl size of the project(40 lots),the duration of the construction period will be relatively short,and hence cousst=don noise is not exsected to be a sig ficannt impact. Over the long term,there vrM be an increase in noise over emstmg conditions. Currently there is one dwelling unit on the property,and in the future 40 units are proposed. The noise levels 1� cal of residential areas are not significant. 29 Less thin Signfficant Potentially with Less Than Significant lvIitigation Signifioant leo Impact Incorporation impact Impact They are chiefly limited to air conditioning condensers(fan noise),lawn mowing,and outdoor recreational use(e.g., noise associated with outdoor pool or spa use,outdoor dining,along with noise associated with residential traffic). MI, POPLmA.TION AND HOUSING Wavle the project: A Induce substantial population growth in an arca, either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or directly(for example,through extension of roans or other inf'w tructure)? X B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X C. Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Summary-The project is an"in.-fill"resi den.tial subdivision of 44 lots. There is currently one residence outhe site.The project,as proposed,involves razing the existing residence. Assuming an occupancy factor of approximately 3.25 persons per dwe,11ing unit,the project will yield a population of 130 persons. Because there is one existing residence onthesite,the actualprojectedincreaseis approx-i=tely l2 i persons. In effects theprojectrepresentsimplementation of the General.Plan and Zoning designations for the property. In that sense,a well designed acid properly conditioned project mill not induce growth in the area. XIII PUBLIC SERVICES A Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated wits the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for now or physically altered governmental facilities, the constma ion of`which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain accelstablc service;ratios,response times or other pmTormanoe objectives for any of the public services: X 2. FiamProtection? X 2. Police Protection? - X 3. Schools? X - - 30 Less than Significant Potentially with Lass Than. significant 1vfttigstion Significant No Impact incorporation Impact Impact 4. ParF;s? X 5. Other Public facilities? X STheapplicationwasreferredtoagenciesforcomment,including:a)theContraCo,staCountyFireProtection District;b)West County Minified School District; c)El Sobran.te MAC; d)El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee; e) County Flood Control District; f) Public 'Works Departrumt; g) Building Inspection. Depa to ent; h) Sheriffs Department; and i) City of Richmond. The agency responses did not identify substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of services. Father, the comments identified routine regwx'em is of the agencies. The project is not expected to create any unusual law enforcement problems. The correspondence from the Contra Crista County Fire Protection District(letter dated September 30,2003),provides performance standards that mast be met. EBMUD,in a memorandum dated September 25,2003,indicate the site is inthe district,but does not identify any service-related problems. The Fest County Wastewater District letter(dated September 18, 20103) indicates wastewater service is available for the project, and the letter goes on to outline the District's standard requirements. With regard to the effect of the project on schools, California Govemmznt Code Section 65996 identifies payment of fees as the exchasi°ve method of mitigating impacts to schools. The Richmond City,Councilpassedaresolutionon April15,2003(Resolud=49-03).Itregaeststhat anE vironmental Impact Report be prepared for the project because of concerns about impacts the project could have on the community .and quality of life. The Resolution does not identify specific concerns/em ronmental issues,nor does it present facts, ex pert opinion or substantial evidence of an environmental impact. XIV. RECREAMN- A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recrrational,facilities such that substantial physical dctzrioration of tssc facility would occur or be accelerated? X B. Do--s the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical off ct on the environment? X Ste: The project does not include public recreational facilities and it does not displace any existing public recreational facilities. There is no plan in place to establish a par-k use on the site (Skip Epperly, Public Works D_-partment,personal communication,October 13,2003).The project will add increinentallyto demand for recreation facilities. The Subdivision Map Act,Article 3, Section 66477b(B)(7)allows for the payment off park dedication fees in lieu of land:dedication for subdivisions containing 50 parcels or less. By payment of park dedication fees,future residents will be participating in a program that is aimed at improving recreational options/opportunities in.the El Sobrante area. Theparkdedicationf rs are$2,000)per ustit(total$80,000 fortheproposed project), IntheEl Sobrante 3� Less than Significant Potentiallywith Less Than Signi£ioant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporation Impact Impact area,thefees collected havebeenusedto"partner"withtheRichmond School District,and provide improved recreation facilities at school sites. XV. TRANSPORIKTIONITRAFFIC-Would the project A. Caisse an inoreasc in t a is which is substantial in relation~to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(Lt.,result ir,a substantial increase m either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion st intersections)? X $. Rxceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level.of =vice standard established by the County congestion manage- ment agency for designated roads or highways? x `C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,includsng either an increase in traffic levels or a Change in location that results in substantial safety risks? - X D. Substantially increase hazards due to a design.feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g-,farm equipment)? X E. Result in inadequate emergency access? X F. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X - 0. ContlictwAh adopted policies, plans,or progiams supporting altwnstive transportation bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? x StZ rr� The project will increxrientally increase traffic onthe local road network withintthe neighborhood. The 46 proposed residential lots will not sipfficantly impact the capacity of the local road system. According to the operative standards,a residential lot generates one AM peak hour trip and.one PM peak hour trip.There is one developed lot on the site, so the project will add traffic from 3 9 additional residences.. Intersection i-MProvements are proposed at the Hilltop Drive entrance to the site. That improvement and the improvement to:Marin Road at/near its eXisting nortth tern nns.are the onlyproposed off-site construction work that is anticipated. 77ith.respectto the internal.road system, a network e$pri-vate roads is proposed. The VT mdicates that residential streets are to have a curb-to-cuxb width of 28 feet,which allcwsforpaikiagonone side ofthe street and-two 10footwidetravelImes,with4-footwidesidewalks indicated on one side of the street. The ma)dmnm proposed gradient of the proposed residential streets is 15 percent. 32 Less than Significant Potentially with Loss Than. significant Mitigation siguificant T o Impaet incorporation Impact Impact The project proponent submitted a traffic study prepared by IClemetson.Fngineeriatg.4 This study analyzed:a)project trip generation,b)existingtraffic,c)trip distribution,d)existingpeakhrrur traffic volumes,and.e)2010 cumulative peak hour traffic volumes. The analysis of potential t±affc impacts included analysis of the level of service at `wee intersections: Hilltop Driven-entrew Road Intersection Hilltop Drive/Pebble Drive Intersection Hilltop DiiNref?roject Eutrance The=ffx.c study indicates that project traffic will not change the level,of service at these three intersections. For the cumulative analysis, all segments of these tree inarsections operate at LCIS B or LOS C. The Public Works Department reviewed the traffic report submitted by the project proponent,along with supplemental traffic analyses. Since the traffic study was prepared,the applicant revised the circulation system for the project by connectingtheinternal road system toMMarrin.IZoad,aCounty-maintained road. Thus tblprojecthastwo accesslegress poi=.It is anticipated bythe Public Works Depaztriient that almost all project traffic will.use the IM' top Drive access, but Mario Road tragi c willincrease slightly. Specificallylots north of Garrity Creek View(L.ats.22-3�)may use Marin Road on occasion. It should also be recognized that parcels near the vest terminus of Marin Road may elect to use private subdivision streets in SD8533 to access Hilltop give. 1. Earthwork Balance imp : The Vesting Tentative Map indicates that civil cut to be 15,234 cubic yards and 20,859 cubic yards of Ell. These gradin;estimates may change,depending on the sperifles of the project that is approved(assuming approval),but they are clearly detailed estimates that are based on the Preliminary Grading shown on the V AL Thus the plan indicates importing 5,500 cubic yards of earth material that is suitable for use as engineered fill. The tracictrips associatedwithimporting filihave potentialto tr aclo earthmatertals onto public roads and create congestion and safety hazards along the haul route. nlfi ationAlfeasure:Prior to importing('or exporting)earth materials the applicant shall submit a plan to the Public Works Departmentfor re-vi"- )and approval. It shall identify tete haul routes), type of trucks, number of dalY trips,hours,proposed traffic safety measures sandproposedstreet sweepingpractices. The Public Works Departmentshallprovidetechnical review ofthepropasedplan, and may require addiHonal information or may impose additional safeguards to minimize/avoid conflicts with neighborhood traffc/trafc safety prior to approval. "Klcmcsan. nginctring,2001.TrafficlmpactAnalysisfor Subdivision 3533, Y-R Job#1062(dated December 15, 200i. 33 Less than Significant Potenfiatly with Less Than Significant Mifigation Significant No impact Incorporation impact Impact XVI. Lrr"IL2'CIES.AND SERVICE SYSTEMS- Would the project. A. Z=eed wastewater treatment require- ments of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ward? x B. Require or result in the u- construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or e aansion ofe�dsting fscilitics,the construction or which could cause aiguificant environmental effects? X C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X D. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from, cxisting entitlement and resources, or are new or expanded entitlement needed? y E. Result in a determination by the - wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? x F. Be served by a landfill with - suffieicnt permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? x Gi Comply with federal,State and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X S=snary The exmting residence on the site currently has electrical,telephone,water,and waste collection services. The proposed subdi7ision does not require annexation to utility districts. The sewer main in the project will flow by gravity to the northeast corner of Lot 29. Fromthispoint, a.I0-foot wide sewer easement is proposed that wM enable the sewer main to be exrtended easterly through the east portion of Parcels 426-192-006 and-007 to the existing Nest COTInty Waste grater District main at the Manor Poad right-of-way. 34 Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant 1" tigation significant No L- pact Incorporation impact impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNOCANC - h. Moes the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and v.ddlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population tc drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? x 13. noes the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? C'Oumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)? X C. Does the project have environ mental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? X Ste: Public cont_ovee;syover the emdro ental effects of a project w�,Ilnatrequirepreparation ofan IRifthere is no substantial n7 dence before tha agency that the project may have a significant eff=ect on the emiranment. Substantial e-�ridence includes facts,reasonable assumptions predicated npon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. c:\wna O'7VVme=p=-y se -t �s,c i spa st a sr o�ss scac -aG os. co u it� Contra �- j , , L Cnrt�1r y DaZ111 p_rl�P, Director I #I E 3 } j Development DepartCT1eC1tCosta County OCT 2003 County Administration Building 551 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing S.L, WEIR, Chi- TY �� Martinez, California 94553-0095 ,, - ANTRA �" UN TY DEPUTY Phone: (925)335-1210 October 2, 2003 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SU13DIVISIONT 8533 CDD File #SDO18533 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental(duality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study can the following project: STAVASHAFSH<AR(Applicant&O-vyn,erl, CoauntyFile 4 SDO18533: The applicant/owner requests vesting tentative map approval to divide 1.0.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for construction of retaining walls in the structure setback zone (along segments of Royal oaks Drive, Garrity Creek Drive, and terminus of Adam.Court) and for variances to the average width standard for four of the hats(Lots 11-14), and approval of a permit to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 3 8). The property fronts for 100.1'7 feet can the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts can the western terminus oaflvlarinR.oad. The property is addressed 4823 Hilltop Drive,in the El Sobrante Area(R-7)(ZA:H- 5) (CT 3630.00) (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 & -017; and 426-192-005 & -008). The Initial Study identifies potential biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils- and traffic-related impacts; and proposes measures to reduce the impacts to less-than-significant levels. The project proponent has submitted a letter agreeing to the mitigation measures. A copy of the negativedeclaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and Application and Permit Center at the McBrien .Administration Building, North ?Ving, Second Floor, 551 Pine Street, Martinez, during normal business hours. Public Comment Period-The period for accepting comments on the adequacy ofthe environmental documents commences on October 22, 2003 and extends to 3:00 P.M., Monday, November 24, 2003. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Name-, DARWIN Nf ER.S Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,Forth.Wing, 4th.Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. r)jfirn iC in nyrl + n !r+ 7r 4 P Cat, It is anticipated that the proposed Legative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting of the Zoning Administrator on Monday, January 5, 2004. The hearing is anticipated to be held at the McBrien Administration Building, Room 107, pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez. It is expected that the Zoning Administrator will also conduct a hearing on the application at that same meeting. D ARWLN MYERS Project Planner cc: County Clerk's Office (2 copies) C:\W'StH70WB1"i'mWor+N7nicetFtlmlCosttmC'�5�U!'V.`:SKA`P+&L1018333T30I-Oet03.wpd f .e fr 5 4 6 ; To: Supervisor John Gioia From: Friends of Garrity Creep Hilltop Neighborhood Associ ` Ll Sobrante Valley Plan+g&, ....__. Zoning Advisory Ct6mittee July 8,2004 Dear Supervisor Gioia, At your request,we've prepared this short list of why a full Environmental Impact Report should be required for SD01-8533.This summary is intended as a guide to our detailed appeal, the attached supplemental material, and all our previous comments on SDO1-8533. We hereby include it all by reference in this document.The Planning Commissioners' decision to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 40-home project were based on flawed and incomplete information. Topics: 1. Geology/Soils -Discrepancy in site test borings. The information from recent AMSO test borings at this site when compared to Soares&Associates(1998)show discrepancies. EIR should also compare Alan Kropp&Associates borings on the same site in 1990/91 which Darwin Myers should make available to the board.AMSO report assumes presence of bedrock,but none was found. -The revised plan to build houses higher on the 33%grade hillside was not evaluated.Combined 132 ft.high retaining wall structures and buttressing system needs detailed evaluation in EIR due to landslide danger to residents above prior to project approval. -At least 4 mitigation measures are yet to be completed and evaluated. According to CEQA,the project is not allowed to aggravate existing problems. How can the project be approved when there is no credible information on which to base decisions? -There needs to be an updated grading map as well as updated investigations on subsurface and slope stability. A supplemental geologist's report is to be done on drainage facilities, slope excavations,and any replacements. Geologic mapping on location and depth of subdrains and test data on fill compaction need to be done. -The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the grading is not balanced. (p. 16) About 5,500 cubic yards of clean fill dirt will be transported on site.No information is given as to where and how it will be stored. 2. Land UselPlannina -Staff recommendations do not accurately reflect slopes of parcel 3 between 26 and 33%and should be revised to conform fully to Safety Elements 10-28 and 10-29. -The County adopted a Slope Density Ordinance(Chapter 814-2). Staff contends that it is not applicable to the El Sobrante area,nor has it ever been applied to El Sobrante. However,Planner Bob Drake, in his letter dated 5/17/01, stated that"over 80%of the site has a slope of more than 15%, 15%of the site has a slope exceeding 26%." -It appears that the slope density ordinance does apply to El Sobrante. There is no evidence to substantiate otherwise. An EIR might be able to clear up this discrepancy. 3. Transportation/Traffic -Low staff estimate of only 1.1 car trips per peak hour per unit should be scrutinized. -Traffic information is based only on 2 intersections within I mile of the entrance. -Complete traffic information is needed on Hilltop Drive from I-80 to Manor at Appian Way as well as side streets such as Pebble Drive and La Paloma Rd. -No evaluation was done on the use of Marin Road as an entrance point. -No information was provided on improvements on Hilltop Drive at the entrance. 4. HvdrologvMrainage -A study of existing drainage facilities in Hilltop Green and their capacity is missing. Summary Statements Suaporftj the Need for a Full EIR pine 2 Hydrology cont'd -An evaluation of the increased run-off due from this project and a list of related improvements is needed. -A determination is needed re: who pays for the improvements to the drainage system. -A drainage maintenance plan for this site and the Hilltop Green subdivision is needed. -A comprehensive study is needed to determine if landslides on the adjacent property may be triggered by grading and/or drainage from this project. S. _Utilities and Service Systems - Storm water drainage facilities -EIR needs to provide definitive information on existing storm water drainage facilities. 6. Public Services -Fire: There is no statement from County Fire about the use of Marin Rd. as a fire entrance road. -Police: There is no statement that County Sheriff's Dept will be able to provide at least minimal services to the site. -Parks: The developer promised the community an on-site tot lot. If not included in the development,the developer should pay the$2,000 for each home in county park fees as well as $50,000-$75,000.This last open space should not be granted off-site mitigation for recreation space;the community wants on-site facilities maintained by the HOA. 7. Biological Resources —The plan to protect the riparian habitats by deed restrictions,established along Garrity Creek and the unnamed tributary, is unsatisfactory and almost unenforceable. There is no plan for monitoring and/or enforcing the deed restriction. -The County needs to develop a monitoring and maintenance plan between the County and the developer. The County could monitor the riparian habitats as well as test the creeks' water quality several times a year. The HOA could pay the county's costs. S. Cultural resources -EIR should provide examination of areas not surveyed and survey for human remains. So far, both the developer's archaeological surveys only utilized partial visual surveys. 9. Noise -The mitigated negative declaration says that noise from the grading and building of this project is less than significant. That is not true. -Children are considered sensitive receptors. El Sobrante Elementary School is about a half block from the site. Juan Crespi Middle School is about two blocks away. -A study of the noise level of the big equipment is needed. A restriction should be placed on the moving times for the big trucks onto the site. 10. . Air Ouality -County did not provide data or mitigation measures re: short and/or long term air quality impacts. 11. _AestheticNisual Impacts -The change from valley open space to a housing project will be a significant change in views to the neighbors. Most neighbors are above the project area. -The plan has been revised to move some of the homes higher on the slopes where they will be more visible to the surrounding neighbors. -Some computer generated visual images of what the project will look like should be done and then carefully reviewed to see what can be done to lessen the impact. Sincerely, Friends of Garrity Creek E.S.Valley P&Z Adv.Committee Hilltop Neighborhood Association El Sobrante Valley Planning& Friends of Garrity Creep.& Zoning Advisory Committee Hilltop Neighborhood Association P.O. Box 20136 745 Renfrew Rd. El Sobrante, CA 94820 El Sobrante, CA 94803 July 8, 2004 To. CC County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine St. Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Supplemental detail for Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on SDOI-8533 Dear Supervisors, The members of the Friends of Garrity Creek,the Hilltop Neighborhood Association, and the El Sobrante Valley Planning& Zoning Advisory Committee have filed an appeal on the Planning Commissioners' decision to approve SDO1-8533 based on a mitigated negative declaration and a 40-home plan when County Staff recommended a limit of 35 homes. We feel that the Planning Commissioners' decisions were based on incorrect information. There is a lack of credible evidence to support their decisions. We are presenting supplemental points of appeal with supplemental information, making this part of the administrative record. These points show evidence of potential significant environmental effects not adequately addressed in the mitigated negative declaration. These supplemental points are in addition to and clarify and do not supersede points raised in the letter of appeal submitted June 17, 2004. We incorporate, by reference, all written comments from Attorney Keith Wagner, Barbara Pendergrass for Friends of Garrity Greek& Hilltop Neighborhood Association and Eleanor Loynd for the El Sobrante Valley Planning &Zoning Advisory Committee. We strongly disagree with staff that a "Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act." In our testimony,the appeal documentation, our lawyer's comments,and this supplemental detail,we present evidence showing that the MNG relies on detailed reports that have not been created and mitigation measures yet to be formulated, and CEQA requires these to be in place before issuing any project approvals. We ask that a full Environmental Impact Report be required. Then the subdivision plan should be re-evaluated based on that information. These are our statements to support the request for a full Environmental Impact Report and a complete re-evaluation of the project. l.Geoloav, Sails,& Seismicity: The full EIR should comprehensively examine seismic concerns, discrepancies in geological data on the site from various reports, elements of the proposal not in compliance with county slope protection policies, the variances requested for 132-foot combined retaining wall structures, and the previously unevaluated buttress system. Details follow: The project site is located in a region of high seismicity. The Hayward Fault is generally regarded as having the highest probability of producing the next large magnitude earthquake in the Bay Area. The Hayward Fault is about 1 mile from this site. Request for a full EIR Pate 2 The lack of detailed, credible information on the geology, soils, and seismicity leads to the request for a full EIR. Existing and future residents need to know that the development plan has been fully evaluated by credentialed specialists in the various fields prior to granting any approval. The AMSO test borings done on this site for Mr. Afshar were recently compared to a 1998 study of the same site done by Soares&Associates. In the May 25 hearing, Darwin Myers also referenced data prepared in 1990-1991 by Alan Kropp & Associates. There are apparent discrepancies in the data provided by the AMSO and Soares reports on this same site. Since we are not experts, an EIR needs to be done to ensure the currency and accuracy of the evidence used as a basis for any decision on this project. Variances for retaining walls more than 3 feet in height at end of Marin Road should be denied. This tiered set of extremely steep multiple retaining walls has a combined height of up to 132 feet. Construction of these structures will require extensive excavation of a hillside with known landslides, no evidence of bedrock in the developer's geological reports, and a grade of more than 26 percent, a slope which according to Policy 10-29 should remain undisturbed. No approval of this aspect of the project should be granted. We ask that a full EIR include thorough examination of this problematic aspect of the proposal. We refer you to our attorney's letter of May 21, 2004, p. 4, where he noted that CEQA requires "a mandatory finding of significance for any potential project impacts that may result in'substantial adverse effects on human beings.' If the potential exists that grading permits cannot be issued for the project due to landslide potential,that information should be adequately investigated by the County and disclosed to the public before project approval." This aspect of the proposal represents significant risk of adverse effects on human beings living in homes at the western terminus of Marin Road, and should be thoroughly scrutinized in the EIR prior to project approval. We were told by the developer that a buttressing system would be used to stabilize the landslide areas just below Marin Road. This would allow houses to be built up higher on the hillside. That aspect of the plan has never been evaluated, and should be addressed in the EIR. See additional landslide issues in section on Hydrology. According to statements in the mitigated negative declaration,these mitigation measures are yet to be completed and evaluated: -special engineering solutions based on a fixture yet-to-be-updated grading map, -an updated report on subsurface investigations and slope stability, -supplemental geologist's recommendations on drainage facilities, slope excavations, and replacement plans; -geologic mapping on the location and depth of subdrains, test data on fill compaction, and monitoring plan for buildings, walls, and other details. 2. Land Use/Planning: The County's General Plan Safety Element: 10-28 "Generally, residential density shall decrease as slope increases, especially above a 15% slope" and 10-29"Significant hillsides with slopes over 26%or more shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading or other land disturbance." Request for a fall EIR Paae 3 The developer's proposal incorporates inappropriate development of areas steeper than 26% grade, and this has not been reflected in the staff report. The May 25, 2044, staff report on SD 418533 contains this description from B) Findings to approve a tentative map:"Most of the site contains slopes that exceed a 15% gradient; some of the property has slopes as steep as 26°1." This description is inaccurate. In a 5/17/01 letter to Mr. Afshar, county planner Bob Drake referenced the applicant's exhibit showing "over 80%of the site has a slope of more that 15 percent, and 15 percent [of the site] has a slope exceeding 26%." Staff recommendations may not have taken into account the true steepness of the slopes, since these details are not included in their findings. The AMSO engineering report dated April 30, 2001 for Project 3128,page 2, findings for surface conditions, documents that the slopes for the 3 parcels in this development range from 20 percent to 33 percent: 5 to 1 slopes for parcels 1 and 2, with parcel 3 having slopes of 4 to 1 and 3 to I. County ordinance 813-2-612 density table mandates the following densities: 2.9 homes per net acre for 20% slope; 1.6 homes/net acre for 25% slope, and .7 houses/acre for 33% slope. The developer's proposal should be modified to conform to the lower densities on the parcels delineated in the AMSC?report as having steeper slopes. According to the general plan's county slope protection policy 10-29, areas with slopes greater than 26% should be left undisturbed. Staff'recommendations lowering the project density from 40 to 35 homes is appropriate in order to comply with other county policies. However, that revised configuration does not address policy 10-29, since it still allows extensive grading to build six homes and a road on that very steep 33% grade. The development plans should be reconfigured to leave the steep area at the end of Marin Road undisturbed in accordance with policy 10-29. As it stands,this project should be viewed as having significant, adverse environmental effects because it is inconsistent with the General Plan policy. It is also a violation of the state Planning and Zoning Law, which forbids the approval of any project that is inconsistent with the overlying general plan. In short, unless the development is modified to avoid grading on 26%+slopes, it cannot be approved, regardless of whether an EIR is prepared, because the project is inconsistent with the County's General Plan. There seems to be a disagreement among staff regarding the County's slope density ordinance and if it applies to El Sobrante. On page 26 in the mitigated negative declaration, staff stated that"The County adopted a Slope Density Ordinance(Chapter 814-2), but it is not applied to the El Sobrante area,nor has it ever been applied to El Sobrante. (The ordinance is, in effect, an overlay of zoning that requires larger minimums standard parcel sizes as slope increases.)" There are no statements or proof that the County's Slope Density Ordinance does not apply to El Sobrante. There is no credible evidence that the slope density ordinance does not apply to El Sobrante. 3. Transportation/Traffic: An EIR would provide needed traffic information that is missing from the mitigated negative declaration. At the time the initial study was done,the only entrance to the project was off Hilltop Drive. Traffic information was provided for only 2 intersections within about 1 /2 mile of the project entrance. The revised plans now call for Request for a full EIR Page 4 a second entrance on Marin Road at Hilltop Drive. A full traffic study is needed. It should include all Hilltop Drive intersections from I-80 to Manor Road to Appian Way. It should also include traffic impacts on local side streets such as La Paloma and Pebble Drive. We note here that traffic is by far the most universal concern of neighboring residents --the staff report indicates that 92 percent of letters to opposing this development included concerns about negative impacts of increased traffic. Traffic on Hilltop Drive backs up to a standstill between 7:30-9 am and again between 2:30-3:30 pm. Hilltop Drive is a main entry point to and from local schools. A 40 home project would add 320-400 daily car trips to Hilltop Drive. The new entrance to Marin Road needs to be evaluated. It is a narrow county road with no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. For area residents' safety, it needs to be improved. Because the plan was revised after the mitigated negative declaration, no evaluation was done to see if the Marin/Hilltop Drive meets the usual standards for a connector road. Staff findings that no traffic study is required are based on an unbelievably low estimate of only 1.1 peak hour trips per unit. Most families own two cars, with both adults driving to work or to a public transit hub during commute time. In fact, an evening visual survey of the closest neighboring road, Marin Road, shows most homes with three or four vehicles. Residents of a 40-home development would most likely add 70 to 80 more vehicles to the neighborhood, exponentially increasing the number of car trips during peak use time. The low estimate of traffic impacts in the staff report should be thoroughly evaluated. We note that SDOI-8533 is only one of many projects proposed in this area. These other projects will contribute to traffic going to the El Sobrante Elementary and Juan Crespi Middle schools. ESVP&Z requested an El Sobrante traffic study Sept 18, 2001. We would like this EIR to address the cumulative impact of these many projects on local traffic infrastructure. As stated on page 25 in the mitigated negative declaration,County staff considers this an "in-fill"project. Conversations with Supervisor Gioia about the definition of an "in-fill"project show that this project does not meet the "in-fill" standards. The project is not within walking distance of services that residents need such as grocery stores, cleaners, restaurants, etc. The area is poorly served by AC Transit. Elements of staff recommendations based on the assumption that this is an "infill" site should be scrutinized during the EIR and appropriately revised. 4. Hydrology & Drainage: The staff report mentions Policy 3-202, calling for "implementation of measures to avoid inundation, ponding and sheet overflow during storms." Residents of Solano Court who daily walk the open area caring for their livestock testified in the May 25 public hearings before the commission that every rainy season a vernal pond takes shape around the confluence of the two branches of Garrity Creek. Breeding families of ducks congregate at the pond, as do other migratory waterfowl. This is evidence that ponding already occurs prior to any development activity on the proposed site, and that existing drainage facilities in this area have been neglected both by the county and the city of Richmond. Solana Court residents also testified that there is a high volume of water ...................................................... __ Request for a full EIR Paye 5 under their foundation slabs during the rainy season, despite the fact that they are at the highest elevation overlooking the valley. The staff report utilizes models based on a 100-year flood event. Changes in climatological factors such as increases in average rainfalls over recent decades indicate that this model is no longer sufficient as a predictor of public safety for flood control. In addition,we find no inclusion of evidence accounting for the changes to water table levels that development will bring. Development eliminates natural recharge areas by introducing much higher percentages of impervious surfaces. Additionally,year-round yardirrigation by home owners keeps the ground damp, not allowing it to dry out as it naturally would, and contributing to much swifter saturation of the ground once the rainy season begins. With the Hilltop Green drainage system already unable to cope with the winter rains,additional stresses such as these could create substantial problems. The Globe soils reports describe that Hilltop Green's considerable slide problems result from poor drainage and unstable soils. The EIR should comprehensively address these factors, particularly since the new development is on the same kind of unstable soils and would be vulnerable to landslides without adequate drainage, etc. Linder CEQA law,the project does not have to solve existing problems, but the project is not allowed to aggravate existing ones. It is an absolute necessity, for the safety of the residents in Hilltop Green and the new project residents,that a detailed assessment of the existing drainage problems in Hilltop Green be done now. A study of the existing drainage problems,the project run- off from the new project, and a list of what developer paid-for improvements are needed should be done now. Under CEQA law,the impacts on regional drainage and mitigation measures must be in place before the project is approved. This project cannot be approved with existing problems to be studied and, somehow,mitigated at a future time. The County Planning Commissioners approved this project without reviewing or verifying the adequacy of the downstream drainage facilities in the Hilltop Green subdivision which is located next to and at a lower level than the planned project. Off- site improvements may be required to increase the capacity of the existing drainage system in Hilltop Green. We don't know what those requirements are or who will be responsible for maintaining them. The Hilltop Green Subdivision is in the city of Richmond. On April 15, 2003, the Richmond City Council passed a Resolution stating its opposition to the project and requested that an EIR be prepared for the project. 5. Utilities and Service Systems - Storm water drainage facilities: There is no accurate, definitive information on the existing storm water drainage facilities in the adjacent Hilltop Green Subdivision or on the need to expand those existing facilities. The mitigated negative declaration merely stated that"this may require off-site improvements to increase capacity should these facilities prove to be inadequate." The problem is that these adjacent facilities are in Richmond. We have no confidence that the applicant can provide competent information on the existing facilities or that the funds exist to pay for any or all improvements to these facilities. The EIR should resolve these questions. Request for a full EIR Page 6 f. Public Services-Fire Services and Parks: A full EIR should be required so that information on fire services and parks are reviewed before the project is approved. There is no statement from the County Fire Dept. about accessing this subdivision using Marin Road. The Marin Road extension is to be about a 15%grade and the project was just recently revised to include it. There is no information or validation of the County's decision to allow the developer to remove an on-site park or tot-lot from the development. In fact, the applicant provided us with his list of suggested conditions dated 4/10/03. His condition #24 states: "The project now includes two potential sites for a tot lot. The site selected would be graded and improved as part of the subdivision improvements. The design of the improvements will be provided at the appropriate time in the planing (sic)process." Residents have requested an on-site park since review of this project began several years ago. Since the County has no Parks Maintenance Dept., there are no County parks in the area. Park funds are directed to the County Service Area Recreation 9 Committee which has partnered with schools and the EBRPD to provide some area playgrounds. The school playgrounds are not accessible during school time. The small park(play area)on site would be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. For example, Appian Village, a 22-home County project on Appian Way, was required to put in a tot-lot as well as pay the $2000 per unit County park fees. The developer agreed to provide $75,000 to the CSA R-9 Committee in lieu of putting in the tot-lot. The developer of a nearby 43 home Richmond subdivision at Valley View and May Roads paid the park fees and, in addition, agreed to pay an additional $50,000 for a play structure at a local park instead of creating an on-site tot-lot. In both the examples above, we note that developers were allowed to mitigate off- site, ffsite, and this was also the case with Mr. Afshar's development a few blocks away off Renfew Court. Given that this project area(SD01-8533) is the last remaining open space in the neighborhood, we request that no off-site mitigation be granted; rather,the developer should respond to the needs of the community by providing on-site recreation space. We support the county staff recommendation for an easement possibly to be used for a public trail, and request that this be accompanied by the wetland area comprising lot 29, to be maintained as recreation space for the public and managed by the HOA. We request that the ESVP&Z recommendation that land adjacent to the creek be deed- restricted for recreation be granted. In conjunction with this, we reinforce our previous comments that current existing Dept. of Fish& Game creek setback rulings of 100 feet should be followed in designing this development. The steep property at the end of Marin Road which overlooks the wetland area would be a natural addition to an on-site deed- restricted recreation area--this hillside is an area that should remain undisturbed due to its 33%grade, per county slope protection policies. We strongly request on-site recreation space. If the county denies our request,the Board of Supervisors should, at the very least, add a condition requiring that the developer will pay an additional fee of$50,000-$75,000 to the CSA R-9 Committee for park development. However,we ask that no determination regarding any off-site mitigation be made until a full and complete EIR has evaluated the project. Request for a full EIR Pale 7 7. Biological Resources: This 10-acre site is currently a wildlife corridor. Neighbors frequently see deer,raccoons,birds,opossums,turtles, frogs, and other creatures on site. The site is grassy hillsides with trees and two creeks flowing through the property. One of the concerns is that the development will close off this entry/exit for the wildlife. The mitigated negative declaration stated that the riparian habitats will be protected by a deed restriction established along Garrity Creek and the unnamed tributary. The question is - Who is responsible for monitoring these restrictions? We have no confidence that a statement in the deed will force the landowners to comply with the restrictions. Can the County set up a process whereby, for a set fee paid by the Homeowners Association,twice a year county staff will monitor the protected riparian habitats to be sure that the deed restrictions are in place? The deed-restricted area is approximately 40 ft. wide between the houses' backyards and Garrity Creek's top of bank. A b ft. high wood and wire fence will be construction at the edge of the 40 ft. set back. Signs will be posted to discourage dumping and to restrict public access. The County should also have the authority to enforce the deed restrictions as well as to order fences repaired, etc. The water in Garrity Creek should also be tested to ensure that the water quality will sustain the wildlife. S. Cultural resources: We refer you to the Nov. 20,2003 letter from Katherine Peru, representative of the Northern Valley Yokut/Oholone/Miwok included in our appeal packet. She is uncomfortable with the surveys conducted by Afshar's archaeologists because only three of the five segments of the proposed subdivision were surveyed, areas where artifacts were likely to have been found were deemed "inaccessible", and they were visual walking surveys that did not include surveying for possible human remains. Subsequent to receiving her letter, Afshar sent out an archaeologist who essentially did a walking survey with some members of Hilltop Neighborhood Association. We rioted that his survey was also a visual survey --he never used the shovel he brought along. Based on her concerns and the cursory followup, we request that the completed EIR address these issues prior to approvals being granted. 9. Noise: The mitigated negative declaration states that noise from the grading and building of this project is less than significant. There are 2 schools within 2 blocks of this site. Children are considered sensitive receptors. The impact of noise on these 2 schools, El Sobrante Elementary and Juan Crespi Middle School was not evaluated. In addition, the effect of noise on County residents and residents in the 500 home adjacent Hilltop Green subdivision was not evaluated. The initial study does not quantify or analyze the usual noise makers, such as air conditioners, law mowers, etc. A full EIR is needed. 10. Air Quality: We note that the County failed to quantify and analyze either short-term, construction related impacts or long-term operational air quality impacts, or mitigation measures or alternatives to avoid such impacts. These would include limitations on the types of construction equipment to be used,mitigation measures to keep fugitive dust under control, and analysis or mitigation of PM 10, diesel particulate, or other volatile Request for a full EIR page g organics associated with implementation of the project. Due to the project's location in a low-lying valley, such pollutants could have a high impact. This is of great concern to Marin Road residents bordering the project who have severe respiratory problems. The EIR should clearly spell out the requirements to minimize air quality impacts. 11. AestheticsNisual Impacts: This 10 acre parcel has never been developed. The project will result in significant changes to the visual character of the area. Neighbors along the rim of the project, as well as the neighbors next door in the Hilltop Green Subdivision, will see a dramatic difference—houses, streets, lights where they now see open space,trees, wildlife. There will be a significant visual impact from the project, and this should be addressed in a full EIR Summary Statement: A full environmental impact report should be required to thoroughly resolve the concerns above. After the EIR is completed,the project plans should be re-evaluated and redesigned to comply with the new information in the EIR. The number of units on site should be re-evaluated and downsized based on the new information provided. The conditions should be evaluated and re-written as necessary. .............................................................................. ._ Appendix F Agency & Public Comments; Responses to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance TABLE OF CONTENTS Agency Comments (Letter Dated Paye Office of Planning and Research (11/24/03) B-3 West County Wastewater District(11/18/03) B-5 West County Wastewater District (10/30/03) B-48 City of Richmond (12/16/03) B-50 LAFCO (10/27/03) B-51 East Bay Municipal Utility District (11/20/03) B-52 East Bay Municipal Utility District (03/11/04) B-53 Environmental Organizations and Community Groups El Sobrante Valley P&Z Advisory Committee (12/4/03) B-55 El Sobrante Valley P&Z Advisory Committee (11/23/03) B-56 El Sobrante Valley P&Z Advisory Committee (11/18/03) B-63 El Sobrante Valley P&Z Advisory Committee (11/03/03) B-64 El Sobrante Manor Neighborhood Council (02/13/04) B-66 The Fund for Animals, Inc. (1/4/04) B-67 Urban Creek Council of America(11/21/03) B-68 Friends of Garrity Creek/Hilltop Neighborhood Association(11/17/03) B-71 Friends of Garrity Creek/1-iilltop Neighborhood Association (email 11/16/03) B-81 Friends of Garrity Creek (Booklet on Garrity Creek) (12/31/03) B-83 Richmond Greens Local, Green Party of Contra Costa(11/20/03) B-89 Public Comment Erik Wheaton(11/15/03) B-91 Janelle M. Numes & Charles Proctor (11/16/03) B-92 Mike Mantell (11/17/03) Tracy Taylor (11/18/03) B-94 Kim Dixon (11/18/03) B-96 Phil Covel (CDD on 11/19/03) B-97 Katherine Perez, NVY (Ohlone, Miwok) (11/19/03) B-98 Michael Ali (11/19/03) B-99 P. and Gloria Alejandre (11/20/03) B-108 Winifred Tong (11/20/03) B-110 Nancy Mariner (11/20/03) B-111 Evelyn Slessinger (11/20/03) B-112 Saundra England (11/21/03) B-113 Ed Ballou (11/22/03) B-114 Doris Alsing (11/24/03) B-115 Bob Joyce (11/24/03) B-116 S elya Gomez-Suiter(11/24/03) B-119 Margrit Haaf(11/24/03) B-121 Miguel and Edna Hernandez (12/13/03) B-123 D_-1 Claudia Crandall (12/19/03) B-125 Janet Laughlin(12/21/03) B-127 Steven& Linda Everett (1/23/04) B-128 Kent Brandenburg, Bethel Baptist Church(1/27/04) B-132 Mathew L. Rei; Lister, Savio & Rei, Inc. (1/27/04) B-133 Lathy Dunham (1/29/04) B-134 Steven D. Benson(2/2/04) B-135 Araceli Munoz (2/3/04) B-136 Sandy Fitzgerald Higgins (2/3/04) B-137 Kimberly Chan (2/3/04) B-138 Ron Frank (2/4/04) B-139 Bethel Christian Academy (2/11/04) B-141 Tami Davidson(2/12/04) B-142 Erika& John Applin(2/12/04) B-143 Baroo Ahmadi (2/17/04) B-144 Diane Carter (2/25/04) B-145 Kathleen Braun(3/5/04) B-146 Marilyn M. Thompson (3/5/04) B-147 Jesse Golden (3/6/04) B-148 Joan C. Barker (3/7/04) B-149 V.L. Bressen(3/7/04) B-150 Doris Alsing (3/7/04) B-151 Carol(.Ismer-Newhouse (3/8/04) B-153 Bret & Wanda Smith(3/8/04) B-154 Ann M. Hershey (3/8/04) B-156 William& Evelyn Slessinger (3/8/04) B-157 Janet Laughlin(3/8/04) B-158 Marten Fisle (3/8/04) B-161 Mike Pelton& Jain Hutzell-Pelton(3/8/04) B-162 Vi & Robert Bresse (3!8/04) B-163 Shelley Mazer& Julius Baker, Jr. (3/8/04) B-164 Joan& Robert Bracken(3/8/04) B-167 Bennie Saville (3/8/04) B-168 Claire W. Bleset (3/8/04) B-169 Thomas A. & Susan Wright(3/8/04) B-170 Juanita Greengard (3/8/04) B-171 Brain Scott Creamer(3/8/04) B-172 Annie Hershey& Carol Osmer-Newhouse (3/8/04) B-173 Selya E. Gomez-Suiter (3/10/04) B-174 Maybel L. Draxton(3/10/04) B-176 Doris Peterson(3/11/04) B-178 Thomas Wuttke & Victoria House (3/11/04) B-179 Kenneth A. Peterson(3/11/04) B-181 James Huppert (3/27/04) B-182 Chelsea Marion(3/29/04) B--183 u_� 5y�t ns r,y OF Pl''k*z s s STATE OF CALIFORNIA A. * �� Governor's Office of Planning and Research r State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Ne0po".`f � Arnold .tan Boel Schwarzenegger Interim Deputy Governor Director November 24, 2003 Darwin Myers Contra Costa County 651 Pine St.,North Wing, 2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: SDO18533 SCI#: 2003102107 Dear Darwin Myers: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on November 21, 2003, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. 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 the State Clearinghouse at X916}445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project,please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Terry Roberts Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 (916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov D_') Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Bas, SCH# 2003102107 Project Title SD018533 Lead Agency Contra Costa County Type Neg Negative Declaration Description SIA VASH AFSHAR (applicant&owner, county file#AD018533: The applicant/owner requests vesting tentative map approval to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for construction of retaining walls in the structure setback zone (along segments of Royal Oaks Drive, Garrity Creek Drive & the terminus of Adam Court) &for variances to the average width standard for 4 of the lots (Lots 11-14), & approval of a permit to removed 2 protected trees (Lots 18 & 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hiltop Drive, appproximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, & it fronts on the western teminus of Marin Road. The property address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the Fi Sobrante Area (R-7)(ZA:H-6)(CT3630.00) (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 & 017; &426-192-005& 008). Lead Agency Contact Name Darwin Myers Agency Contra Costa County Phone 925-335-1210 Fax email Address 651 Pine St., North Wing, 2nd Floor City Martinez State CA Zip 94553 Project Location County Contra Costa City Richmond Region Cross Streets Hilltop Drive & Renfrew Road Parcel No. Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 1-80 Airports Railways Waterways Garrity Creek Schools elementary& middle Land Use General Plan: SH (single family residential, high density) Use:vacant land Zoning: R-7 (7,000 sq ft minimum parcel size) Project Issues Archaeologic-Historic; Geologic/Seismic; Solt Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality;Wetland/Riparian;Wildlife; Landuse Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Department of Pairks and Recreation; Agencies Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, District 4; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 10/23/2003 Start of Review 10!23/2003 End of Review 11/21/2003 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. Q-A WEST COUNTY ", >w nwwWASTEWATER DISTRICT 2910 Hilltop Drive • Richmond, CA 94806-1974 A Public Agency Telephone (519) 222-6700 • Fax (510) 222-3277 November 18, 2003 Darwin Myers, Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street,4"Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Subject: CDD File# SD 01 —8533 (40 lots) 4823 .Hilltop Drive, El Sobrante (APN 426-210-007,426-182-001 &017: and 426-192-005 & 00 8) Dear Darwin Myers: The West County Wastewater District (WCWD) appreciates this opportunity to comment on Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Subdivision 8533 (Hillview) located at 4823 Hilltop Drive, EI Sobrante, California(County File No. SD 01 8533). Page 24 of Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Subdivision 8533 (Hillview) indicates "no flooding problems are known to FEMA between the site and I- 80". The West County Wastewater District (WCWD)received a FEMA grant for flooding of the WCWD's Hilltop Green Wastewater Pump Station caused by storm drain plug(See attached documents). The wastewater service is available for this proposed development to Project Sponsor subject to submitting and complying with the following: I, Sanitary sewer plan has not been received. Contact the WCWD staff regarding possible point of connection and possible off--site improvement required on existing downstream sanitary sewer pipelines. 2. Submit two (2) sets of Tentative Map, Geotechnical Reports and Grading Plans for WCWD's Board approval. (Fees will be prepared upon submission of tentative map, grading plans and Geotechnical report). 3. Submit two sets of improvement plans and engineer's construction cost estimate for sanitary sewer main extension for WCWD approval, The sewer main construction permit must be obtained from the WCWD prior to start of construction. (i.e. 5% of the sanitary sewer construction cost). 4. It is Project Sponsor's responsibility to construct sanitary sewer mains, laterals and appurtenances to the nearest available existing WCWD facility. One hundred Percent(100%)performance and maintenance bond to be filed with WCWD for sanitary sewer main prior to start of construction. BOARD MEMBERS Leonard L. Battaglia Alfred M. Granzella William S. Oliver George H. Schmidt Paul C. Soltow, jr. BOARD ATTORNEY Alfred A. Cabral n r Darwin Myers, Project Planner CCC Comm. Dev. Dept. CDD File#SD O1-8533 (40 lots) November 18, 2003 Page 2 5. Submit Grant of Easements for all sanitary for all sanitary sewer mains intended for dedication to the WCWD even within dedicated street rights-of-way. Such easements shall be a minimum of fifteen(1.5)feet wide and twenty(20) feet wide where the depth of the line is in excess of ten(10) feet deep. Paved access shall be provided to all manholes and rodding inlets for maintenance trucks, 6, Sanitary Sewer Connection fees for Forty(40) single-family homes trust be paid prior to the inspection and approval of the building sewer laterals. Pee estimate will be prepared upon submission of plans. 7. Obtain a permit for each building from the District prior to the inspection and approval of the building sewer laterals. 8. WCWD approval is required prior to finalizing permit or prior to granting certificate of occupancy. Sincerely, PAUL D. WD�MCKI, PE DISTRICT ENGINEER A3AY K. KATARIA - Senior Engineering Technician PDW/AKK:ilm-b Attachments: Page 24 of Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Subdivision 8533 City of Richmond Letter date 5-14-1997 Application.and Materials to State of California Governors Office of Emergency Services for Garrity Creek Improvement from I-80 Freeway to Blume Drive dated 5-14-97 WCWD letter to Kurt Hunter,City of Richmond 12-2-97 City of Richmond letter to Paul Winnicki 12-23-97 FEMA letter to WCWD dated 3-27-98 WCWD letter to State of Calif.Dept. of Transportation 3-18-98 WCWD letter to City of Richmond 6-I5-98 WCWD letter to Hilltop Green Homeowners Assoc.5-19-98 FEMA letter to Governor's Office of Emerg.Services 8-18-97 GOES letter to WCWD 8-12-97 GOES letter to WCWD GOES Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application 7-16-97 Page 2 of 2 rr 24 Less than Significant Potentially with Lose Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact drainage structures(e.g,,lack of subdrains,inadequate storm drainage fa'cilities,etc.), In summary,the existing record does not document any deficiencies of the downstream culverts on the ri3ain stem of Garrity Creek, and no flooding problems are known to FEMA between the site and I-80. It should be recognized that public controversy'is not substantial evidence of an environmental impact. According to CEQA, Section 15064(8(5), ....,Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous,or evidence that is not credible,shall not constitute substantial evidence, Substantial evidence shall include,facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by,facts. The applicant had previously submitted a hydrology report'which was reviewed by the County Flood Control District. This drainage analysis focuses on the capacity of the on-site channels,and runoff from the site and parcels higher in the watershed. The Public'Corks Department and Flood Control District have reviewed the hydrology report. The report was considered adequate and no hydrology impacts were identified. However,that report evaluated the internal drainage system of the project and not the adequacy of downstream drainage facilities. In 2003,The project proponent submitted a hydrology report that concludes that mnoff from the site(following buildout of the project) can be kept at the pre-development level for the design storm.' In a watershed of I to 4 sere miles, the design storm is an event with a recurrence interval of 25 years. This report can be considered preliminary data that would be subject to hydrologic modeling, and evaluation by engineers of the Flood Control District. It should also be recognized that according to CEQA,the duty of the project is not to solve existing problems, However,the project is not allowed to aggravate existing problems. The applicant has stated that his objectives include keeping flows exiting the property at the pre-development level. In summary, the project will be required to fully comply with all aspects of the drainage requirements of the County Subdivision Ordinance. This includes collecting all surface waters entering or originating on the subject property and conveying therm in an adequate storm facility to its point of discharge into a natural.watercourse. As an alternative,the Subdivision Ordinance allows the County,at its discretion,to require regulating the outflow from the project so as not to exceed the capacity of downstream facilities,and this is the applicant's stated intent, Strict adherence to these Code requirements can be expected to ensure that the project does not have an adverse effect on the reported downstream drainage inadequacies within the Hilltop Green project, Interstate 80,or any other downstream drainage facilities. The Public Works Department,as part ofthe final design and plan review process,requires submittal ofa detailed hydrology and hydraulic analysis of the downstream facilities to verify their adequacy prior to allowing to discharge to those existing drainage facilities, This may require off-site improvements to increase capacity should these facilities prove to be inadequate as defined by the Subdivision Ordinance. 'Ilemctsoa,Stanley,February 23,2002. Hydrology Analysisfor Subdivision 8533, 4823 Hilltop Drive,El Sobrante Area, Contra Costa County, 'I£ometson,Stanley,October 4,2003,Hydrology AnalysisfarSubdivision 8533, 4823 Hilltop Drive.El Sobrante Area,Contra Costo County. n -x ro $y to Ck 15 .to Q Ifi �Y9f lU T5 +� ;a•2 5 e� k �,¢„ }a t1I C {C ul ra 0 4j 0 GtUt *� cua or` ut m m p- o v' a3 l Li1C1 c ti 0 107 fs � � °� � o w 0 .-f � � 44 +n m U. 00 d x' vas t4 o c V 0 n Ao. m a o + c Edo to tai► r In °' c�A cm a roU � ri a o� m � r" � � t�c°� N n oiii ti u�' Er' has Cafl` cwctt to- is Vu • (•jj 4 p —.r U y a�j U y 'G Tl�3y A R 1 1 M � .� � w �' � •� ��1 a u o ��'t�., �p i,J Ga U 1 �1i� d � win o t w ` !7 a � 1 r- � w � rn m 1 n• si a� ra oe °` :^✓ %2`% ". d a civ d vy, r � �dr» to -15 o m�_� `� �ate.g a• ° � 8°�. �, ru > Gam* e cei 4.fI .3. 7 yr: 'C Ul en a E S a cift � '� � .��-�, y.°'ed��r� o. � �+•e.��r,� why �.��ro� � � �, ° .� 9 rs u. et y � �� Ci �� "m-'� c $ � n.�•� � .tee � �.��. �� '^ 4� �, � G ¢3 t- os c3« C sa ifs ° � tUv p u+ Y n . AR 9 l; t Td fS WL p n .� 4Y ya`� •`�8� 'r`. ' ''° $ '6 1'syry� Geet,a _ - °TMjq ,i•, tYy, �` =� �aan+d" t .,-qk � , IwrM ai,x��'U�ayjt r ca+ Ov � nr NYrW o� ', du ass` s• v: d` P!` hx&w V 1 i'y Va i t.t4 r9 Wa to ; �. »»; �''^•;•e<n t IMI i a� �» „�.1., itM l '•s \50.N '} •-- J 'rayy� �q7 _ 1�a` �;�\ ry i nn t� �Fr�n "`V.. � � �y,•�o K �A\.\/yl�Y.,.r- YyKuav;i-^.''- "'. �, �s $ ,� - -{ xpa♦fit r dadC `Z 6 .'� Y,w -�y A)f'� a S' t +� .r^�»a.sV '14 rc t �_ � �. � \\\ d �AY.NriY/ ��&»1 `y �✓Vfr^'�r� � st'i�d� � �+ �'�,� saaunVaa w. pati�, '> � unKq� K'd s �a`A o 3• � a++"" �`.v' L rasa �.✓�:krw a � td A�lr� 1 �" v 4 w) J, s .+ amr � ltiYxav�v e3 Vvdic+• r a�� Y a � r "� ��s�'d �4� ` x`!d �' s g � 4 � IAkldix o.``cy t>•*rd„ � .dd � !'x` °t �4 <. '� iv,dan „ •kyy 'h� �`'Ay > ��rnw+�^"" L+•410 ,ty 1 ail { *�' yp � .. a ��' i +1 it 1 a. �,� My °y r e 5 s..• t i._._... t, 3� $ z ' r ,rt,'�'at,A��' ;a+�W ye }o�rrwasat 1111 '�� c r*�`� °y ~``` c,of� � ".. '. a d`�» s+w•�,, �` � ,y +V tawv"` r.,,y ma xa „ Ory 'na'+ °'ci g�' J o" %° �,��, as�sym a ra,�y�+� h."`S.� r'�k,, r �zttl {�r s•a° � ,,� € yt�•t' T ¢+J t .*` � x�+y \a"' °y� sry gr ..Y� �'% '�as.fig � a �C a� y5 1 EF i ea ` +� � � � C� � � � `' �W 'ted `� � � � 7• � �N � � . + 41-11 ✓ O OT to m � o m r, t n ��• A ' , t t L-. • Lyt � O., a� Li.C7 � C w k:, .0 ai n '3 a 1j, �.! a o b � v .. C7 u u -• o. � Fit tit `� �""' 7ti•� }' ..T +� q{ �• 4i � � � "" �N W L M m 7"1 tj tl: LAI �79 T a -° w V O Q u .A a °� L to 4 CJ U 45 vai � eu, � cCo ° L° uc ro ° vr ev' c '�' c ea H-a Cr csp ct a C1 t4 2 o o 7- Ci v 45 C6 °` u ro C�vs a yy G3 ar°at a u m C�7 cLc v uLU r Xv ol JAI t ` v .:. s • ggg u •fir d Boa 'i gni � c > `� � �"• 3� �.� � E �$� �`d� "a C)CL � > i iI w z co x � 0 'g u! a to bO ar o - ol on rosy boo �s3 ' o m S. czlC4 0 n ga5n � tyiYa o � aa � Yo cn s, }"` � r!1 7S a da�y:: C. * x • Q°' fa < b • u o m-" p� « d I r4 bn bo Un p G N y w n G c+i -K � � s'y6 �j C O ✓ S a cn '�► 4�i! � � izi V "� u u � � fl 4 u tAll NVA y ccnn 0 W o ,i. 66 6 rri y �t„3°?Y'w tea; V �� m� C7 �°•cs u us � � o A ci: �:, w rzto „ ,, ron o � � ca ! a.p o ° Cl 11 o Y Y U m ci efi {� z e U. e rt7 d W" 1 t y a •e O u ,,''c o u rn�n u 5 u 'barmy, •�• b y u 'C7 S7 y U .� •� .n � 'B.� b-8 U Ey u © ya vn y m v vol cn at y v �� p �d� � c a � y �•� � ii� v � o a a � c Y �� a s u7 C� ' u •E °Y a a u ti o � "• a mFL .i.s.e o o ? p Q. 'yr y i)•C 3�+ p'aS '�3 GS ay }• W Jp. p C 0-0-S U p 9 b0 G Gf el p y`ey 4 � ? u ?.W s 5 E ° ero oro c a79 s ca Ev e u �' •y u � trtr v � C g C 'C �o a U U� 9 .E X - cen g'o y m u v « n n 3 aC� g ua4FY y be gra o ffi o c ro 'tjf „J ci `°1 u.. y a"'� o m t� tL ti' .5 a .� �• m. .v ,�.'$ m rs�µ u a w ` 3 mbo e t4 .w &a o 'a o c .•�r ci d n: c > rw'�u E<a pE3 6 �-0 0 Eta 13 �o,�� y � � agy Ao cE c � m o y a u c 8 rim o o c > o v v t o c- •YIT E •n u u >'' ° •s � �e m o yy ,., �d n.- y m •�� E n "ro cn`�s eoi v:n m � c. � � $-� � �o AC q 3 ,�, v� � ab.5 � �� u .E Ly" E �" o• ".".'+,� Ci �� C d`O � U C o W''O y.�. py �.' 6 C t3 m'� � p� �� m O'v'�`�•p °wa 9 a .� ro � E � p - O 'U �U.,, ¢¢11 'U �•• Or C t0 Y „b.,�y CL 7� O W �V e}� U U #; p y eU.• • _v ^ G � 3 C o �� 2 ��0.� �� t�'� ��.��, 'a �•��. � uu n, •a 9� �.�� Wei ° x� � Q me h u E+ o o u a �+ g' O0 0 oma ° oy� a3 or � � o yZ.E0 = 0Oa U U ro i U.5 0 E U �' CY VJ E r c),ue s vn ti 'n e r .d b y on N a o eon mz .e o o £K a r��s > n E uroi e6 ,y 3 m u G U 6 > cb 7 Y 7c� L�, a O ��-,G 0 U y ID �Vy it b✓ � i4 �0 C�• O'� .�,,'y7 O.�.' b �� U v.WC R N fJ�. V`� tl),y..�u b b „. Cf. mw Z W ,.� Yj t °°4 E'�m 7Sc ro u U li 81 � E V E O b a d y ... 6 � G,p d '� � O � �U• /h� C�5 y w u p? _ u` ea w .`3•= fb 3 L dri E-i ''� +b � � �� •-�'� E o.�' H u $ K a a`,au a .pu. w w Y �� Z f4 U M Ji o+� E ai •a E .' = �7�s7• E t-� E p.' n' u ° s p O u E a D H h o a, u v a W u n c a a e a ai Ey is g w y y E ,�y`. � '�' C� " e. c, � 'v° °4u.� d �d c y.0� Gi 8 � d� �� .o.•� u > Uo u rs u sa`C v_ QO '9 14 +.•�W a;; °a c. R. E• H p.w0,d a d w as • E2-"1 2 51 -tit tit —3 15 g J:� a a 4) > A-a bO C to ol �r 0 *> o o Fla 2 v—S— G. 13 I v 1 �; i in Z 1E g 8 .—A — , ep� :a or, vo v-5C-oz ceti -z: e. > —cL a c4 o o cr 40 S—o o .5oe In" cn cbi ro 1R),o- m la o 'to 0 j2 0 4, 15 o— o Ri to u au a a n N A ,4) Z' Z -la S t! 43 1. — . 5 6 Z -4 o o.o Is> tin ILA 0 S Y CN F bO A ug -cl WI vr v %Ji..a .a is HK' 3tj R fB ubi a' R a 4.-r y�4..� 1 e� '� a G � �'� m.fi. u N ,�• u t .1 „� � y4 "' C U y y « � � tq ,LY a CL V ..rW • dt V M3 1•T n � � � w $� � � � � � U � a qi�r+� 3 N? Yah $ d w of yo V ^t V L VV Fu0 Y b Y L r 9 pry L � 1k I IN at u 6r a°:: w v a `a`• o s n aup Al, E ap'��U n V c n n a r mS7�pa �� h # � LU :BjWweuo� :aluawwo5 paw mj�w7C• OICU 'polop J.1-10 vita pslstdwoo C y pauue{d sauo�saiµu tsi�ry E�SdiTt4fi�`i1t�F -(sons)woods pus sswbojd'sassadans { ) a { ) sa 'siusutsnwgae sgcrnsep os;y '10=g'siro,.t yn sdms souotsatµu 'salsa uoua{dwoo Bul);asye saoualswndua,u sucalgwd egaosao) arpagas ua SulPaoDmud ci pofaid Stk3WW6� =3 f14 � N'tf J uolPTonP3 dll+3od!uol)aoylpoyy ions Bl�o>Sa}�lsanpruis-uo>J J MOR001ab 1 rt/n I rem1anns i t+Jo4aa / UOjpnlisuo:)1 ucryenaF3 J willslnboy /lsl—#a Bugn-ilii J spiepua{s PPV ssPOO! su!aid PGOW ul saassaaw aegasloxd ! golf ajosd spiMloM / sulseq gtgao J uotlalsgjOmm t luauuysggaysa:/mm)ted to mequeaSID 1 Idawasetiew PagwoiaM sd ty//psdg asea;d 481410 1 tiowON!q$is aPtsMH 1 uoiPagotd aivagsuaWIS 1 U002101201;u¢gwe83iS t uosFBatilgais lfoS :(Atddy lays A#alar"J)adAl po!wd :uollaw-I:asfa)d :*WON laotc+d #Sold - :N dE)VJH a'W3d 4 dONH 990 :eura/y aatuwBgns ""R-�� :r trru t vxv'��3t7'7bti3�33 U N > za p ;a xC u a to o b 00 ren o r e a, 41w .a . oOwl A IR a ea u ° JS 15 � .p u � � N � �� x5 G� fA •� ` jai 0 L4 iz7 f' u' 0 4A Jo cn Y^ v g � a cs \ 10, Zi , En run `a 4 r nDo C"Tcis „ 7s .. 04 u axe 3 ; Y a a ety w Yid u a a usv U o u Zk 5a ° 'all.�y YS �'� es �.s'.� s� wy '�''� � ��'.�o +� � �' � •off N 'M.+J •'��+y G} 31 ,q�j 'tY v 4 'rY S+ .[l D Kg7 ✓ N a��+{✓ yq iD O � •"o '{iib F Na. � �`u ��°.. o � f1 q '�L�' ��h1'� ••Y+U '"' o w9 " $ n �i -.tYip A-. ik o no tn N r x c7y w uo 8 i � Gr `arm• A �" 5 u"23 d v o tb •A qj t+/� id ?yp V ��+ Q V'+£S % pa rCT—,p v . 1d� " u yt� 0. V1 ✓ 4 tj Si +PLS "�, U �. ✓ �0A pss"•• �'y.n ISS "°• �. 1} ��' �8 �°�,, �a:'�� eggo 3• t +Gyyi \``•.. _ L.� 4�` �s.bn Gy s°� ° ' t ' 11) d �` Vil ;;Gyp} �,..� '�u:. � ,n � „�t� ,d �,,� " a c� •� �.�'� o a � '�. w 4 sa gy Mlk "0,13 y� p tl 4 w? q3 r O ° b �?' 9 '' ~ d "� � •��" � �-� tl dui y U �-�� W'� y ��p �-�. U v � °' III i f 'D 6 bb�aay aq, Na..•• Y} •Y to V` .s7 to •�Q l'w X35•� u � d � w ur G"` s ns .p[C��.i.•61Ef� G O �'�y w„„ � C i of au a V- -D a VE Ao glG � ��•.� �� sem..„u -9 �°'�,• � �,. a d > 'j,;o n'+ add �e wG ' � + �c � '� u Fwdis m p cs c USG Oil �yy Go v b « u r g on V o • �alr•Fi u fs 14A 31 , y{ � �t U 'C1' ✓N bD N•.� O�"•+63 '♦7 ta*° 111% • �✓a`{�� r G� "'3 p,u vi `� ��+ 's'% i/"' no- b 'a �ffiy ae ? p ita cr Giod � ® � � aYa °si�ys Ao' � ny + uo 5c sg bt O y1i' a ✓ a O K1 OG D t.GG Aa L+. U d 9 & u ' '.i3 got rssc 16 rr U pe � Sn �.• u��ss .c ✓; U , " t t- am > 04 ' n c 3� o� 41 �•a°' �.�"� �' a p•� u u asp � •.�w"�•�� i3.� � �H b n0�� ss u.sx taw �� C7 iii °w Gµ a ca sus 6 ° to o *' C ° Z`8 4�' id ffi 7 CS U y U U.U. /Sl Ry� O D U N u b u u° o amu o- t 3 u an �3 �+ ca3 > u °rouu ° c to i/'� � � � � �.,u� o As '�� cuo'� d � .may�-a�.� �•� ,� O s3 to p q U 4 O SL gy w t].,^ y L g u o 3 u $ u ny a "t n uossw :a o d ° `u �� +� � � 6S.0 c.-p +,Ca,may.,,� � 'in,.�•v p .�+ u G x q� p•v C; �o o � +,�nraG' ° w "- 10 E 4e et ' i ti w t` w�7 CwO" U R'�y,wi D ��rrp 't� t6 Ct ofi 0 - o� ao C .uuA• mQuu �' y,� � uc y' 4z xsxY �Y cim u ° a z CL1 s7,C . Oq w typ [i'Cui 7 .u.. 0�., ° t~.t _ ; Ca.V �"w •y� ni tVi u •+ u < G''s� u 6 ivy' > 0 3 u o u 6 6 •.O"2 rap O .S b d M • � n J'1 y NA calk tryc1 p, t a a s O tp t7 .d tl a ..� �- •.. g o 3�.pis it W � Y ti. t vola 1 �ti r IN ��`� wo Y W � r r 'e� r lit 1 \ a 17, � ul 1( k 6 ,,,1t' �, CL 1 H z [f(+T Pa>N> A44rr. ` ws�� tc tu �6.1723714y` +� r y � t f Dill i D_1)1) '61 .rv�s sa n1 t6 .� •�^ SWi _ qq tgdyy � U� u fir, -tf +�00 y t9 o1 0 O i � �o.o a'r �E" CJ ar �� Ki- t7d � ..LU00 41, rU 7 taro c aux $ l � N W 42 Uo O i5 G ee� o cw s" �;, v ` r''� I _ Y � " I t n a Bb Zee �u w � G+'o us •� y�, 5 ci O a ` .�a• Cu C? Gti O U �,"� m q3 yr� �r .n G• y' � A ttY LJ 6 U P, 4 Piz 1lV Ml p tl vn rook V--A r �t i'1"rl z 72 4 b awe + Ef a>•a 3 i, ro o 3 � arsn' S o°i d .d as c -0 - rs va d =d 'c_ ya a epi d " °c c a p. IWI '° pro. ° a 0 bhp m u u y SJU-- y N ❑Gi b D rg e3 o p yi�w•f' � p•m {C7 m ,co � W 6 0 .m w y w 31 b W m C V rj O 0.W .N w b •CR O y 17 IV. oo Id 6 U a u w nr > cu Ir t •� .-.. P-f '� {y grit r •, y to R N b C. •� � ,.��! � o y v sF •,y{{yy y b a d d3 rz •� .n '� t�. CJ � a✓ � � y C.^ o'� °� bG °' iu y - H 6i C7.'{],..�. Ai tai �•� H i bA F•+ �`'� u{ n, v°Ji H c.w 1�:� o- r r N Y '�' `tt et ej• u) to uJ SLJ tD J+ M CJ r N M LL] !�• M C*1 Q tD 1'� CA ttJ F� ECJ C53 fiJ +•• r r .- r .- N N N N N N N M c+l M M S Cfi � C C o a a o 90 < U- E _ c r.. � c tm O U o «• tl to m y o U F, vJ % o o _m a C c E ui u LL c Z Z C n m as f3 Un W c G f) t� _ O e O N A c o E c c m 1 CL 0 to z rJ C37 2 d Ll a 0.' d 2 � � LU t� c u ¢ t r� o is m w 0u •�" ads iet c N t1 Z m O rn n c E y H S ar n c n m tt� p m E 0 m > o c a o 0 o o m rn 45 a ol ra ME 4)C7 14 a d a ti rcn _. E :Q = c c M c a°i m m o < c 0 E 'EJ a d N E LY ,' s a w '49 V c e c e m o iU C til C o O 0 0 N CJ f0 m b 0 N C O C7 � > .4 i= c c c oe� C] L) ami 0 0 0C3 � L) in E E '� Z � cc Un z 15 a c� n a'U c c_. ccJ o a m c c cJ .aJ m ai aJ .y 0 aJ m 0 t) v1 u7 VJ (D . v � 0 6 a m m Im c p� •O Cl Q i1 a `O t7f tC U CJ•D O` O.�. .rte. ,.+ m •p E O c 'P' `� > } N tJ Q, tJ- dJ 0 0 �' fl- D �- L >... � a O 9J � C C � 'C At 5 � c fY '� e[ U- LL. J C7 '=C J LL a. 0_ a. ClJ {n VS rn iL <[ LL m LL1 LL! LL CL L) G3 ' d ,0 M '.0 7 Cs N t7N CJ 4 U) 6 h- m CSro thi r6 e{ ui D 1� C 01 - - r - r r N N N N N N N N r) 7 G ID 0 -Or- 0 cts 0 to At w z m J6 ID tr V; CE os r- 0 Ix s'01 0 TO as cr -0 ro 40) ur- 0) - iia t1yOR) (D Ta iii{ to V 0 V 0, US 0 :3 ;'j L Z -'F a > M m Cto m r- :3 0 rn tz'0to I" 0 to 0 ale) L) 0 ul '7A, 0 0 as M L, 0 E �'*'.=: o Z = co 0 ca CL -03 ' a w ui to r- 0 0 R 0 0 m .9 220) :5 t .6 0 0 cu U) ro4) 2:1 CL W W. "0 0 0 .2:, w m CL LL > 4) -0 r- r- a E r- m 4) > ro 75 — 4-a r- FE E w- 2 E r 0 U N rm- > 06 c3 a 0 0 CL— as CL = �a B T 'r :3 3: u F- E 0 0. to ez' > 0 W a: C; 0 o m m arm to ja 0 ?-15 In 0 ca Id 0 r_ x 0 00 0 ttY V3 = 'I I, wWa 4 * L 2 0 10 r: LU 10 .0 4) 0 0 CD Q-0 0 r- 0 4m W 0 lo dd om, 0,00 -0 Iz —�-0 A I Ags 0 (D 4Z 0 n� o'B�5 0 LU 0),G 0 E w 6) SZ in 0 r- x: 0 E 0 -0 - - tz —.- 0 A 0 7— - E4a ul 0 0 4) -- 'm o U to li n i; w - E 0 ca —0 LU C't e c 0 E�. In. S 0 400 SV,— 0 ul 4) 4) :t-! 25 0 z 'o 0 0 D1 rz.0 C5L 0 0 C14 Cl. c o CL 0 m cl. T- =- C:= M 0 - sy ul 0 0 -IRD It :g - 0 > Yu. M. to mase' o tu 0)0 '0 U 0 U41) 5" P'3 C, 45 4r _ '.r "_0 0 SS tn I'm 'D z E .0m 0, —0 v0d ..ate- .5 > 43 0 0) to LU C) 16 — , > to i � m 0) t 62 4 V-- iD 5—' 1 1=5 U, 0 tf) C 6 U3 E S 0 to • Cpm to c r-I o . ULu C: � , 5 � F" ✓ �.v G �� r d" .✓�G G os m n C3 49 4 •+ ��di p 8Y t0 � �� t1'r� � ,,, � u aCSrw t9 dU O o G p.• r �"` OT tC ra D, W Q b C� } 05 tS 70 0 s t4 Yt Ut W r t7 ..d j1 lU tl t!1 dfo G .. V 4 O u5 H f „ O © C7 a� 7Z (u n d 4 jz -S c5 xs Cp t 0, �, O W tom. m ul U fl Q CL Cl C ° G 4) io t y cC im ar a o CO S. d m •C2 EE EH '2 E� C O 11 m t� "t v d. C E O y` cv C 65 •C%. d m id U7 6, a Cl .1] b C3 ° m ��cr a I ° ao � C° 4 uS clL 2 C'C5 � d w a5 o o i w m E m f 8 Eria "° cw c o o- ° ° v +� °J a (=} cam Ch a C C C 115 Cl. RS ro LL 41 o`� E .ama mE me o y c U c si � m as 'a" m CM c a5 n ° s a o p i ..# € Y o ca to -2 o ° 5rrtm ° oma � a°5 � my m Q'► c Qm m e� C3 Q ° O� 0:2aMs pp W U C �» Q V' Y 7y g! C3 uj lop CL t•` t`d C C C M E E h e i 79 ° a E u m (� d E7 O ECL m 6) - E , o d s ca f fi c v ar i 6i z ` m a o+ 0 -S t; t� t 7 CC3 C CLqC} N N_ V7 iU ro SCS 6 L7 i6 (� C C, to w u�. 01 m1 L N w N c ° p E w �) C con LL 0 = m w C. aft V ! eEL �� E s i 7 iE La CL Lt oe }� ul E 'RC. B�GGYp o G p atr CL `a ��'{, `1i eta O ;Fi .ev oG� t— y i c ° > CS off. R ECD 4r a [l ja CL �j �` 4j. � V� try+,� � `✓ � C 3� ,��, � 1yC� 1ItI v t d Y LL n cy sY cit c`� se m' c6 v o E a`rnr i m 7t; p "" y 403 0 N b ` V t 0 .9 C N y iii v CL O O Q3 C} cJ N C {' fl. r A y y f R m i6 M OL r �7 75 tQ 7 p MO U Q� 5 U Cl iU I f-f .412 p C tL `0a c > a0i � d m a> � a J N v, to tt {n 1 72 (I 72 2 C yw y I 'S7 C 0 3m c IA p� v (0 y .. ( C y 6y 5 x ec�tl 3 ' ) CCL a 0 41 CL E mit 9� �. a � � CL c � `e- G O tit Cp w m �z � J1 '�(�✓'J`\ C1. ' JAW e 40 c C .> Y C to C � arN) LP ck �:. O C e rn % ani ' iii E y � s5 -SV c, c 72 A He E x 4D CL C3 a t7 0 IOUC 1t Cly . 'C G. a. L. CL Cl.06 ��1" + i 1>5 .� . Q W :L•' t}`tf `� !r +� ..yC+ 1�7CL O 1 t '� St t�6 f } S 1� GL testi �` y o _. _ ._. ..................................... fx LL a c c ca � > F• �Ij � r-O C %15 0 - w 2 taOL 9 c as 0 � L to tL in W v HiLluo L21 -cr S. U LL !IDSa L 0622 tisa eo ca esr � e° o m ro ' +� se;� ri � 0CL L� 44 , C 4 �, gEZ, 02— m� � ,� gF � F ui T` 1•- �` L 3: A •g i .L L Zi w �V 111444 v`7 9I # a 9 ° c ar410 cj i m E Is sa 0 m o d ,� 76 p v jos I O b •[1 t1 0 d C C C 0 d t � m o � . L3 � � rn �cCI- cr- cts M 0 c, CL CL CL ce O d 2 CL U 2 O c aLt' LAI. i ` ' •' gy U Ll .d T- ff GL D R ticco s I ;I t f i tl 1 i i Q n KZ n -I-r M OR se tk SS AM InO n t4 r �-1 tat e Y 16 00 IslaCb 20 men All le C6CL to Cb cLVE i La iib gay � C 6` � E A cv '�i v- L.L ti W C tt3 fiC 4 w. 1 4 n Z e 9i vto Q1 ato *. . c i 1 1 �- fn _ co f6 �- 1LY . fo C5. y jy pYy iryy� �- 44 �� f Lvca ^32 C � > .. tv 03 E ta ts m o, as ��Ytt 4 C p yp (fir m iL c 2 fey Gva IQ to .Ct tlf cc to m p m6L U) 0- CL tm Ev 45) >, cc ow to cr Ty 0 IV to m to 0 to LU 0 446 16 LU .2 ol t Lu 60" as 00 PC kA 0 0 ca to 41 -0 3 to 41 w AE! Com, � �y��' 1 � � •� ° ° t , �s o to to o .p t tit is Jo, y at �,c � � � •� chi � � �` `..°'� ,.' .✓ m .� °• � �= �-� gyp+n fir• �' ry aC CZ�. t> '0 2 a r. _ rs crr _ m M !ib•�•.. .� yf �' 8 � Q0 0 aco1 O 'D , is w�. m x '.4 at u'`+ e� &m� ° c ar c c2e -ew Das h ( 22 y.s c= m ads .. a ooi ma ° �"i02600 05 „+ ni1 ? ems "' 3 aC m 1 g' C) -IUD N y — at m mem = m � ° N r +� sn yam ° o ;' u. 1 �. �y� to vi m > Rf Q, V a..'sy., � ..�>a U 7gc is ,:2 ° b � yy Bey o > y '63 d3 s 7 117 � �a .•-' y � y il} (4y l7 O &i fl -0 U O v f7 t tlt `G O fC Aa NCc >. _ as c c ` +�, nt _ 'o ® ar u � is . ac .0 rim c 3 � � yr"nwo �a�rayi QJ Cl 6 tOti t1 a `C 1 t7 �' m ,•.,L� W vt m N e c r• . o I " C', �r=Z- - 1 2 .1 . . _, m - Sana � � a' 0� d h to V; 0 N 83 N ID w I r- EM4y og� a� toJ. -2 Sate t f e W x mw O tq Ct C1 6=�• N'[Y'mow '^ ' J Fes-•-`V Ell Ol cc n o� . ce�.2 ° E ,� at r a sL c an �y' m as Crcc u� mo w l oma—. ( I r° t2 to c � e � tm ° 1;7 73 {Cq1 m tm d _ at 4 CJ tZY U N i7 p m ��•yy �U C�S. 1{ SCI ( iU 'o tat Cn A 15 CL r�jJ 3 v as. at p Z3 m ut $ �+ d m � . r,7 O O is y 0 0 C� 7 e3. � y � L. 2 0 y m E>D �+ a sy m g) c v _ U, O X X Vt .G ° rat w _ tiS to co Q 4 � Zs3 ° � u. � � � c � X w � m 4t O 6 6 6 9. dt ui 1 Vy trA 1L Lt U.6l. i6 i7 0 c w O M y, r Q 2 to .r aci .6 ti -6 r .9 e c as a>1 � t •c� l +� a 1 =� as a w� t .�•° � as �"- '� ° ' �� , � ,v_, � �� a3 �+� SSS � a•-� �� $� °� o w � •rs '"" �� ao � +u•� 111 y � '" 1a• may' ° x � � x N T .y w t6 OSw ✓ 1 �j '' e^s 'ts v� m�" ✓� p � � k to �� -�a-�.+� f ''h � � � � �` .�+ �'CS t>y� 37 � i}� t7. •ry +l+ O. Na �' �49 '� {t! �a?} L'L ``Q' gi CD to 0 C- ,�, � � y O a �� G G {�,�.."" 33 Ut ,yt, ` O � a t6 •,� r yy sit tY .L]4. a• `'� a7 fl 't Eid U a U $ R c ol ° moo 1� r " cn m +N � moo✓ _ It o. res nz ' 1 410, c � m o c.. iG -16 cp rs ar W ca rt 01 6) ,w •�•o � aY s 1A 0-y -0 �- � � •� m cr.c D p � ti `� 6 ;. 0 m <3 :� � � 'Cps �� y• �' R G47 Gy 5 Lr 'Ct c 'm �cr m �c �. •+fin e� c�� _ � �� a � � � � �Hca .� as ��..�� O N ��•,�---, � �`� � � � '� C,� yn cr m � a:� t � " yarn `fir v L4 U `+ c ,� ar $ cGao O'S ca �C o o �trcGa rias c G � `cr +� •�ns o �r� � .sn � .' � � � m 4" c S o G dl it $ c o ar 14m GN fur o ar ar e • C3 i# � O G Ul C4 o 1 mGe ID �' t itar o 3 So ar } ca N o y iaorc r�wy t�3 16 ••, D •� 7 v f3• Is � Cyyt •�... „�,�... Go G 40 ' i _ Yi oyyr0 G GLY N Y v 7" til n airy}7 1 G ` y G 'ir 0'. A§40a- to m cr G is o 0 x= m ZZZ7.z zzxz 22 *222 .t 7 m a CL 0, 0 0 0 c ° � sx, ss � •�, a �' r " cu rc ' o c c yrs m o o s . tv ca. cci m 'Ec a , 0 - a �j aye cGac � ' m33 t:} gcccem 2c = °q�Yyc�a'Q. 2 ° a,� � u 5y S0 c a ° " �2P cm ° or to "CJ 4T w F �>f`. C Ci: ,t, e7 y, - 8 7,' .mow' Cri m S`t r W Cr w Vi .may l'1. m o � '"CS.� 0 �y A.cr 45 3: p- D m H tlo!}� •y ca % {fa E€i um ecs N Cl dl 15 °mss 61 tl 43 d+ y iL N C} qt 0§ i N c c 0.- o �' °1a O � Iz IDsra. gr 0. Q6 Cc row' _" cc Ot y ' a n • c v as c r EPU5 F. y a e'o i atm ws; cCc; ° 000 at c+ cs as m ` H rr l m {L O m o 0 g .-k �i ttl c CD m vs m ° cis acs K c `.� °� a µ etA ° ccsp? ad a' W ,�+�+t � �-mom� °(.� � � E � •�'� � � tr � rit ° "' ` « C,4 UJ ZZ zzz zz z zzzz zz .s.a-J .sJ ..l .f of.J „I..,1 7.2 222 *a � � a a a t►.o. n.ts- � c co CL 0 o c > m xr it ass43 ID dgm mts > _ a w c ns m c`f c y ui a c b m = os —' N •tsfm _ y m mmmjc o a cs m to man ss 0- to Vs of Vs 04)x sa ea cod' za � ca a"tet m >? eis c c awi ff .t.In cis tz in -E ewi a > c mea . .cm.. w e cir`0 tL a w of •ct`v ¢s o� m � to St'fir,„ ® C '0 d1 1,, f � a > w Wit`.' d; � e'3 � �b � � " o'. � atai msZ o ° cciR � m :n3: cc xr rmmS mcg CJ aXt s1 N `' 'U D U 0 3:. 5 " 1... >+ !i it if 2f } `c_6 O y to tit N D ill w > ••ss{fIr en V •• {33 tam 4) N tiry x�+s tYl i?'. N .J w t+i C.) M CZA C? zz zz .3 CL CL g Tl fZ Li 0 Cl df U � C tv m Cf C— to S C t�.ff in o Llf 65 C V tffi O' D 0 [a CD cu m ` CO ` O m m ig , o mvta � c � fo 12 10 c a'mC o 'm �`� mCL a w a t� y a + o 0 0 aG ° may o � iat7 $: o 'cf o is 2 m e ra C7 ,�_ f t s: p �s a y _ :, •*.2 ra fir. m m a its ��_ cu ria " $ c ya o �,.tho u ffi m �+ O y N y O R ;y 6f xCxf {l, tl, ..f Z .t7, w rw. �ifa 0 � sn 0 ZG �� w gy '� K w 47 m L "%�. co a. it tl 3t 1t Gf YC34 �XX u t �' .G bCS @ {ja > e.ri env to(D 4 rr Lu a c» r,cif CNN v zzzzzzz zzz zzz z z zz ISNESSMS ESE Nam 2 2 22 i� c &&CL a a.a a. a.a.ci M a'a. a a. a a. �? o M CL to G C: ZO i✓ O � (�t�� II i� 4Y � Cll � tU CL b •� _ Qt Cs7 -C ID L2. O Ct YrGt ,0 m t ori a ax 0 as > ri 2 v CL � s on 0 0 5. m w E- V C- ci u m t ttf CL e = y>� >. aver jc4) a t. uv � c«�sa n �„� r a 12t c car W cs :g urE o c m o m� E is c c E tx s c aoiitt y U e$ o o a ai c m is �=ta{,°-rncoi�szs.4rn cq� o a coxes p--2 ar o o W t2 CL -j Z iIJJ C cs v�-0 to an 0.m +� ams > rt {t it n to y c� r� ° `° w� �,c c� a � m C UJ n 1Z �x a u0M � a-6toa M 40 �u t�1tl r� U ati c i 6. tri th tri tci r-: 5 to txri C; tai d M .t U)U9(0 0 cc to d to to tD U tt9 ED P,#l. t` I- z zzz z zz zzzzz J .1JJ _1 .JJ a j -i-i-i a Nam 2 � D p a. a.CL a. a. a.a. px a a. a.0.a. a h• D rn � rn 1 m t.. �+ (D ax o 0 o Z iii ° a C1 a c� of epi m Z ds� > Uer t; es ca o apx o a > o 0 L7y ry U U N y, (ry o o.t2.CEL .9? �ywy E E E Q 'dz' o r tix 0 a CL C7 mtstv>c . H " ° tactic `xh m � taa � to w Ar0caEgts a ear to d CL S -2 v ra ?xm° o v toE Q ° p- o ° opo rs > a s4= c m > : far y to tt xr rr u o a 1 2 H � rn ° a .cz a " s + a �' � a toy o Q a° 0P�i e � m a ' iiaoti 0 a cri 4 to (L C5 U) to t{pp CV U V S K t (L 6 rn Ute?LO MCS UUl) IL CL C I iz I I ECL i to m tr d a t; d R I e a 0 � I �' � w �fE 10 c { F f &m m ' air m a 0D I C us L' m = C C 20 0 c .2 a C UCL CLoal: >0 Im LL C 'W 7J1 CA �i ilf Q. -t6 C7 `vi m a�pp'c E o w m 1 U Q> { G �. t=L Qi t1 't r QT 7 m m m � p .N p m I i a > O t7 C ,� C _ tlf 4y O > y } is a a-a CL 'Fa co o m yi N > m E c O N H ru CL. N 5, D MA FZ 72 ht m T $ al vt asw U- 0- C3 i i N I a st a o wm 05 c c sOL IL i ( m m c ° m a 'Eo p � { CPT d ciCL s ca �' oc4a � oa > �� ac �lea E w t ; C1 l0 w 613, vm ID coo oia ° c `m cd°im m �+ s c itt io g m E m m o ° arm m U E +� o t°"> m o 9 aamEE 111 _E Y cc yrs o ai ¢+ 'CaEEt ash i Z5 5 w m� o o b u`�b C o v o w me 16' c eE m Cf! C1J o O � a`� 0 c °1 s d I a C m me m 6 m e5 m o 0 0 m :.. . W g m -a > u c , B al - U, GS 'Q O N C M-`'L aiit+^V! C fl.tU 9. M > est it it if y ar H c �E .� `E ? ;g as C p ��, � �a dZ ° `-as �= Er� Nr m E N m a _ ' c CIA cmi C.) r`�' rt°_ n m C . • a`Cc ZY In w cet a cin os 10 w �= C t _ tis =41 i a0 'a Nno. -41 ro to I- my + "$ m ar Jr 5 0 ,� w :1 M ! C75 �� Oi Y+G m a a O v ro m a o 0 m1 ID OfCt ! ! c ° row ZCry S* ay ,figg q a. OJ ti3 .` z wro tJ +�+ �Ew ea � c 43 CD w w j ( z 0f O estCD y o to `fir CL C R � N N X 00 Y•' LDS i G? .0 Ci SY U Cc tm 41 0 O j hl Q7 CL cino q fi a I s o mai C y� .. zzw to QC C} 0 u (C: 0 U) - � to :�, o d CL cto tv CL f.7 ! w c _ y > u rn a.rs Q ie m Cori U 1y i y' m Cori G7 t tv A+6 0 .4 ar ti 8i 0 `p eq ,�N� _ti 0 C7 41 0 � ^v IL ro t gG 0 6 t? L7 w co — C '�� G .0 a'- v E o [1 0 CL � f- mto m �' cages . ® ui z¢ E c w c' ° ar m m ett¢ ryra a � w an Lc $ m o E 50) t< _ 0 <At -6�� ° A w a o� � c -1=' ' =�u m 15-a . < 0 O ro arm o r i c y ;°�� arn me a y c � ra_Z.-8 `tea rn c � tx c o �as . -mo $ c � � Ham m w C} {y C7 C y{JJ 0 a N- C 1 2 -0•,j --y•R)�. .y}'� L— �W5 e (S `pN0 imr�r mm.c�� gv' �• cc y � mv � N ewe N 0 2 L` w E aA C.0 8 m`"" w.• D'SJ _ •C m y -4) A � ° t7 � 17 is Is _i2 -ti iG a `� a O a OC fmi n C C C CC3 y m C tS m C C Z m i l vy m W 0 im.4 °o m is c m o ° ° t w at° m o +n a t5 0 ,� v^ 3 m c" yr m w 3 C L ttS a1S m tb Cit E,x iQ , 0-CL ti c `o� 3 aoY20 ` >mo� �.Oro mc3 Fc y � � V,��L ° v ° �awscca�c `a c oma ° � cr 0, ciw � C C,N y - obW_ 'S o L ' C E Cu C t c 4vRQw ° E, 0Gl . • LD m � w rear # _ ° nasa`smr� «rc ° ' t 10 Em ti Ems E` w � � c �s � N r' ovE . E aw Ecw © c c m e c m Lj o °�" v .�- V K �i4 1 t6-a&d v °tr7 S a m s a{ LC m Q m co ° `w m 3 F� u r-- to c Nori °i r r w to 0 Etl7 tvn � n ao ME ay w 6 0 ` II.4 16 ai m �. `N al a} `L QY ww 'm b m C jC C Y t�31 U 5rC 'ymj v 0 �0 C.y Q. CL G 0 Nq . vCLmvi m �� E• v c mw dro � �C E r � tav3 m c rnE m s E 1 e� `asoa - m m m W ZA acr w -0 a mm to N O y G tti m C p C T N O 6 w .p tty? C p a tb Q 4 2 C y G m fa. y m fie-7f I.0 C �` j' QY,y C v `O tab L YS 43 IICl N a w M toiC4 i) m LL W flM C m 4' y m m d 7 [ef C• 'C t1 Lam.., U m w tm i? � ti+ a m � CL:,D'° a`r a°r o 3 mono m 2 ti m 4, a m E cae a� ytaes ar "' ca _ Ed a ° r» am 72 CL-0 � m�m c mEm Euo s CLQ �i° � m � Ny �am= � c � 0 O O tib.. w G m m� w Fsvii 2' C5 (D .' CW y Z Cc 3 c�7 Ct.awi v C`4 U N a C1 �! [B m "" p� m C.L 97 Ck. C3 .'mss y� d �G' m `mo� �4ycw � =' eayw � � m wba H m`rz a 'c3 c `o nr '+� i e rr $ m m o m r Q I �r w Era c E� +n m m w m td m E y .m c c .Z a a c � a � 72 0 m c°3.a �' ?gX � t3� .° •°c ca u' o v °� si.c m � �y E d y� ° mow ° too �saas �omma"i �� oam m m _ � L1tn15 cc ag ° ` rsfl }s ourCL uas 39 m .sm 19 y mU) ° `ccm � C CV £1 Z ® m d QCe� o- v ers is v 10 a m G n 0 40 � G 11 O w� i. m O � 0) e c G C S O _ i0 '�•• $ '$Cis„ "7"' eg�'� •�_ '; ',;-• N d•f3? � 3.+ � 7�'�``3 iB� � G• 4" w W ✓r '' � .fir � O i�C � CrY tjy � 'Q � ��yb �+r• � tlT P^l � t� ._. co �M •� �� 3 �$y.��'b.mss � p •�„ O� �� O SSS � �.� 'p �,'y 2 40 0 ' -Z—0 � � � 0 d 20 �= s s '�� vera rya 3r� v,itsG � c uY!6 ve0 �.^�' %m t� its .y� C amps G g �y ..fl.t3. rs cs . c ci �a esu ur ar +u G� io ca ° mor _ tour , - �, � +� asstYv � oa � frit ca ❑❑ o T tj0 S � c� a O' 0? O N C7 w '@ t O C y, O r G. m r � a.S as U c am' u ca„ G � ts. � s� CAD w � � �p r�� 'G •G' �_ ��✓�G �'�-� G tt+ G 61 Tis�� CJ dt"x+41 � �S ��y *y tl 7 � ;r, to _. _. _ _ _ _ ........................................... MY 13 - Ju{ 2O -Jul 27 Au wi 8 -iLi Name D—doa 5ah.dW dSort Sah.duW FinWL T W 1" F S S M T W T F 5 S M T W T F 5 5 M T W T F 5 i Raeaiva FundingId WII-77 1-.OU. 911197 S:OOpm 2 Pcepara F(ana and Speeifia.ti 25d 912197$:130am IMM S:OOpm 3 1xt Fi.ni for Sod 2Od iOn97 B:OO.m 13/3197 5100pm. d Ranrd Com.= Id 1 1.3115197 SeOO.m 1ll18197 S:OOpm i 5 Nat1..to Pm.a.d 14 12J31978-.00 m 12131975:0Opm d - Cnnatcval Proj.at 60d 1214197&DO.m 225148 5 Mm !' August 10 yAugu.t 17 Auguot 24qugwt3t� Se unlhmr 7 Se t.mbu 14 S+ptemb+r 2 < ..5 M T W Y F 5 S M Y W T F S S IMIT JW.JT F S S M T W T F F S S M T W T 5 3 M T W T F SSS M T W T I 3aptemhar 28 Detaher 6 OcLabar 12 Datab.r 03 I O tabs 26 November 2 Ho F I S 1 5 M IT W T F S5 M T W T F 5 5 M T W T F 3 5 Mj Y I W I T FFT 5 S M T 1 W T F 5 5 M T W Y F S S M T I I mbar S Nmramb+r Sfi Novambar 28 November 30 Deae.m6ar 7wmb+r 74 December 21 W T FIS S M T W T F 'S S Im I T lw I T I F 17 5 Im I T lfwll T 1 F S $ Mi T IWI T I F 1 8 S!M I T IWIT I F I 5 5 IVIT JWJ T j F S S i I December 28 Januarg4 Janu.r 11 :Laus 18 Januar Z5 Fsbru.r 7 Ftbrua 8 M T W 7 F S S M T W T F 3 3 M T W T F 3 .3 M T W T F S. S M T W T .F 3 5 M T W T F S S M T W T F _ _ - - I I F.bruar 15 Febru.r-22 March 1 March 8Mrtah f8 March 22 Muth " T W T'F 3 S M T W T F'5 S ,M T W T F 5 3 M Y W 7 t: S S M. T W I i1 I I 1 Prcjxct: CAU.0 oro req t Dau:7116197 $ 6ammarq Narxnbiaal� h{ifeatane •� R.ticd CTP WEST COUNT'S WASTEWATER DISTRICT 2910 Hilltop Drive • Richmond, CA 94806-1974 A Public Agency Telephone (510) 222-5700 Fax (510) 222-3277 October 30, 2003 Darwin Myers,Project Planner Contra Costa County Conurvanity Development Depmtr�cnt County Administration Building 651 Pine Street,4t'Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Subject: County File No. SD 01 —8533 (40 lots) Near Manor Road and Marin Road, El Sobrante (APN's 426-210007,426-182-001,017 and 426-192-005, 008) Dear Darwin Myers: The West County Wastewater District(WCWD)appreciates this opportunity to comment on County File No. SD 01 -- 8533 (40 lots) The wastewater service is available for this proposed development to Project Sponsor subject to submitting and complying with the following: 1. Sanitary sewer plan has not been received. Contact the WCWD staff regarding possible point of connection and possible off-site improvement required on existing downstream sanitary sewer pipelines. 2. Submit two(2) sets of Tentative Map, Geotechnical Reports and Grading Plans for WCWD's Board approval. (Fees will be prepared upon submission of tentative map, grading pians and Geotechnical report). 3. Submit two sets of Improvement Plans and Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate for sanitary sewer main extension for WCWD approval. The sewer main construction permit must be obtained from the WCWD prior to start of construction. (i.e. 5%of the sanitary sewer construction cost) 4. It is Project Sponsor's responsibility to construct sanitary sewer mains,laterals and appurtenances to the nearest available existing WCWD facility. One hundred Percent(100%)performance and maintenance bond to be filed with WCWD for sanitary sewer main prior to start of construction. 5. Submit Grant of Easements for all sanitary sewer mains intended for dedication to the WCWD even within dedicated street rights-of--way. Such easements shall be a minimum of fifteen(15)feet wide and twenty(20) feet wide where the depth of the line is in excess of ten(10) feet deep. Paved access shall be provided to all manholes and rodding inlets for maintenance trucks. BOARD MEMBERS Leonard L. Battaglia Alfred M. Granzella William S. Oliver Georqe H. Schmidt Paul C. Soltow, Jr. BOARD ATTORNEY Alfred A. Cabral 6. Sanitary Sewer Connection fees for forty(44)single-family homes must be paid prior to the inspection and approval of the building sewer laterals. Fee estimate will be prepared upon submission of plans. 7. Obtain a permit for each building from the District prior to the inspection and approval of the building sewer laterals. 8. WCWD approval is required prior to finalizing permit or prior to granting certificate of occupancy. Sincerely, PAUL WINTNICK.I, PE DISTRICT ENGINEER Ey MAY K.K.ATARIA Senior Engineering Technician PLD W/AKY,:ilm-b __. ........ ............................................. �'�armtea an Aacyclda Pgpar City of Public Services Department Engineering Division December 16, 2003 Darwin Myers Community Development Department Contra Costa County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4"' .Floor North _ Martinez, CA 94553 SUBJECT. COMMENTS ON PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SDOI-8.533 This letter is in response to the initial study prepared for subject subdivision. The findings state that the grading of this site could have potential impacts on the environment. For the record, the City has observed numerous landslides in the El Sobrante area. For instance, Park Central, the main entrance road into the Hilltop Green subdivision, has experienced landslides and stress fractures in and along the right-of-way. The City has also been involved in at least 2 slide repairs within this development. The geology of this area needs to be thoroughly examined not just for the stability of the development but for the adjacent areas surrounding the proposed development. As for the hydrology, the City feels that this proposed development would have an impact on the existing drainage facilities. The Hilltop Green drainage system was designed to handle the runoff of just its immediate area. To our knowledge the system was not designed to accommodate any future developments. Further studies need to be provided to assure impacts to the surrounding areas are minimal. Because of these two issues and the traffic impacts, the City would like to see, at least, a focused EIR to thoroughly address these areas. RICH DAVIDSON CITY ENGINEER. RD:gd 14071 Marina Way So., Richmond California 94804 telephone: 510-307.8091 fax:: 510.307-8116 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LUCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 651 Pine Street,Eighth Floor•Martinez,CA 94553-1229 (925)6464090•FAX(925)646-2240 La fc= COMMISSIONERS ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS EXECUTIVE OFFICER Helen Allen David Kurrent Richard Hartke City Member Public Member Public Member A:NNAMARTA P'ERRELLA Federal Glover Dwight Meadows Millie Greenberg Supervisor Member Special District Member .supervisor Member David Jameson Rab Schrader George K.Schmidt Special District Member City Member Special District Member Gayle B.Uilkema Ban Tatzin Supervisor Member City M4V*er DATE: October 27, 2003 TO: Darwin Myers :: Community Development Dept. 4t" Floor, N. Wing FROM: Annamaria Perrella, Executive Officer i SUBJECT- NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION — SUBDIVISION 8533 (SD018533) Thank you for forwarding the subject document to LAFCO for review and comment. The proposed project consists of a vesting tentative map approval to divide 10.00 acres into 40 lots at 4823 Hilltop Drive in the EI Sobrante area. In reviewing the project description and Initial Study, LAFCO isn't listed as an agency that will be requested to grant any discretionary entitlements in conjunction with the proposed project, so no comments are required. Again, thank you for forwarding the document to LAFCO. ..................................................... EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT November 20, 2003 Darwin Meyers Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4`� Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Meyers: Re: Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt A Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration— Subdivision 8533 (Hillview), El Sobrante East Bay Municipal Utility District(EBMUD) appreciates the opportunity to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Subdivision 8533 (Hillview) in El Sobrante. EBMU'D's Argyle Pressure Zone, with a service elevation range between 0 and 100 feet, will serve the proposed development. EBMUD owns and operates distribution pipelines in Hilltop Drive and Marin Road, which provide continuous service to EBMULD customers in the area. Modifications to the street that require pipeline relocation or replacement will be at the project sponsor's expense. Main extensions, which are also at the project sponsor's expense, will be required to serve the development. When the development plans are finalized, the project sponsor should contact EBMUD's New Business Office and request a water service estimate to determine costs, conditions, and options for providing water service. Engineering and installation of new and relocated mains often require substantial lead time, which should be provided for in the project sponsor's development schedule. If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Marie A. Valmores, Senior Civil Engineer, Water Service Planning, at (510) 287-1084. Sincerely, Marie A. Valmores Senior Civil Engineer MAV:NJR:sb sb03 319.doc 80 vc„x< 375 ELEVENTH S7REE7' . OAKLAND CA 94607.4740. (570) 835-3000 1+3,7]b03 EAST SAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT y March 11, 2004 Darwin Myers Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4£' Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Myers: Re: Intent to Adopt A proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration—1+823 Hilltop Drive, Subdivision 8533 (Hillview), El Sobrante East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) appreciates the opportunity to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Subdivision 8533 (Hillview) located in El Sobrante (County File No. SD018533). WATER SERVICE EBMUD's Argyle Pressure Zone, with a service elevation range between 200 and 375 feet, will serve the proposed 40-lot development. EBMUD owns and operates distribution pipelines in Hilltop Drive and Marin Road, which provide continuous service to EBMUD customers in the area. Modifications to the streets that require pipeline relocation or replacement, and main extensions to serve the development will be required at the project sponsor's expense. When the development plans are finalized, the project sponsor should contact EBMUD's New Business Office and request a water service estimate to determine costs, conditions, and options for i providing water service. Engineering and installation of new and relocated mains often requires substantial lead-time, which should be provided for in the project sponsor's de"velopriierit s hcdl7k. WATER.CONSERVATION The project presents an opportunity to incorporate water conservation measures. We would request that Contra Costa County include in its conditions of approval a requirement that the project sponsors comply with current County Landscape eater Conservation Guidelines. vsgxs 375 ELEVENTH STREET. OAKLAND . CA 94607-4240. (5101 835-3000 1923 20 Darwin Meyers March 11, 2004 Page 2 If you have any questions concerning this response,please contact David S. Rehntrom, Senior Civil Engineer, Water Service Planning, at (510) 287-1365. Sincerely, WILLIAM R. KIRKPATRICK Manager of Water Distribution Planing WRK:ESC:sb sb04_06I.doc ___ _. ...... __ __........... ................................................... EL SOBRANTE VALLEr ;� PLANNING & ZONING ADVISORY COM I 'T P.O. BOX 201.36 EL SOBRANTE, CA 94820 December 4; 20013 Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Dir. By Fax & mail Community Development Dept. Fax: 925-335-1299 651 fine St., 4`" floor NORTH Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Extension of CEQA Comment Period SD41-8533, Subdivision in El Sobrante area Dear Catherine, Thank you for granting us the time extension for comments on this project. 1 do have at least one detail to check on. Originally, the Zoning Administrator was to hold a hearing on Monday, Jan. 5, 2004 to consider the adoption of the Proposed Negative Declaration. Is that hearing date still in place or will it be moved in order to give Staff time to review any new documents that are sent in? Please confirm the planned hearing date on this item. My fax number is 510-758- 7697. Thank you for your time and patience. Sincerely, Eleanor Loynd ESVP&ZAC Chair EL SOBRANTE VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING ADVISORY COMM'ITttf P.O. BOX 20136 EL SOBRANTE, CA 94820 November 23, 2003 Darwin Myers, Planner Community Development Dept. CCC Ad. Bldg. 651 Pine St., 0' floor NORTH Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Subdivision SD01-8533. Adequacy of Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Myers, This Committee finds that the Initial Study and supporting documents regarding Subdivision SDOI-8533 are flawed and do not meet even a minimal level of acceptance upon which the mitigated negative declaration can be based. The lack of complete, comprehensive, information on various topics is very troublesome. Summary Statement: Based on documentation presented here, this Committee recommends that a focused environmental impact report be required for, at least, the review of wildlife, drainage, traffic, and soils problems. 1. Biological Resources (Wildlife): -Missing Document: Monk & Associates was to do a peer review of various biologic studies and to identify potential impacts and mitigations measures. "The letter report prepared by Monk and Associates is presented in Appendix A."-This quote is from page 10 of the County's Notice of Public Review & Intent to adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Subdivision 8533. NOTE: Appendix A was not included in the named document as sent out to residents. -Wildlife Corridor: There is no comment or review of the Garrity Creek Wildlife corridor. Neighbors mention deer, skunks, raccoons, and even a coyote, now and then, make use of this passage way. No information is included in this report on the effects of the housing project on this wildlife corridor. We feel that the biological report was flawed. We feel that the wildlife corridor users were not properly charted and evaluated. 2. Hydrology& Water Quality: The documentation and presentation of information on the drainage patters as well as the review of existing drainage problems on adjacent sites is woefully inadequate. No mention is made of the flooding that typically occurs, after heavy rains along Hilltop Drive between Manor Road and Aspen Court. The city of Richmond has sent several letters to the County over the past few years. However, they have been unable to locate maps/drawings of the drainage plans for the 500 home Richmond subdivision (Hilltop Green) which is adjacent to this proposed subdivision. Hilltop Green is at a lower elevation. ESVP&ZAC Subdivision SD01-8533 11-23-43 page 2 (Hydrology & Water Quality continued) I was informed on Nov. 17, 2003 that the Richmond Public Services Dept. staff, Rich Davidson had just sent some drainage information to the County. However, that information was not reviewed and/or evaluated before the Negative Mitigated Declaration decision was proposed. In addition, the County did not send a copy of the revised plan for SD8533 to Richmond, nor did they send a copy of the proposed negative Declaration to Richmond Public Services Staff for their review. Rich Davidson informed me that the County Flood Control District should have information on the Garrity Creek flooding problems in the downstream Richmond Hilltop Green subdivision. "The County Flood control District has indicated that it has no knowledge of capacity problems on the downstream reach of Garrity Creek.." (`Phis quote from page 23 of the Proposed Mitigated negative Declaration report by D. Myers.) "...no flooding problems are known to FEMA between the site and 1-80." (Quote from page 24 of the Pro. Mit. Neg. Dec. report by D. Myers) FEMA staff not only knew about the flooding, they helped pay for the repairs in Hilltop Green. (See attachments 1 and 2) For your information,there was a horrendous flood in Hilltop Green in early 1997. Water backed up from under the freeway and flooded part of the 500 home subdivision. The lift station for the West County Wastewater District was flooded and inoperable. FEMA put in about $200,000 to repair and improve the lift station. "It should also be recognized that according to CEQA, the duty of the project is not to solve existing problems. However, the project is not allowed to aggravate existing problems." (Quote from page 24, PMN Dec. Report.) Therefore, according to CEQA, the County is required investigate the existing problems in Hilltop Green to determine how or if the drainage off Sub. 8533 will aggravate the existing problems. There were lawsuits filed in regards to the flooding problems in Hilltop Green. It is important that the County review the drainage system novo in place in Hilltop Green to determine the impact of the increased drainage from the new subdivision on the existing system. If the adequacy of the Hilltop Green system is not determined and the County lets the project proceed, would that involve the property owner and the County in a lawsuit if Hilltop Green suffered from drainage problems? Obviously, a determination should be made as to the amount of increased water flow from the new subdivision and a determination should be made if modifications in the storm drains downstream in Hilltop Green are necessary in order to avoid flooding. Note; Planner Darwin Myers stated that the wastewater connection to the new subdivision would hook up at Manor Road and would not go through Hilltop Green. A conversation with West County Wastewater Engineer Paul Winnicki brought forth the information that the wastewater connection from this new subdivision would go through the Hilltop Green lift station. More information is needed before this subdivision project moves ahead. It is a reasonable assumption that the wastewater treatment requirements for the new subdivision could result in the needs for additional storm water drainage facilities. Will the West County Wastewater District capacity be able to serve this new subdivision? n r"T ESVP&ZA+C Subdivision SD 01-8533 11-23-03 Page 3 (Hydrology & Water Quality continued) A focused BIR could require the calculation of the capacity of existing storm drains, the amount of existing water discharges, and the determination and calculation of the increased run off with the new subdivision in place. 3. Transportation/Traffic: The County Neg. Dec. reports that potential traffic impacts were studied at the intersection of Hilltop Drive with Renfrew Road, with Pebble Drive, and at the proposed project entrance. No studies were done to show the impact of traffic from the subdivision at the more heavily used intersections of Hilltop Drive with Manor Road, with La Paloma Road, with the Hilltop Green entrance, and with the 1-80 interchange. Hilltop Drive is one of the main access points to El Sobrante Elementary School and to Juan Crespi Middle School. No detailed information was provided in Mr. Myers' report on the dates/times of the traffic study. Was the study done during the am or pm drop off or pick up times for the local schools? Was the study done on weekdays or weekends? Was the study done on a school holiday? Traffic backs up for 3 or 4 blocks at times along Hilltop Drive because of the traffic. The traffic study is woefully inadequate. It needs to be done again. The new access street is Marin Road. There has been no information on that street. It is a typical narrow county street with no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. Planner Mr. Myers has said that the developer would not be required to put in any improvements on Marin road. That is totally unacceptable. Marin Road would serve as a main, pedestrian exit from the site to the close by El Sobrante Elementary School on Manor Road (about 1 block away) and Juan Crespi Middle School on Loma Linda(about 2 blocks away). Because this access was just added to the revised plan, it is also possible that the County Fire Dept. did not review the steepness of the Marin Road access nor the adequacy of the street width for fire access. Parking is often on both sides of the street with a single lane left for through traffic. No study has been done on the need for a right turn lane or a left turn lane at each of the proposed Hilltop Road entrances, near Renfrew Road and at Marin Road. 4. Geology and Soils: We have no confidence that the information collected on the site geology and soils is complete and/or accurate. At least 5 landslides have been identified in Hilltop Green, the adjacent subdivision in Richmond. One of the reports mentioned landslides on the property adjacent to the new subdivision. The existing soils study has been challenged by neighbors who say that no "core" was established in the slide area. Bedrock was "assumed" to be there. A 35% water content was found in the upper slope areas. At one of the meetings with the property owner, he said that our suggestion to require that each driveway incorporate the use of materials that will allow surface water to drain through it to minimize surface water flow could not be incorporated due to a liability issue. It is our understanding that the County is now suggesting that these types of driveways be incorporated into new subdivisions. We request that this suggestion be reviewed by staff. ESVP&ZAC -Subdivision SDOI-8533 1.1/23/03 Page 4 (Geology & Soils Continued) It is our understanding that only 3 of the 5 parcels that make up this subdivision were included in the Geology Study. We request that County staff check out that information. If any parcels were omitted, the study should be done again. The geotechnical report was done in April 2001. Should the County have required an update? There were also major flaws in the process. The Hilltop Green MOA sent letters to the County and attended a meeting with Mr. Myers and other residents in Martinez. The County did not send them a copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Richmond Public Services Dept. staff said they had not seen a copy of the revised plan. They were not sent a copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Final Comments: The report recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be granted is 34 pages long. That, of itself, is an indication that there is a lot of information needed and a lot of mitigation suggestions which must be followed if this subdivision is to be built without having dire consequences on the neighbors. Because of the missing information and of the quality of the information given, we respectfully request that at least a focused EIR be required. You are welcome to call me at 510-2.23-6398 or fax me at 510-758-7697. Thank you. Sincerely, Eleanor Loynd, Chair cc: Sup. John Gioia Mayor Anderson & City Council Hilltop Green HOA ESMAC E.S. Chamber of Commerce May Valley Neighborhood Council Friends of Garrity Creek Hilltop Neighborhood Asso. Rich Davidson, R. Pub. Serv. Dept. Paul Winnicki, Eng. WCW District Attachments: 1. 3/18/98. Letter from West County Wastewater District Engineer Paul D. Winnicki to R. Merritt, Maintenance Supervisor, CA Dept. of Transportation, East Bay Region. 2. 5/1.9/98. Letter from West County Wastewater District Engineer Paul D. Winnicki to Ms. Brenda Bryant, Hilltop Green HOA. w , t� WBST. CCU NTY W NAT B R B ISTRICT ASTIV 2910 Hilltop Drive Richmond,CA 9+4806-1974 A Public Agency Telephone(810)222.6700 Fax(5101222.3277 March 18, 1998 Randy Merritt, Maintenance Supervisor State of California Rept,of Transportation,East Bay Region P.O.Box 337 San Lorenzo,CA. 94580-0337 Subject: 1-80 north of Hilltop Drive,Richmond,California Dear Mr. Merritt: As you are aware,a stream known as Garrity Crock runs under 1-80 through a 72-inch CMP approximately 1400- fect north of Hilltop Dr. in richmond,CA. This stoner drain became a concern during a storm on January 1, 1997. At that time,the outfall on the west side of 1-80 was obstructed by vegetation and silt,resulting in over S 160,000 of flood damage to a West County Wastewater District(WCWD)wastewater lift station located in the Hilltop Green area on the east aide of 1-80. Discussions with you and City of Richmond personnel during January, 1997 lead to the partial clearing of the outlet by City forces in January, 1997. You may recall that on January 10, 1997 you and Mn Steve Damm,WCWD District Inspector, visited the site. At that time an area of severe erosion had begun in the interstate embankment just above the outlet for the 72-inch diameter storm drain. This erosion was and is contributing to the blockage of the storm drain flowing under 1-80. Recently, during the week of February 2, 1998,while performing routine monitoring of the area during a heavy storm period, it was observed that this erosion problem has not been corrected. The soil in this arta was being eroded very rapidly and appears to present a high likely hood of a major landslide on the 1-80 ernban ancnt that could completely plug the 72 inch diameter storm drain. A potential landslida and/or heavy erosion at this area causes great concern to WCWD because of the impact flooding could have on the District facilities at Hilltop Green. Due to the critical narure of this storm drain system,the District is requesting that you survey the situation and take corrective action as soon as possible. If you have any questions,please contact Mr. Steve Damm or me at(510)222-6700. ' Surely, PAUL D. WINN1CK.l District Engineer r., z"e, PDW/SD:iim-b cc: Walter Georgetown,City of Richmond Public Works Dept. Henry Tingle.City of Richmond Deputy City Manager Michael Abramson, District Manager Alfred M. Cabral, Board Counsel BOARD MEMSERS Leonard L Battaglia Alfred M Granxelts wili:ain S Oliver George H.SCttrrtitl�artt�t��CS� BOARD ATTORNEY Allred A Cabral DISTRICT MANAGl*R Michael C.Atxatt%Son f. OWIST COUNTY WASTBWATBR DISTRICT 2910 Hilltop Drive Richmond,CA 94806-1974 A Public Agency Telephone(510)222-5700 Fax(510)222-3277 May 19, 1998 Ms. Brenda Bryant Hilltop Green Homeowners Association 1095 Parkside Drive Richmond, California Subject: Hilltop Green Park - Relocation of West County Wastewater District Electrical Controls to minimize future flood damage Dear Ms. Bryant As discussed briefly on the telephone with you, the West County Wastewater District (WCWD) has received a Grant under the Federal Ernergency Management Act (FEMA) to relocate electrical controls at the existing WCWD wastewater pump station located in Hilltop Green Park. The purpose of the project is to move electrical controls for the pumps above the elevation of the floods that would oce- r less frequently than once in 100 years. The pump station electrical controls are currently at the lowest elevation in the park and have flooded on January 1, 1997 due to high rainfall and limited storm drainage capacity for the drainage area, The flood resulted in disabling the electrical controls and wastewater pumping requiring over $160,000 in expenditures to return the pump station to normal operation. The damage to the pump station required use of a large portable diesel pump manned day and night for over 10 days until new electrical equipment could be obtained and installed to allow automatic operation. There was also a threatened flooding in 1998 due to a large landslide potentially blocking the storm drain outlet for the entire Hilltop Green area. This storm drain outlet drains to Garrity Creek on the West of Highway 80. The District has applied for and received a FEMA grant to pay a portion of the costs to relocate electrical controls to minimize future flood damage and disabling of the pump station. The flood damage mitigation project will require the construction of a building approximately 15 feet wide by 20 feet long and relocation of the existing emergency generator on land at elevation 202 feet above sea.level. Two locations for the facilities are under consideration. One location for the building and generator would be along the North fence of the tennis courts. The other possible location would be on land just North of the existing pump station. I have enclosed a drawing showing the alternate BOARD MEMBERS Leonard L.Batagiia Alfred M.Grarnzella William S.Oliver George H, Schmidt Paul C. sottow,Jr, BOARD ATTORNEY Alfred A. Cabral DISTRICT MANAGER Michael D.Abramson ?age 2 - locations. An enlargement of the existing easement for the pump station will be requested from the City of Richmond for the additional area necessary for the equipment relocation, We are requesting the homeowners Association input, at this early date in the design . process, to include your comments on the easement enlargement and the facility design. We are available to attend a meeting at the convenience of the Homeowners Association to discuss this project. If possible, we request that you provide your comments on the alternate locations by June 15, 1998 so that-design work can begin. Thank you for your cooperation in implementing this project. If you have any questions or need f other information please contact me. Sincerely, Paul D. Winnicki, PE District Engineer PDW:ilm-b Enclosures: Drawing—Plan View of two alternate facility locations 5 copies, HAPaul Winn ickiTubiic\Hi3ltop homcownmdoc EL SOBRANTE VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING ADVISORY COMMITTEE P.O. BOX 20136 EL SOBRANTE, CA 94820 November 18. 2003 Dennis Barry, Director By Fax & Mail Community Development Dept. Fax; 925-335-1299 651 fine St., 4"' floor,North Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: SD01-8533, 40 homes on 10.09 acres off Hilltop Drive, El Sobrante Request for Extension of Time for Acceptance of Comments on the Proposed Mitigated N'eg'ative Declaration Dear Dennis, The El Sobrante Valley Planning & Zoning Advisory Committee respectfully asks you to extend the time for Comments on the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration on SDO I- 8533 for at least one month. The current time period ends at 5 p.m. on Monday, Nov. 24. Reasons for the Time Extension Request: I. Copies of the Environmental Checklist were not sent out to many neighbors who live adjacent to the property under review. For example, the Hilltop Green Homeowners Association, 1095 Parkside Dr., Richmond 94803, did not receive a copy of the environmental information from the County, The Hilltop Green subdivision in Richmond consists of about 500 homes and shares a property line with the proposed project. They are adjacent and downlaill of the project. 2. On Nov. 17, 1 spoke with Rich Davidson, Richmond Public Services Dept., 1401 Marina Way South, Richmond 94804. Mr. Davidson had not received a copy of the revised plans which went out at least one month ago. He also had not received a copy of the 34 page report which evaluates the environmental factors and lists possible mitigation and monitoring plans. This project is of great concern to residents in this area. We feel it is inappropriate and wrong to shut off comments on the mitigated negative declaration on Monday, November 24 when so many interested parties, who will be affected by the project, have been left out of the information loop. You are welcome to call me at 510-223-6398. Thank you. Sincerely, Eleanor Loynd, Chair cc: Supervisor John Gioia Mayor Anderson & City Council Planner Darwin Myers Rich Davidson, R. Pub, Serv. Dept. Hilltop Green HOA ESMAC , Friends of Garrity Creek Hilltop Neighborhood Asso. n_r_7 EL SOBRANTE VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING ADVISORY COMMITTEE P.O. BOX 20136 EL SOBR.ANTE, CA 94820 November 3, 2003 Mayor Irma Anderson Vice Mayor Mindell Penn City Council Members :Richmond City Hall 1401 Marina Way South Richmond, CA 94804 Re: County Sub. SD02-8533, adjacent to Hilltop Green, off Hilltop Drive City Council Resolution 49-03, adopted unanimously 4/15/03 Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Members, On April 15, the City Council passed Resolution 49-03 unanimously asking that the County require an Environmental Impact Report on the proposed 40 unit home development adjacent to Richmond's existing Hilltop Green subdivision. That resolution states that the City Council "affirms its opposition to the residential development project proposed in unincorporated territory adjacent to the Hilltop Green community...and requests than an environmental impact report be prepared for said project by the County of Contra Costa". On Oct. 22, 2003, County Planner Darwin Myers proposed that, instead of an SIR, a mitigated negative declaration with mitigation measures is sufficient for this project to move forward. Comments on the Planner's recommendation may be sent to: Darwin Myers, Planner Community Development Department, Contra Costa County 651 Pine St., North Wing, 4`h floor Martinez, CA 94553 The proposed Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption by the Zoning Administrator at a meeting on Monday, January 5, 2004. Unfortunately, Richmond staff has been unable to provide little information on the drainage system and problems, the landslides, the flooding, and the wastewater treatment plans for Hilltop Green. I was told that they couldn't find the drainage plans for the Hilltop Green subdivision. On June 7, a letter from Richmond's Wastewater Pollution Control Plant identified some problems in Hilltop Green. On July 1, the County Com. Dev. Dept. sent a letter to Richmond requesting information on the hydrology and hydraulics of Garrity Creek. According to Darwin Myers, "No information was provided by the city of Richmond." Mr. Myers also stated that "no flooding problems are known to FEMA between the site and I-80" But, neighbors in Hilltop Green tell of flooding caused by the silt back-up in the Garrity Creek channel under the freeway. n r A El Sobrante Valley Planning & Zoning Advisory Committee Re: Subdivision SD02-8533 page 2 This Committee, supported by the Richmond May Valley Neighborhood Council and the El Sobrante Chamber of Commerce, has met with the developer and County staff a number of times. We have had several public meetings to bring residents into the process. We have also requested that Richmond staff provide information to the County. We requested that a focused EIR be required to cover the topics of wildlife, drainage, traffic, and soils. We were told by County staff that the wastewater connection from the project would be at Manor Road and that no wastewater flow would go through the Hilltop Green Area. We verified with West County Wastewater District staff that the wastewater flow will go through Hilltop Green. The information from both the County and Richmond does not seem to be reliable, This is a challenge from the County to the city of Richmond. If these problems really exist, prove it! You are welcome to call me at 510-223-6398 if you have any comments. If possible, send us a copy of any information provided to the County. Here's the paper trail: 1. 4/15/03 Copy of Richmond City Council Resolution 49-03 2. 4/19/03 Copy of ESVP&ZAC letter to Mayor & City Council requesting staff to get provide information to the County. 3. 4/19/03 Copy of the ESVP&ZAC letter to County Planner Darwin Myers. 4. 6/7/02 Letter sent from Richmond Wastewater Pollution Control Plant to County that identified existing water problems and landslides within Hilltop Green. "The City's letter asserts that development of the SD01-8533 is likely to aggravate existing drainage problems in Hilltop Green, which are said to be barely manageable at present." (mentioned in the Environmental Checklist form) 5. 7/1/02 Letter sent from County Corn. Dev. Dept to Richmond asking for technical data on hydrology and hydraulics of Garrity Creek Channel, Darwin Myers mentioned in the Environmental Checklist form that no information was provided by the city of Richmond. Note: The date of the letter is over a year ago. 6. 10/9/03 Copy of ESVP&ZAC letter to Richmond Planner Judi Battle informing staff that a revised plan for the project was available. 7. 10/22/03 Notice of Planner Darwin Myers' recommendation to adopt a mitigated negative declaration for Sub. 02-8533. QUESTION: If this project is approved and built and something goes wrong later with the Hilltop Green drainage system, will the city of Richmond be, at least in part, responsible because they provided no baseline data? Si cere.� E eanor Loynd Enclosures cc: 'City Manager Isiah Turner Barry Cromartie, Plan. Mgr. -- Director, Richmond Public Services ✓ E.S. Municipal Advisory Council Supervisor John Gioia 'Hilltop Green HOA ✓Friends of Garrity Creek ,,Everett Jenkins, City Attorney ./West County Waste Water District /Len Battaglia, WCWDBoard Mem, E1 Sobrante Manor Neighborhood Council 40-71 San. Pablo Darn Road #411 El Sobrante, California 94803 EIN 48-12889,1.2 fx Hazel Dixon,President(510)223-6213 :j Patt Castle,Secretary Jean Wirt,Vice-President L>an Castle,Treasurer February 13, 2004 El Sobrante Valley Planning And Zoning Advisory Committee P.O. Box 20136 El Sobrante, CA 94820 Dear Planning Committee Members, The El Sobrante Manor Neighborhood Council is a group of 40--50 residents who meet monthly to discuss and solve problems in our neighborhood such as noise, crime and traffic. We are also concerned with local schools and area growth patterns and how they affect the quality of life in our neighborhood. Our neighborhood borders the tract of land at Garrity Creek that is being considered for development which would take away our only local open space and add 40 households to our city. The traffic and noise as well as loss of open space are a concern to our council. We support the idea of creating a park in this area. El Sobrante has NO local parks for the citizens hereto enjoy and we are opposed to the destruction of this open space. We hope you will take into consideration the feelings of your citizens before destroying this area and adding to the considerable congestion in El Sobrante. Sincerely,, Hazel Dix President The El Sobrante Manor Neighborhood Council Cc Supervisor John Gioia Assemblywoman L,oni Hancock El Sobrante MAC Friends of Garrity Creek Community Development _ TiAA 19AD FORT MASON CENTER SAN FRANCISCO, CA 54123 (415) 474-4020 FAX (415) 474-5323 email:vhandley@fund.org Virginia Handley January 4, 2004 California Coordinator Darwin Myers Community Development Dept Contra Costa County 651. Pine St, North 'ging, 4`h Floor Martinez, 94553 Dear Mr Myers, The California office of The Fund for Animals is in opposition to development SD-8533 along Garrity Creep. In addition to the impact it would have on traffic, fire safety, flood and slide prevention, there are the damaging effects on wildlife. Loss of the important wildlife corridor and habitat would be devastating to the resident wildlife. It is imperative that this area be preserved. I am the California. representative for The Fund. for Animals and I am a resident of El Sobrante. The fragile beauty of our arca is threatened by this development. Garrity Creek is shown as a Sincerely dotted line on this map. The developer's plans minimize the creek and places houses directly over o r E1 �t aha it. Likely impact: Traffic on Hilltop, Manor,and j �v C% ` �� •� % + ' ihii u � t+ t rtyginir� Marin roads and neighboring • �,r ' �— — ." 1 +la Handle streets would increase by 328 ?• �f' 4- N. 1 r Parkway IIr P — to 410 trips per day,creatin " , gridlock near local schools. g ! • fir' '"`�''": rk& :•.. • Overburdened local schools 1_! Ptkstde Dr -; ri would see•enrollment increases r� seer without any increase in staff or Creek •t,'•,s"; a�5� rsn, �:r'Rerfrew, funds for supplies. increased flooding and water management problems due to Hilltop Drive—r'y creating 10 acres of high density, , y�,•_ _ — �' Pebble Dr. C- impervious surfaces.The project eliminates previously open space that allowed storm watlers to naturally percolate into the aquifer. • Loss of wildlife corridor and open space to a development that creates higher risk of landslides and destabilization of existing homes. • barr,age to Garrity Creek and wildlife, increased pollution, etc. n r•-7 r CT,'.Z4.c'003 8:15PN cr_m1MUri l r t DEVELOPMENT NO,702 FJ. i/4 uW!e4S--V i 2N i P!Ui F NO. 512237?968 Now, 24 P-0O3 02:?1A l Pi URBAN CREEKS OF CALIFORNIA BY PAX Nc vembca`21, 2003 ;Darwin Myers Community T'�cvelopme=Dcps=rnt Contra coda Cotn7ly 651r=c Stmct, North Wing,e Floor Iv aMinez. C k 94553 Re: Sta bdi%!i si on g533, CDT)File#SDC 185SB Lear M~. Myers: pl&L�e accept Lite following Comments in response to your 1nitia! StudylNoticc c.0 1.tent to Adopt a Mitigated Negat ve DoolaraLion,on the above-referenced prcUtct, WC believe Sr,at thele arz significant e Yironmenta1 issues related to this prcjeci that Mtrit the pren3raUon of as Sm7ronmcntal Impact Ropor".There is substantial evidence in tie record that Tac proposed project, even as modiried,May have a:significant effect 011 Lite e-nvirownent(CEQA Gu.deluats, Sec. 13070(10(2). We refer you to the HiIItop Naighborhood Associ;rttixi and Fri=4,of Garrity' Cracks tetter of Nc vamber 1'717003, in which they r4i;e several nigra ic:r.t areas Of Concern that have a of teen adequately addressed, In.addition, we have Che following cozxarrle..ts: L..ot 29 shvald 110t be dsvoloped, its it is full or seeps wrl springs--i.7 other words, heaAwCtw wetlant6,that arra paxt of the hydroingy of Th.c Garrity Creek system. lieadwater seeps kmd.springs are increasingly known tc hC biClogicalhy s;,gnificaat, See ""here Rivers Are Born: The Scienti;io Tmporative for Def:.ndiag,Sm-411 Strews and 1350 Addloor, StrW, SLi,o 107 - &erke!oy, CA W02 , Te': d10 540 660 ' rex; 510 ddb 2219 �.!(M_lC Qv, 24 2003 28:21RM P2 ��`wi,�'C1J�,11 IVSyWxs Novembrie.'21, 2003 Page Wetlands,'' American Rivers,2003..You hvi not proposed mitigation that will lcsser�the irapa.c is on these wetla.uds to a less than sigrificant lcvtf. The wnswntotioD of the "thme_tiare d keystone wall system" asad removal of 1,492 square feet oF rnaLure ripariza vegetation ora L<n 29 is unzcceptable_In cur work with urban s.rear as in Contra Costa County, we hent found thst plat sag hand strca,ctares---like w0s,-nor'creok40,s always a bad i4m They cause erosion ttrd siltation, as d your d3eumant don not explai'l how than impaqu'. Will�� mitipt".d.The loss or 3,088 and 4,539 sgtmr*feet of "Lipper"and `lower" ripwi2an habitat is a.tnaccepta.lxie, ??anti tg new willows will not r aitigate the loss of this mature, valuable habitat, The lass of this habirat i. a s„gnificant imgaot idiat has not be> ri adc uawy mitiga tea,The IcO:s of 10,,n4tive Oaks ;salso unaccePtable, This tree t ea.41=ulcl affect stupe stability ba=a.*ea k=wn tnz' landslides, In 4ditiou,ra3i,gmtory birds and otheranimals use aipariara crew-8-ad ts,peoia lly coast live oaks—for food and shelter. A=rdiag to the California.Oak Foundation, soanc 114 species of bir*,most of theme rare, breed im California's oak wooddlan"c , azd about 60 aS so specie.;use oak woodlandfi outside the breedlr4 sea,,-On. In eadditioa:, 105 aa=rnalf species,58 amphibiaaa,s, anal reptiles, and ar estimated 5,000 species of insects rely on utak woodlands (Csa Fomia Oak rca-uni34on). A full analysis of tank si,gni:`icant impact must be perforzzd undar CF-QA. The loss of ZZO 4quarc of Ganrity Cmek laeueath the ".loyal Oaks Drive azth oulvtn”is unacceptable,;uad yoUha.ve not icdeaatl.fbtd adequate tritigation for that impact, Culvc�rs always cause erosional or depositionfLI pr'oblwas,amd the izpaat 6f this ca3,lvarl, on the trearn hay trot been adequately analyzed. Arch culverts a,re of=tu)t even permitted these dad=s; cleax sp-anrina bridges shoulzi be used wherever possible, Additi+crial czoncP_ms we have area as ioVows. You have not identMt:d whom, if any:ane, will monitor the :;ur'vival, of the raew planting:~. Who wall S onitorixig repom be sent to? What enswes that this Mit s-ation tS actually stxcc;esstul? Now. 24 2aO3 ±�c 22mi P3 t�viacx .I; 2003 r ale 3 We are ve�y t;mcemed abortt this pfOjOat and w:attld appreciate belng intludcd zn ery and all !uTure 7T13.t.ht7.�ps- Sincerely, 1 Lim Owens viati Corsc,vdtian CcK)rd=-tor cc, Fii.ends of Ozza ty Cxeek Sp Say Regiow l Waler t utility Cray Tol Board ,Supervisor John Choia i If I D "7 n Friends of Garrity Creek. Hilltop Neighborhood Association November 17, 2403 ft' � Community Development Department Attention: Mr. Darwin Myers County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4t°Floor, North Wing Martinez CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Myers, We are concerned that notification of your"Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration"regarding SD 8533 does not appear to have been made in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act page 9D. We therefore request an immediate halt to the review process and extension of the comment period so that the County makes proper notification. The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)specifies on page 9d that the required public notice must be given to all organizations and individuals who have requested notice. Apparently,the County has failed to give notice to the Hilltop Green Homeowners Association,with 500+residents. In addition, although we have written numerous letters,with Barbara Pendergrass as the contact name, we did not receive a copy for the Hilltop Neighborhood Association until we were informed of your Notice by the El Sobrante Planning&Zoning Advisory Committee. We then called and requested a copy. To our knowledge,the County has completed none of the following three steps required by CEQA: 1. Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdiction affected by the project 2. Posting notice on and off site in the immediate area where the project is to be located 3. Mailing directly to owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project. Therefore we are requesting that the County fulfill at least one of these requirements and extend the date for comments to 30 days from the date this requirement is fulfilled. Sincerely, �- Barbara A. Pendergrass Jesse Golden Hilltop Neighborhood Association &Friends of Garrity Creek CC: John Gioia,County Supervisor California Regional Water Quality Board Terrance Cheung, District One Coordinator El Sobrante MAC Committee Shirley Petty,Hilltop Green Homeowners Mayor Anderson and Richmond City Council Association Lisa Viani,Urban Creek Council Len Battaglia,chair, Contra Costa County State Assemblywoman Lonnie Hancock, Planning Commission member state environmental committee Eleanor Loynd, chair,El Sobrante Valley Zoning Advismy Committee El Sobrante Chamber of Commerce 1 Friends of Garrity Creek Hilltop Neighborhood Association November 17, 2003 Community Development Department - Attention: Mr. Darwin Myers r County Administration Building - 651 Pine Street, 4'�' Floor, North Wing Martinez CA 54553-0095 Dear Mr. Myers, We are submitting these comments in compliance with the November 24, 2003 deadline for public comment on SD 01-8533, and may amend or expand them if the comment period is extended (as we have requested in our letter of November 17, 2003, based on the fact that notification does not appear to have been made in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act page 9D.) We strongly oppose your recommendation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Even with the proposed mitigations, there is substantial evidence that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, thus requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)for the proposed project prior to approving or carrying out the project. Your recommendation shows insufficient consideration of the many issues that we and other concerned organizations and individuals have brought to your attention through a number of previous letters, petitions, and meetings. As you are aware, an'EIR has been requested in writing by the Richmond City Council, El Sobrante Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Urban Creek Council, Friends of Garrity Creek, Hilltop Careen Homeowners Association, and the Hilltop Neighborhood Association. In addition, hundreds of individuals have signed petitions sent to your office in opposition to this development. Many significant issues have been raised in the course of numerous letters to your office and meetings with you, including: • Flooding in the area --including in the Manor Drive and Hilltop Green areas. Your study states that no flooding problems are known to FEMA between this site and Interstate 80. In fact, FEMA paid $160,000, to address flooding problems in Hilltop Green (see attached letter, May 19, 1998). This was not a permanent fix to the problem. Solutions are needed before any development aggravates existing flooding problems. (See attachment, Notice of Interest to FEMA for Improvements to Garrity Creek from 1-80 to Blume Drive, cost$521,125 • Traffic problems— existing bottleneck and safety problems will be exacerbated. Your study greatly underestimates traffic impact by estimating only two trips generated per day. A higher number is certainly more accurate in an area such as this with only limited public transportation. The additional traffic on Hilltop Drive could be crippling. Heavy traffic problems on Hilltop Drive, particularly at school drop-off and pick-up times, and commute times, have resulted in two significant accidents of which we are aware just in the last two weeks, occurring on Hilltop Drive between Pebble and Renfrew Road intersections. We are sure that traffic records would indicate many more collisions. Residents report that Hilltop is a heavily traveled two-lane street which is already over capacity at peak hours, even without the additional traffic that 40 more homes would bring. Another intersection at the proposed "Royal Oaks Drive" would further choke this street, without adding any capacity. Although a left- Page 1 of 9 hand tum lane had been discussed, your notice does not include this lane or any signal lights. • Unsuitability of the site for development-. studies provided have misrepresented or not completely studied this slide-prone area. Your study states that the April 2001 report from AMSC? on geology and soils doesn't require updating because the number of homes was reduced from 44 homes to 40 homes. The AIVI SO report is inadequate in that: . The report mentions only three of the five parcels, and therefore does need to be updated to include all five parcels. The developer has changed the design of the project twice since that report was released. Relevant changes include construction on the very steep area at the end of Marin Road. No provision is made in your study for possible slides or damages to homes on Marin Road. The AMSC) report states that bedrock was not located when holes were bored, but the existence of bedrock was "assumed" by them. Boreholes should be drilled to the depth necessary to prove the existence and depth of bedrock below proposed home foundations. If the County approves existing plans without 1) proof of the location of bedrock and 2) incorporating appropriate engineering for the actual conditions, the County risks legal liability for any homes in or surrounding the proposed development that are damaged by future landslides. • Adverse effect on the environment and wildlife —elimination of habitat is not acceptable. This project proposes to take 10.09 acres of slide-prone land now providing a habitat to diverse wildlife, and replace that habitat with asphalt, concrete, and homes. Every bit of surface dirt, every blade of grass will be graded or removed. A neighborhood already beset with flooding, traffic and infrastructure problems will be further stretched, perhaps to the breaking point. To describe such a project as having no significant environmental impact is a complete misrepresentation of common sense and fact. • Requirements of CEQA itself— substantial evidence DOES exist that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA requires that"a lead public agency must prepare an environmental impact report whenever a discretionary project`may have a significant and adverse physical effect on the environment."' Our group and others have provided a great deal of significant environmental impact, which has not been sufficiently addressed by your proposed mitigated negative declaration. An Environmental Impact Report: must be prepared that adequately addresses the potential significant environmental effect. Your Notice mentions variances requested for retaining walls, lot size, and protected trees. If you are implying that these variances are acceptable, please explain your reasoning. Our response to each of your points follows: 1. Aesthetics You indicate less than significant impact to Aesthetics, including scenic vista, scenic resources, degradation of visual character, and creation of substantial light or glare. We strongly disagree. There is no question but that the aesthetic impact will be severe. The site is a beautiful hilly open area with a lovely and thriving creek area at the bottom, supporting a diversity of wildlife. It is currently undeveloped, used by wildlife as well as a path for neighborhood school children to access schools and a nature study Page 2 of 9 area by neighborhood teachers and classes. It is adjacent to surrounding properties used for horses and other farm animals. Certainly removing all existing trees and vegetation, and replacing them with rooftops and pavement, will have a substantial impact on the visual character and quality of the site and surrounding areas. The crowding of human habitation will wipe out wildlife habitats and pose danger to neighboring horses and farm animals. ll. Agricultural Resources—no comment at this time. Ill. Air Quality—the addition of 40 homes complete with fireplaces in this steep canyon will unquestionably negatively impact the air quality in the area, already at risk due to proximity to Highway 80. Smoke from fireplaces is likely to be concentrated in the immediate area, which is surrounded by steep ridges. IV. Biological Resources--you have indicated that impact will be less than significant with mitigation, based in part on a report from the firms LSA and Woods. LSA should not be considered a credible source. As we mentioned in a previous letter, their report on the Clark Road project in EI Sobrante has been shown to have left out over 25 out of 32 seeps and streams, much wildlife and habitat, including a landmark cypress tree estimated at 120-160 years old. It is obvious that grading and removal of all vegetation on the site will have a severe negative effect on the habitat and wildlife in the area, please refer to our previous communications on this subject. Mitigation that only avoids work disruptive to nesting birds during nesting season IS NOT ADEQUATE. This does not address the removal of habitat, not only of birds but other wildlife. Lot 29 is mentioned as having evidence of"groundwater seepage". In fact, this is a natural year-round spring that feeds the creek and a riparian area. This site is completely inappropriate for any development other than creek and riparian conservation. An earlier map in your files lists lot 29 as all riparian prior to mitigation mentioned in your negative declaration.. This project plans to place a creek which is now partially in a natural state into culverts. This is clearly a severe negative environmental impact, as well as a highly questionable practice for containment of flooding. We are opposed to the proposed fence in that it prevents animals from having access to wildlife corridors and to fresh water, and lessens the likelihood that the creek area can be preserved an maintained by restricting access. Simply putting the creek behind a fence without access invites creation of a dumping ground. How will this creek be maintained and conserved under this proposal? V. Cultural Resources - your study finds "less than significant impact" by the project in this area with mitigation, based on the archaeological report submitted by Pacific Legacy Inc., April 28, 2001. This report is inadequate in that: • The report excluded one out of the five parcels that constitute the proposed site. • The report did not include study of significant areas. • The report did not include study of steep slope areas. Page 3 of 9 11 "f Pacific Legacy Inc. confined their observations to walking "zigzag" in areas with less than 30% slope on four of the five parcels. The excluded parcel (#426192-008, 2.08 acres) contains a natural year-round spring that feeds Garrity Creek. Such a spring is a likely gathering place for native peoples seeking fresh water, and therefore likely to contain evidence of their history. The report further states that blackberry bushes obscured the creek banks, preventing them from closer observation. Creek banks are again a likely place for cultural artifacts, as are areas high on a steep hill with a good overlook for hunting or observation. The report states that six prehistoric sites have been recorded within a mile of the proposed site. One historic resource, the farm complex, is located approximately one- half mile south of the project site. A creek fed by two natural springs in close proximity would be a likely site for a small village. A complete and detailed archaeological inspection should be completed prior to this project approval. The proposed mitigation requiring that construction operations cease if artifacts, human burials or the like are found is insufficient. Any construction worker will tell you that such requirements are rarely honored. Please refer to the letter supporting our recommendation from one of the experts mentioned in the archaeological report, Katherine Perez of the Ohlone Indian Tribe, Most Likely Descendant, Also please refer to the report written by Michael Ali, Native American historian, regarding his preliminary observation of this area. VI. Geology and Soils-your study states that the April 2001 report from AMSO on geology and soils doesn't require updating because the number of homes was reduced from 44 homes to 40 homes. The AMSO report is inadequate in that: • The report mentions only three of the five parcels, and therefore does need to be updated to include all five parcels. The developer has changed the design of the project twice since that report was released. Relevant changes include construction on the very steep area at the end of Marin Road. No provision is made in your study for possible slides or damages to homes on Marin Road. • The AMSO report states that bedrock was not located when holes were bored, but the existence of bedrock was "assumed" by them. Boreholes should be drilled to the depth necessary to prove the existence and depth of bedrock below proposed home foundations. If the County approves existing plans without 1) proof of the location of bedrock and 2) incorporating appropriate engineering for the actual conditions, the County risks legal liability for any homes in or surrounding the proposed development that are damaged by future landslides. • in our letter of March 2002, we mentioned several concerns raised by the AMBO report, including -- the likelihood of liquefaction of soil under the influence of severe ground shaking - a "minor" slope failure that we asserted is much larger than they describe. We have supplied photos in previous letters demonstrating its size. --the fact that they could not thoroughly examine the area. You have not addressed these issues. • Lot 29 is mentioned as having evidence of"groundwater seepage." In fact, this is a natural year-round spring that feeds the creek and a riparian area. This site is completely inappropriate for any development other than creek and riparian conservation. We have previously documented our concerns about this developer's record based on engineering failures in his 10-home project off Renfrew Court and his project on Stanley Page 4 of 9 Lana. Given the failure of his engineering and construction methods in the past, we have repeatedly expressed concern that.significant construction errors will be made. Again, we urge that a bond be ,required of the developer of a value high enough to address any future problems caused by poor construction or design. Vii. Hazards and Hazardous Materials—no comments at this time Vlll. Hydrology and Water Quality—your study states that no flooding problems are known to FEMA between this site and Interstate 80. In fact, FEMA paid $160,000, to address flooding problems in Hilltop Green (see attached letter,,May 19, 1998). This was not a pemranent fix to the problem. Solutions are needed before any development aggravates existing flooding problems. (See attachment, Notice of Interest to FEMA for Improvements to Garrity Creek from 1-80 to Blume Drive, cost $521,125 The City of Richmond has requested an EIR for this proposal to address the problem of flooding that has already occurred downstream of the project, notably at and near Hilltop Green. Wastewater must run through the pumping station at Hilltop Green, under the freeway and on to Garrity Lake. A permanent fix needs to be made to the site where the water drops from the pipe under the freeway to the bed of Garrity Creek and through the pipe to Garrity Lake. As explained to us, the creek bed fills with silt and hinders the drainage from under the freeway, backing up to the Hilltop Green pumping station. West County Wastewater District has told us that this has caused flooding problems in Hilltop Green, damaging the electrical mechanism used by the pump to pump from Hilltop Green to the other side of the freeway. The last time this took place, FEMA paid $160,000, to repair the pumping station. Unless this problem is foxed on the other side of the freeway to approximately 1000 feet of creek bed, additional wastewater from 49 homes and loss of permeable surfaces will hugely increase the amount of water fed through the system from Garrity Creek drainage. Under Project Objectives, the homeowner's association is to be established with some maintenance responsibilities. However, no responsibility is assigned for Garrity Creek itself, or for the culvert that passes under Park Central. A permanent and adequate solution to this complex legal/administrative problem must be reached. Consideration of possible damages caused by the increase in water through the system must be included. We have previously noted that the replacement of a natural area by a paved one can only exacerbate flooding problems, and will not detail this information again here. lx. Land Use and Planning Your study may underestimate the percentage of this site that exceeds 26% slope, thus meeting the criteria for preservation as open space as specified in the County General Plan. In fact, we question whether the site should be zoned R-7. This designation may be in error or in contradiction to the Open Space Ordinance and should be addressed by the Planning department. Your study lists the percentage of land exceeding 26% slope as 16.4%. In fact, that percentage may be much higher, in that: • The slope map provided of the site includes properties with 0-15% slope that are in fact not part of this development, i.e. parcels 426-192-006 and 426-192-007 owned by Claremont Page 5 of 9 n �r • It appears that these parcels have been mistakenly included in your study's calculation of slope categories; if so, the percentages that should be shown as 15- 26% slope and 26% and above are in fact much higher than the 67.5% and 16.4% listed. • Your calculation should have been based on categories consistent with the General Plan, namely slopes 15-25%, and then slopes 26% and higher. Again, this could mean that you have incorrectly calculated the slope percentages on this site. Your statement that"development/grading proposed in areas of> 26% slopes can be considered consistent with Policy 10-29" because of the location of the Garrity Creek crossing and the Marin Road Connection, and because "the creek channels are to be retained and enhanced, " is completely unexplained. We are not aware of any enhancement to the creek channels on the other side of the proposed fence. The development creates an unworkable situation by selling lot 29 to an individual homeowner and at the same time designating part of the lot as mitigated wetlands or riparian areas. It is already a riparian area and contains one of the two fresh-water springs feeding the creek. Lot 29 should be accessible to wildlife and not be the responsibility of an individual who is purchasing it for the purposes of residential living. The designation of lot 29 as both a home site and the riparian mitigation area also appears to be in conflict with the statement that the homeowner's association, to be established, will be responsible for riparian landscaping planting material. The developer's plan shows grading and wall construction on this property. This, too, conflicts with preserving it as a riparian area. You state that this project is appropriate in that it"m-fills_previously passed-over property."' We don't believe the concept of "in-fill" was ever intended to convert a semi- rural area into a sea of housing developments. Our neighborhood wants, needs, and deserves preservation of some open space. X. Mineral Resources--no comment at this time Xl. poise—Your study lists a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels caused by the project as having "no impact." This statement is contradicted by the experience of neighbors of another recent project by the same developer, off Renfrew Court in El Sobrante. This 10-home project created a tremendous noise level impacting all residents of Renfrew Court and Renfrew Road for months. Certainly the use of heavy equipment such as earthmovers and double tractor- trucks will create a significant noise impact. X11. Population and Housing —the use of Marin Road will have a significant interest in traffic and pedestrian use. Marin Road is a narrow, sub-standard road with no sidewalks. It is currently a dead-end road. Marin Road should not be used by the developer for construction or excavation vehicles, as it is too narrow and already in poor condition. Again, the example of this developer's Renfrew Court project is illustrative. This project became such a mess that a family whose house is at the entrance of the project moved out permanently during construction due to the poor design of the entranceway to this project.. There have been two accidents that we know of in the last two weeks on Hilltop next to the proposed main entrance to this project. This entrance will increase traffic danger. Page 6 of 9 X111. Public Service—your study claims "less than significant impact." We have previously written to you that the recent West Contra Costa Unified School District consultants' report showed local schools in terrible condition and lacking roam for all of the developments currently planned for this area. This information has been confirmed in conversation with the principal at El Sobrante School, the local elementary school. We suggested that the impact of the multiple local development plans on Juan Crespi Junior High and El Sobrante Elementary schools should be thoroughly evaluated before granting approval to 40 additional homes. XIV. recreation—this area lacks park space, a lack that the site itself could be used to remedy. residents are working on acquiring funds for purchase and maintenance of this property as a park and open space. We request county assistance in this effort to preserve the wildlife, the creek, wetlands and the natural habitat. Hilltop Green has a very small park area, not made for access for non-residents and not large enough in any case to accommodate recreational needs of the entire neighborhood, nor was it designed to do so. The El Sobrante mark Study of 20079 lists this site as site 24 of potential sites for parks in El Sobrante. In meetings with Supervisor John Gioia, our group requested that this site be prioritized for park use. In addition, the "Shaping Our Future" map marks this site as Open Space, and Garrity Creek as Riparian Zone. Therefore plans do exist "to establish a pant use on the site." El Sobrante is acknowledged as significantly underserved by park facilities. Will the County wait to take action on this until all suitable sites are occupied by developments? XV. Transportation and Travel According to the El Sobrante Planning and Zoning Commission, each residential home generates an average of 8-10 car trips a day, totaling 820-400 trips a day generated by this subdevelopment. Dept. of Transportation standards use an estimate of five trips per day. Your study greatly underestimates traffic impact by estimating only two trips generated per day. A higher number is certainly more accurate in an area such as this with only limited public transportation. The additional traffic on Hilltop Drive could be crippling. Heavy traffic problems on Hilltop Drive, particularly at school drop-off and pick-up times, and commute times, have resulted in two significant accidents of which we are aware just in the last two weeks, occurring on Hilltop Drive between Pebble and Renfrew Road intersections. We are sure that traffic records would indicate many more collisions. Residents report that Hilltop is a heavily traveled two-lane street which is already over capacity at peak hours, even without the additional traffic that 40 more homes would bring. Another intersection at the proposed "royal Oaks Drive" would further choke this street, without adding any capacity. Although a left-hand tum lane had been discussed, your notice does not include this lane or any signal lights. Traffic is backed up at 8:20 a.m. from the light on Hilltop at La Paloma back to the cemetery and at times to the freeway. This also has not been addressed. Compensation must be provided for construction damage including road damage, dust and dirt damage to the residents whose homes are adjacent to this project, as we have Page 7 of 9 repeatedly requested in previous letters. Huge amounts of dust and dirt will impact the residents and provisions should be made to include the cleaning of these residences. We question whether this developer's construction methods are feasible on Hilltop Drive. The developer's current project off Renfrew Court has entailed double-trailer trucks parked two and three deep, waiting to deliver or haul material to and from the site. It is questionable whether such trucks could even make the tum off Hilltop Drive. The Renfrew project entailed dropping and dumping of one trailer on Renfrew Road while the other one was loaded or unloaded. This method will not be workable on Hilltop drive, and will cause extensive problems for all of the residents. On Renfrew Road, the weight of large trucks also caused large holes in the roadway. Public Works made temporary fixes but the problem has recurred. Such problems could severely impact heavily trafficked Hilltop Drive and the vehicles that travel it. Marin Road is also'likely to be negatively impacted by routing the traffic of these new homes through it. We discussed this in detail in our letter to you of September 2003. Increased use would be extremely problematic on this street, where only one car can pass through if anyone is parked in the area 3 houses prior to the intersection with Hilltop Drive. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems We vigorously protest the plain for a sewer line through lot 29. Lot 29 contains the natural spring and riparian areas and should not be used for the sewer line. The danger of contamination of the spring and riparian area is obvious. XVii. Mandatory Findings of Significance We disagree with your summary: in fact, there IS substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. We have provided this evidence in detail over the last few years. It is not in the County's interest to ignore the facts. This project proposes to take 10.09 acres of slide-prone land now providing a habitat to diverse wildlife, and replace that habitat with asphalt, concrete, and homes. Every bit of surface dirt, every blade of grass will be graded or removed. A neighborhood already beset with flooding; traffic and infrastructure problems will be further stretched, perhaps to the breaking point. To describe such a project as having no significant environmental impact is a complete misrepresentation of common sense and fact. Only a thorough Environmental Impact Report is adequate to address the issues we have raised here and in other communications. We request that the County NOT adopt the Mitigated Negative declaration for Subdivision 8533. Sincerely, --� .41 Barbara A. Pendergrass 745 Renfrew Road EI Sobrante, Ca 94803 Page 8 of 9 D_-7n Phone NBR 510 223-5091 Jesse Golden Hilltop Neighborhood Association & Friends of Garrity Creek Attachments: March 18, 1998 letter from West County Wastewater District to State of Calif. May 19, 1998 letter to Hilltop Green Homeowners Association from West County Wastewater District. (Grant of$150.000 from FNMA) May 14, 1997 Notice of Interest FEMA to the State of Calif, from the City of Richmond= (Grant request amount$521,125) November 20, 2003 fax from Northern Valley Yokut/Ohlone/ Miwuk representative, Katherine Perez Write up by Micheal Ali on "The Huchiun Band of the Ohlone at Garrity Creek", attachments to the Michael Ali report are not included at this time. CC: John Gioia, County Supervisor Terrance Cheung, District One Coordinator Shirley Petty, Hilltop Green Homeowners Association Len Battaglia, chair, Contra Costa County Planning Commission Eleanor Loynd, chair, El Sobrante Valley Zoning Advisory Committee El Sobrante Chamber of Commerce California Regional Water Quality Board Fl Sobrante MAC Committee Mayor Anderson and Richmond City Council Lisa Viani, Urban Creek Council State Assemblywoman Loni Hancock , member state environmental committee Page 9 of 9 assn Page ] of 2 dar whim From: <RPender970 a('�.aol,com> To: <darwinm@pacbell.net> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 4:22 PM Subject: SID 01 5533 Mr Myers: Friends of Garrity Creek Hilltop Neighborhood Association November 17, 2003 Community Development Department Attention: Mr. Darwin Myers County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, forth Wing Martinez CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Myers, We are concerned that notification of your"Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration" regarding SD 8533 does not appear to have been made in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act page 9D. We therefore request an immediate halt to the review process and extension of the comment period so that the County makes proper notification. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specifies on page 9d that the required public notice must be given to all organizations and individuals who have requested notice. Apparently, the County has failed to give notice to the Hilltop Green Homeowners Association,with 500* residents. In addition, although we have written numerous letters, with Barbara Pendergrass as the contact name, we did not receive a copy for the Hilltop Neighborhood Association until we were informed of your Notice by the EI Sobrante Planning & Zoning Advisory Committee. We then called and requested a copy. To our knowledge,the County has completed none of the following three steps required by CEQA: i. Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdiction affected by the project 2. Posting notice on and off site in the immediate area where the project is to be located 3. Mailing directly to owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project. Therefore we are requesting that the County fulfill at least one of these requirements and extend the date for comments to 30 days from the date this requirement is fulfilled. Sincerely, Barbara A. Pendergrass Jesse Golden Hilltop Neighborhood Association & Friends of Garrity Creek CC: John Gioia, County Supervisor Terrance Cheung, District One Coordinator Shirley Petty, Hilltop Green Homeowners Association Len Battaglia, chair, Contra Costa County Planning Commission Eleanor Loynd, chair, El Sobrante Valley Zoning Advisory Committee El Sobrante Chamber of Commerce California Regional Water Quality Board El Sobrante MAC Committee Mayor Anderson and Richmond City Council Page 2 of 2 Lisa Viani, Urban Creek Council State Assemblywoman Lonnie Hancock , member state environmental committee i i i i Garrity Creek -- A Cultural and Natural History Of a Lost Watershed y Anouk Mackenzie .it ri �:KY 1s.r. r>;• 't A PUBLICATION OF THE AQUATIC OUTREACH INSTITUTE FOR THE FRIENDS OF GARRITY CREEK ., C'stu •� 61 �, „ ` 4 vPA Q co C3 ti - ° a cd a 7 v C5 . � cr, C.+ �" v end Q C -t U L r ami v C�4{ GG 4 C s�v� t C3 t 37 .obi C3 chi CC) U. C3 do) cd 0 c,) is 'cg .W, {. y -+ C) In W,, + G) tu "C) bb 0 '� 1Y ^CS 44' . x `�44 . Gla �-+ c� �v a3 w=+ C� p c4 w v �- s, {3 +t >,. , Y-t t ci cd tl} •rn o� " t c"- td .e! '` b s rs 'sa s r �; rd d, �- a cam) Uy "�' ' `! d �+ „ � rid �% , tsb G7 cri ,,k. 4 a; , ',i G.:: �. b. 1a p �+ cn i �; "" fats CS cd ,., . v► u `� -v P4 ---� " t �j urd Il +' Cu + +-� c$ Q 0bm ,4cz -4 � .`� � � � � � .- "� E� u "t� is i, } _ u , C Gx, C7 C7 cd W (7y L+�` vtttidd M1» tom' ^G' i�+ ` y to H v + V us F a cd z 0 td by Q u LJ"1 " ` L" `y �y' `. `^i t/! ,,. j �-` i ~d O rd s.i ,d+ Q " y -_, N na O v �' C� 45 C v v v .sem c u rtt �t v v �j `p �' vvs"sv 2 .5 -0 +� ai C$ ' v {"—fit cor— t3 v cn v v.. (U rd .U-� +.+�. v� G' ,.` u�'i 4.3. ` v. .S.a - + CJ CJ v i-a 4' :-> v 9,1 L� v td OJ -cti: cd t!3 .G bA r "d O: "T v, y O r, CS v ' s, v v rH7 G? , fl fiu ay,. p. s +' bt) y, C1 CS -tj n by�Sl c` • U t6 ,' ,0 <,:a ttt v O tn +:' l.c. _v . -.ri - t� t+' w e AS ! td y) O U ! a o Ge` i «� O + Z •N, W ed t N Y`" ' +.-' yx- Cd v t1.} - i-Y ,a,' "'' cti fL'1 s.. . v' C3v S '6D + t? aY xn p C4 is C5 = G; y"'. C5 v v ami 0 Y "fit +' p :� ,� 4p o 15 . :�:, t:P3� v - # v v c1 H ... s t .tib : ct s o } tJ -s v v - t13 � t Lt . . v +Ly 14,� .ice' ,�,,td bz Sew v , fl7 + 0 cd Cd 0 4.1 ,--•� to � esE y F Si' C, F-i ice. +.a-e v "t 4.5 cd bz - ca • C3 bA bb v u ¢a ' O C7 + v -+ ;I � � v C7 sa rd v ctf , S; rd cz ctl by. + .a a, vs 4, •- v CS t �+ v w ur y'' ( '4] '.� C�r -5 r�' y C� cd r� s� �t W, "C3 .-r tip td t5 a y rd 0 bt5 C7 , lw �+ v ft) L+ v 4-� tt cd C d s�� ` O '' +n v ai a�"i G+ L i C) v L vi` 3 �-+ O O _ rd v s " v� v ( C7 W v, t in ate+ y rd � "n -4 a v 'i "I's- 'G'`°` 14-4 sem'. G� u �} 'moi � 0 ;> rd r' -tet 0 " p > p C y +- O 6b � t•, G cd o bb by aWU v 0 v p .i- "' `✓ tr' v .G �y p v ;' C4 i rct rt* ebb c 'D � O " Zvi 'bA .Cv,' v O ' U O �-+ cd ny 3 i r� --'4 {� cid ren } vs - , C7 + rd r'Cr C} rdbJJ :4v bbd + v ,w + f� v 0 N bAu by clj 3 14. o rw�amt, "k p v � ' t` CS i CO Ln ! C v u 4� 7U C Op GA �". ti c> CY R-RA bD CAI TI wcct 4.3 :..� 41 L„J e.�.i C'cS 4.3 td W ei sn 4-4 ¢3 t?R U N 0 ..�.t dJ �` � C� � "Cl .--•� cd G� � � Y w�'� � `5 y� ti is � -,y� •`� 6> +^�$ � C+i � � •� y 43 td :� �' t� U N cn s a v1 `�'. -t3 ca q "23 O rte` w. v s 'd -d tJs Ys..S", t,n cd ` cd r`,*�y If , cd r"" C ¢t"� tts tJ L3 i+ y, d) {j ya G1 i C L+ TY ,V-A „� y *, u p, vi u' '•-�; 'ea °'� ., �+ cva .� C7 U =U d cd a� S. da .+ 04 45 S:� t7 U i a ` +Sw' c� S cid In cis c7 d) C� b w W a1 x, oa 44 00 .-+ d5 s:. <"` J (] �.a-+ay �` � � u�3s G{" «•CS oa U � C7 �--� �+ vs Cj •� •��. t� "'LS C.7 ... ti-+ '} '" + O .. ' Cy G3 ....� .W ..-� a) 63 ' C3 `:'+� `..�-+ tU rte' ' .••� s.+ 4,A, y •w' td tn 4-j C'4 •0 *.4 taCs dy rx 3 %- ` � � v rn �U ' 0 �s td ' 0":1 4E6 '+ .. 6ca cd rd � ed °)bo a4 bD (`} yvr " s •" e s' bA ' C� «� .`" cu c7� J -. d t vd t3 sK cd bp-14 b�tya.0cd 0 �'j � �` � s., � � .�� 4•=•t � � v a� , bn 0 ani cd c o 0oo L1+ cn C3 w+ fl+ n) bA td tit - r~" ^' �' d) cY� c a3 zd d + ' °' Y` ' '' �d y t' co 1�1, Cd t m c+dr CIA 0 �,.r `n .-r bD,,� Otn L �y � o C7 cd 03 c s s a� a za �" ' a) 4.4 � � Ro . fl 0 � r� ti 44 ;60 I U � VwN 4Y •-4H\W t "" rte44 tu as " ` fur in C ' v cu Q Ci as sa o o a bo4-0 , *' 51 0.1 U t t y of Ig", `� wCi „� � ~�� ; � ,y'� "✓ � &w ^� �, �s e.,wy �y w..t c# €� � r/1 �«� cx3 3op ;ll j QR tl Ot ttl b5 04 ' cns Car ct3y, '--o '4 ue bZ vi C41 .4 Ei 7.7 44 4� 464 ; . � rtJa yr U "' CA .% E ' v CJ w t ar i rs 0 c �a �a [a 20 202 «� 0000 cl 00 00 00 0 00 ;-+ - — � � — �, � cis Cr, ' Gt-.527 i £' a �• Sum ��,,��yy t^ o-�'f !6'4kiY� � HAJ'N�? ^'+Y" �i•r'+;M+'••*�v�M 4 e` & Via,. ° k � <a•` `tj S�`�� tM$ r• ' trTiJ, I r tz_�z sa He ird Sodja, El Sobrante Repl entative Richmond Greens Local, Green Party of Contra Costr 4317 Santa Rita Road, El Sobrante, CA 94803 (510) 223-4855 sodja@pacbell.net November 20, 2003 Darwin Myers Community Development Dept. Centra Costa County 651 Pine St. Forth Vying, 4th floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Myers, On behalf of the Richmond Greens, I urge that you not to approve the 40-home Afshar development in El Sobrante. No variances should be allowed until a full EIR studv is made and commented on by all concerned. The issues that have been raised by the community regarding flood and slide prevention, traffic and fire safety, the impact on local schools and area wildlife, and the risk of landslides to existing homes,has not yet been credibly addressed. The "Biological Resources for the Hillview Project Site,El Sobrante, Contra Costa County, California" report by LSA, dated December 21, 2001, cannot be considered credible. My research on the Clark Road Project EIR produced by LSA speaks to the same issues of concern that we have with the Hillview project. I confirmed what I had been told earlier by Green Party activists in other communities; LSA is a "hired gun" for the developers. They only get their EIRs approved when a community does not challenge their reports for accuracy,which would expose the deceptive, and often outright false, information routinely presented by LSA as fact. This is why we need a full EIR that includes the documentation of how LSA came to their conclusions. Some examples of LA's deceptions (or,more charitably, incompetence), can be illustrated with what I discovered when I closely reviewed their Clark Road EIR, and then surveyed the project site, with the help of other knowledgeable community members. Here is a partial list of the most egregious factual errors that I found: 1. The wildlife survey was conducted to assure that no endangered species would be found. For example, the California red-legged frog study was done in September and October, during the height of the dry season, when the wetland habitat that used by frogs would be dry. LSA ignored the five nearby annual ponds found on an adjacent western property, where I saw many pollywogs. Likewise, LSA claimed that there were no rack outcrops on the site where the Alameda Whipsnake would most likely be found. The developer-sponsored survey was conducted where the snake would not be found. However, in my survey, I document four areas with significant rock outcrops where I saw several snake, which I was unable to identify. 2. LSA claimed that there were only 7 freshwater seeps/springs and four vernal/seasonal ponds, while I found and documented (with GPS waypoints and photos) 32 seeps/springs and 7 vernal/seasonal ponds. LSA was inconsistent within their own EIR documentations. One document claimed only four seeps/springs exisited. Richmond Greens, P.O. Box 160 Station A, ttichrnond, CA 94808-OxbO richrnondgreens@richrnondgreens.net Green Party of Contra Costa, PU Box 3333,waI ut Creek, CA 9459a cocogreens@aaahawt.carn 3. The creeps were not accurately charted, and existing wetland features were frequently omitted, underestimated, or shown at incorrect locations. I submitted GPS and photo documentation of these errors. 4. I found sixteen additional wetland 'impact areas in addition to the fifteen listed in the Clary Road Project EIR, 5. Wetland mitigations proposed by LSA to replace destroyed wetlands were at locations where wetlands already exist, as shown in my photos. This is outright fraud. 6. LSA underestimated the landslide potential for the project by only providing a slide map that was commissioned by the developer, while ignoring contradictory USGS maps. Furthermore, LSA initially withheld this contradictory evidence, which we deduced from missing references in their Ea. We obtained these withheld files only after presenting our evidence of missing documents to the Richmond Planning Department,who then pressured LSA to release these damning landslide-potential documents that contradicted LSA's conclusions. 7. LSA dismissed the potential damage from the Wildcat and Moraga faults that run through the property by declaring these faults dormant. They never mentioned the potential for sympathetic earthquakes, which can occur in both active and dormant faults when a nearby active fault ruptures and radiates strong seismic waves through the zone of an inactive or active faults. The Hayward fault is only one mile from the property. These are just the highlights from my long list of LSA deceptions or incompetence. I am including a CD with my EIR comments,which have additional discrepancies that I found in the LSA Clark Road Ea, as well as my documentation to prove my charges against the credibility LSA. tethers found similar discrepancies in the other areas covered by the IER.. My point in raising the credibility of LSA is that you cannot not believe their "Biological Resources for the Hillview Project Site" report. All of our concerns, which I listed at the beginning of this letter, need to be addressed in a manner that we can properly evaluate and then respond to them, if needed. We urge you to reconsider not requiring a full EIR, so that we can scrutinize the claims made by LSA and others in their reports on the Hillview Project. Sincerely, U Howard Sodja Richmond Greens Cc: Bob Drake, John Gioia Encl: Clary Road Project ER November 15, 2003 Erik Wheaton 755 Penfrew Road El Sobrante, CA 94803-1625 dr_woeudoramailxom Darwin Myers Community Development Dept. Contra Costa County 651 Pine St. North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Development proposed for Garrity Creek (SD 8533) in El Sobrante Dear Mr, Myers I am concerned about the proposed development of 40 homes off of Hillitop Drive in El Sobrante. The traffic issue alone is reason enough to warrant the County to refuse this development. The other issues around the proposed development are: increased burden to local schools, increased flooding and water management problems, loss of wildlife corridor and open space. I urge the County not to approve any variances that would compromise creek protection. We'live just off Hilltop Drive and feel this is a bad idea that would compromise the quality of life, increase pollution and increase the risk of destabilization of existing homes. 47 Sincerely yours, Erik Wheaton Copy to: Bob Drake John Cola P-Q 1 i Y�✓ ?~`t t l ,Ji , n , t 'l t .j r i L^ / .„x��.4 �� r 'l.f`C``' d ,,�: 1 �..=''i.F �:.,� � ✓w � S t � 'r�, '�.4:. r`i.z..'?.., d,+^'t-t.'l't 5.. .`""' ..... x .1 } 1 .F a 5 f y vPk. ( t_.. ..i �t`'r... } .� ,_. ...__.......r.. .... ...,. ..__... _.. __...._........ P�fl.,t• r r r:�, r..� ,Y•� !:�, r.1. r,f' � ,.,. �.�� ..�*L��.. .. `"f.....�. ..��:..; s �t,:.,S r�rrJ1.�. -� (-�.f yi��'��k f L; 1" j.� ,....'l",.'.y tib'�..f✓xt..'' �r'ti-C.�,Y.Ys�l„°.{f;�,.•' r�C°r .is:4 U,C`..r,a..... fi :".4Y{ >~ ��'��. �.,�• f:�•'t? xfFt ';�� ,`�.- .-�'�. ,.v't`.,,- ts- �->'�'-�-�t��'�.... Lt�`i.� �'i— fir- '�>✓-.. t 1 13 � � ,`•�,�� ,'�a�1 f�7"�'"i`lf'c.6: s�-'l.{. +�J j}i�S �:S_r i i .......t�,r4'`�`'`"��+'" ..,._....__,._.._._ ._.._»..__._.... ...__...,.._ ......._..... _........... .._.. ... _. .._ .. , �� ,�r �ri r.✓1' Gi..grYr f.. 4,�."4r1 t,:`a.. .. .P.... r�,}.r t.4+,,...3��..._ �:i:,�t_ �..1.... .�.�..� _,_ . .. ._......._ �/!'',t Y f= �I I f.E�. N � tVJ ✓ Ft c'Lr__2L— . L— 7 4 t � y _........ _....�...... .. ... ... ( •4 ( r� '+r.. 1. .. ...»_ ......... ........... RA 9 IL 6) ,k1�"'tc:,'�,,y�'�. `>>�..�:,"�•�('\\\) i�,,,Z,rL. �..��,�•�4�,�.:��u '�, ��i �.� ;5 i �. :,(J��,�-}�'�r;�'�1, fid , ` ;..--\ Ye.x�..�.,'_.. ..1.,?�.•k,)�.,... �'�..G+ta�.�-�.•- I LrV�.�!. r�l,�ti.i� ��'.�... tU L;� •�)'1.,{.lv�:' .•T"�. •'te2-v,.r�lu'.�, q 4CVL TIA i .�.R�.�;,/t.. /"'f}�C.''.L`�i.7 J �,��1 V� �� 4.:i,5 .?�''lisr\ �..� �'l.�)?� ,..�.9� Lt11.1•F� t•� iV �.1� ��?�.,��..�} 1'l;l;Vt-�.4}r� ----. i ``> �L`�-�rL:�. �� l��. •:, ��'V6'�•�.�. �'L•1..eY�� , �.-�'L�..h..��.�ct�..�'-U ��'i � �:�.u:�rv�k• i: 1 ��r4t��'t .�.�v�.y�._ �-"}-'�tn•�� 1.,�t�.r- j � �'�'�� ;'G'e't, � l t''s'"!E. C�.:�`�'..�,` �'�._...-'��li�t-�..,J �-�-�'1�1.:.� �1 ��•i� "{�''�? �4:.�N` ..t J jF"! ``•�. Y}1�..}�1 'G�� {..i �ti•"'�.. ��'L ri✓^�--. !-i"'..) lr'..�.' �`�.L�F..�,....?ice-- �•'rLfl�}S�:.� ��'t�''��•� t`-'�'}.�� {'` �'�../��„"'�}~7"t�� i y V�lll.�t`t�..��,; �ti L'�lir}..e'�✓�n/• -- �jG.,�`J.��.� � ... .. ..�� I Slr��r y i��u..'4X. �f7.� r �w✓ �! L;"J Vly' 4{�f 1.1 �.WCA�4.•i�� 4✓��✓�.•.r� ��tf�f..! ,1`�..r,,."i��,�.�:,n � �� .�_. Ce�.. `iir.C�•c:�. � G�i:�:.�..4C.�- f�.`.t`�L._.r kki t 4 k) C, 1, '-vu l,04?_; i,. + +i.�. 71'._� � �", G;3 �r t:�l C� j✓ ''L„ L"l.. } -�A _ f ,sy C7_n ti November 17, 2003 CERTIFIED NAIL # 7 31 ` � � � ° 7 -3 yell Mr. Darwin Myers Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 —Fine St.North.Wing 4thFloor Martinez, CA.94553 RE: CDD File# SD 018533 Dear Mr.Myers, I want to oppose the requested variances for this project I do not believe the size and scope of this project can comfortably co-exist w1th Garrity Creek and the already overburdened Hilltop Drive and El Sobrante Elementary School. While I do feel it is everyone's right to develop a property,I think it should be done within the existing regulations and building codes. As a long time resident of Hilltop Drive I frequently see the Garrity Creek water shed as a safe haven for many types ofwildlife. The development of this vacant parcel along with the increase traffic on Hilltop Drive and neighboring roads,in my opinion will be very detrimental to the quality of life to these animals and to the people in this neighborhood. The preservation of open space should not be compromised or ignored to satisfy the over development of this vacant parcel. A. smaller number of homes(20 vs. 40)are a more appropriate number to build in this already congested busy neighborhood Mike Martell 4800 Hilltop Drive El Sobrante, CA 94803 APN#4262210059 Cc: Bob Drake Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 —Pine St.North Wing 4t'Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Supervisor John Gioia 11780—San Pablo Avenue Ste. D. El Cerrito, CA 94530 R-aa November 18, 2003 Derwin Myers Community Development Dept. Contra. Costa County 651 Pine St. North Wing 4th floor Martinez CA 94553 Dear Mr. Myers, I am writing to you as a longtime homeowner living on Marin Read in El Sobrante, While I acknowledge that growth and the building of more homes is a reality and a potential boost to our economy, I have reservations about the following development: SD8533. I urge Contra Costa County to refuse approval for 40 homes in unincorporated El Sobrante, on hilly open land off Hilltop Drive until a careful review of potential problems has been done, l understand that in spite of petitions signed by hundreds of residents, and a resolution by the Richmond City Council, the County planner has recommended a negative declaration on this project, avoiding an Environmental Impact Report. How can an accurate review be done without this information?Why would the EIR NOT be done? How can I be assured that my concerns about negative impacts from this development on the environment, traffic, and flood control shouldn't exist? I urge the County to grant no variances that would compromise creek protection, flood and slide prevention, or traffic and fire safety. Please help protect and serve the current homeowners as well as future ones. Thank you for your consideration. Tracy Taylor 815 Marin Rd El Sobrante, CA 94803 cc: Bob Drake Community Development Dept. Contra Costa County 651 Pine St. North Wing 4th floor Martinez CA 94553 Supv. John Gioia, 11780 San Pablo Ave. Ste D, El Cerrito CA 945307 November 18, 2003 N", p IV ��S Y( f . 1' � b. {'i 4.1• I Darwin Myers Community Development Dept. Contra Costa County 551 Pine St. North Wing 4th floor Martinez CA 94553 Dear Mr. Myers, I am writing to you as a longtime homeowner living on Marin Road in El Sobrante. While I acknowledge that growth and the building of more homes is a reality and a potential boost to our economy, I have reservations about the following development: SD8533. I urge Contra Costa County to refuse approval for 40 homes in unincorporated El Sobrante, on hilly open land off Hilltop Drive until a careful review of potential problems has been done. I understand that in spite of petitions signed by hundreds of residents, and a resolution by the Richmond City Council, the County planner has recommended a negative declaration on this project, avoiding an Environmental Impact Report. How can an accurate review be done without this information? Why would the EIR NOT be done"? How can I be assured that my concerns about negative impacts from this development on the environment, traffic, and flood control shouldn't exist? I urge the County to grant no variances that would compromise creek protection, flood and slide prevention, or traffic and fire safety. Please help protect and serve the current homeowners as well as future ones, Thank you for your consideration i,::,, Kim Dixon .,� 1�. 807 Marin Rd i EI Sobrante, CA 94803 cc: Bob Drake Community Development Dept. Contra Costa County 651 Pine St. North Wing 4th floor Martinez CA 94553 Supv. John Gioia, 11780 San Pablo Ave. Ste D, El Cerrito CA 94530. B-96 To: Darwin Myers Bob Drake Supervisor John Gioia G3 `°r V Our family has built and lived at 4778 Hilltop Drive since 1955. I cannot imagine another 10 - 50 more homes across the street from our home. Now when a bus or a large truck go by, our front room window shakes and I am afraid will shatter with the vibration. Many years ago my parents had to have extensive sewer work done,which was a direct effect from over load of traffic. Not long ago many homes were destroyed on Pebble Dr. because of soil erosion during wet conditions. That area looks exactly like the area you are letting development take place. I am having an extensive foundation inspection done at 4778 Hilltop Dr. and if something is found from over development I will encourage ether owners to also take steps to protect their property along the proposed streets. I am against the development and will help oppose it in any way I can. Phil Covell Long time resident, owner and DeAnza High School graduate 707— �l- 0 f4� P-07 Northern Valley 's okut/Ohlone/Miwuk 1234 Luna Inane Stockton, CA 95206 Tel. (209) 462-2680 Fax: (209) 462-2680 November 19, 2003 To Whom It May Concern: It is the tribes understanding the developers are in a hurry and want to include the new parcel of land for the proposed development without doing and EIR.. "his would mean that the parcel of land that has not been subject to any investigation would be an error in more ways then one. The new parcel of land was not originally evaluated for any effect to the not only Native American issue or concerns but also to the effect or impact to others (the community, habitat, air quality, water, endangered species, and plants, etc.) and is also not under the CEQA guidelines To include the new parcel would not be the right thing to do. If the landowner or the developer want to show good faith they will do the right thing and hire a qualified archaeologist and evaluate the land for any impacts that their project may have on all concern parties. It is also my understanding that in the original FIR the Archaeologist did a record search and a foot survey (visual), at a time when visibility was poor due to the vegetation (blackberry) and no archaeological testing was done to assure there were no burials. The trip is not comfortable with the landowner and developers proceeding with their plan. The tribe is concern that the project could yield burials. Therefore, recommend that the new parcel not be developed without further environmental investigations. Respectfully, Katherine Perez, NVY/Ohlone, Miwuk �_a sz THE HUCHIUN BAND OF THE OHLONTE AT GA:RRITY CREEK By Micheal Ali V\V'Y\M1M1\\\\M1M1\V1l\\t\Y\V\\\\M1't\t\tV M1M1 t4 tM1At\lM1\V\\tM1 Sponsored by the Friends of Garrity Creek On Thursday, August 28, 2003, I led members of the Friends of Garrity Creek in exploring to see what we could find in terms of the Ohlone's historical presence around the north and east forks of Garrity Creep. Land developers want this area to build modern dwellings for profit, thus forever drastically changing and ruining the wild beauty of this well- loved piece of land. The open space surrounding this part of Garrity Creek includes ten acres of creek, valley and sloping hillsides dotted with copses of woods. Its isolation, peacefulness and charm mean much to the neighbors and few visitors who have discovered this hidden haven. They are curious about the history of the Ohlone here and asked me if physical evidence of their presence could still exist at this site. Knowing the history of the Huchiun .Brand of the Ohlone, I knew that they had occupied this particular territory in times of antiquity. Would traces of their lives here hundreds of years ago still be visible, after all the building and development in the area? I am pleased to say that we did find ancient artifacts that prove without a doubt that the Huchiun band of the Ohlone did once live at what is now known as Garrity Creek. Overview The Huchiun band of`the Ohlone at Garrity Creek ds the surrounding area Before the corning of the Spanish, the Central coast of California had the densest population of Native Americans anywhere north of Mexico. More than 50,000 people lived in the coastal regions from the Carmel Diver to the San Francisco Bay Area. There were some sixty bands of people in San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties alone. Members of these sixty hands spoke ten to fifteen dialects of the Fentivan family language group. A majority of the languages were closely related, but in some cases were so very different that these small bands could live several miles apart from one another and yet could not understand each other. (See attachment-1) The average size of a band could number up to 250 persons. These sixty bands of the Pentivan-speaking Native Americans lived in six of the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties -- San Francisco, San Mated, Santa Mara, Monterey, Alameda, Solano and Contra Costa. They were called the Ohlone, a Sierra Miwok word meaning the 'people of the West'. We need to think of the Ohlone not as a 'tribe', but as related groups of people with a similar Pentivan-based language. Before European contact, these Pentivan-speaking people never thought of themselves as a 'tribal' unit. However, the invasion and interaction with whites gradually caused most of those who remained of the original bands to think of themselves as Ohlone in later years. This paper provides a history of the Huchiun band of the OhIones in West Contra Costa County, with a specific report on their use of greater Garrity Creek at the El Sobrante site. The Huchiun used the El Sobrante site of Garrity Creek as a seasonal village for hunting herds of tole elk, pronghorn antelope and black tail deer and also for seed gathering and harvesting. The .Huchiun bang of the Ohlone (the word Huchiun simply means 'people') homeland was high in the western hills of West Centra Costa County. It was a great stretch of high, rolling grassy hills clothed in a sweep of prairie-type grasses and endless fields of wildflowers. For the Huchiun, the important features were in the forests following the creeks and rivers down from the canyons in the high hill country and across the grassland savannahs to the San Pablo Bay. Here the coast redwood, buckeye, coast and live oak, big leaf maple, madrone and manxanita trees formed thousands of acres of untouched primeval forest that shadowed the Bay shoreline of West Centra Costa. Our story of the Huchiun and Garrity Creek begins on the other side of the San Pablo Ridge at the mouth of Wildcat Canyon in Richmond, particularly at Wildcat Canyon Creek in present day Alvarado Park. While the record shows Huchiun presence throughout West Contra Costa from 5,400 to 20,000 years ago, most paleoanthropologists find 5,000 to 7,000 years ago to be more accurate. The present location of Alvarado Park was for thousands of years the site of one of the largest existing Huchiun villages, with a population of some 2503 people residing on the banks of Wildcat Canyon Creek. The first Spanish expedition there was chronicled by Captain Pedro Fages and Father Juan Crespi, who came north to explore the western parts of Contra Costa County in 1763 while looking for Drake's Bay. At the Richmond Wildcat Creek village, Crespi made contact with the first.Huchiun, the same Huchiun that would use the Garrity Creek site in El Sobrante as a seasonal hunting and seed gathering ground. He stated they had found "a good village of heathen, very fair and bearded.." Along San Pablo Bay close to the area where Garrity Creek flows into the Bay nearby Point Pinole, he reported "five large villages of very mild heathens with pleasant faces...(that were) bearded.." (See attachment-2) The prehistoric Huchiun site map of archaeological excavations (See attachment-3), shows that Garrity Creek features very prominently in archaeological digs, notably sites CA-CCO-264 and 265. Recent archaeologicall digs completed in the mid-1990s showed that both Garrity Creek and adjacent Point Pinole (circled area of attachment-3) are included in an Ohlone spiritual center. Holy men and shamans from as far south as Monterey were brought to that village for burial. Upon reviewing the entire r2-I rug Ohlone landmarks map (See attachment4), we can see how prominent the .Huchiun were in the greater Ohlone world. As we shall see in this narrative, Garrity Creek as a whole and the Garrity Creek site in El Sobrante played an important role in the life of the Huchiun people whose village sat upon the banks of the Wildcat Canyon Creek.. Ohlone Dative-American archaeologist Andrew Galvan estimates that around the time of the Fages and Crespi expeditions there were some 10,000 Huchiun in the East Bay. These indigenous people lived hunting and gathering lifestyles in tribelets of 250 or less. They lived in seasonal villages, migrating from the shores of San Pablo Bay to the inland canyons along Garrity, Rheem, San Pablo and Wildcat Canyon Creeks on a annual cycle for thousands upon thousands of years. The Huchiun seasonally followed the harvesting locations of their food, abandoning winter villages during gathering and hunting periods. The Garrity Creek site was highly prized because it offered the basic sustenance of acorns from tanbark, valley, coast and live oak trees, as well as buckeye trees. They also harvested seeds, berries, greens, nuts and roots at the site location. They would venture down Garrity Creek to fish for steelhead, salmon and sturgeon that swam up Garrity Creek to spawn. The Huchiun hunting at the El Sobrante site did not reduce the native animal populations. However, there were significant results when the Huchiun made seasonal summer camps such as Garrity Creek location. Each fall they would set fire to the dry hillocks and hills. This kept the brush from overtaking the meadowlands, giving good growth to seed harvest and ensuring plentiful grazing for large game animals like rule elk, pronghorn antelope and black tail deer. This created an ideal setting for excellent hunting conditions for the Huchiun at the Garrity Creek site. It also encouraged oak and pine nut seed germination, which germinate best after a controlled fire, and prevented a build up of fuel that could create a major Firestorm. Evidence of Huchuin use of the Garrity Creek site in El Sobrante as a seasonal seed gathering and hunting site Having completed the historical overview of Huchiun presence in West Contra Costa, the question remains whether the El Sobrante area of Garrity Creek is a true archaeological site that should be preserved. How did we conclude that this location is included in the larger historical implications of being a prehistoric Native American seasonal seed gathering and hunting encampment? Let's examine the evidence found on August 28 for answers. At seasonal sites like these, physical evidence in terms of artifacts .maybe scarce and difficult to locate -- a valid point to take into consideration. Why is there at times a lack of artifacts? The answer is quite simple. The shelters they built were temporary and quickly decomposed, leaving behind no permanent trace of habitation. Also, when moving to cz_nn� different seasonal locations, the Huchiun hand of the Ohlone typically traveled very lightly in terms of what equipment and gear they would carry with them from the permanent camp to their seasonal home. Their seasonal campsites were very low-impact with regards to the environment they would reside in for several weeks to a month at time. A highly resourceful people, they would only carry the tools and implements they needed, making other tools at the actual site if need be. Any tools that were not essential to take back to the main village were simply discarded or left at the seasonal site to be used next year. Archeologists call tools and other implements that are left behind 'exposed artifacts.' This means they can be seen by the human eye on the ground level or are slightly buried several inches below the ground, but still can visually be seen. In exploring the particular site at Garrity Creek, I discovered various exposed artifacts, providing the factual basis from which to draw valid conclusions about the nature of Huchiun life at this site. What was life like for the Huchiun at Garrity Creek? Let's follow them from their ancient village at Wildcat Canyon Creek and observe how they utilized and maintained this site for big game hunting, seed and plant gathering. To reach their seasonal camp, a group of Huchiun would leave the Wildcat Canyon area and make the grueling trip to the high crests of the San Pablo Ridge. When they finally reached the highest 1500-foot elevation., they would start their slow descent down from the Ridge and into the El Sobrante galley. By late afternoon or early evening, they had finally reached the large hillocks of the Garrity Creek area. Generally, at any given time the site would have no more than about ten to fifteen people from the village. The first order of business was building temporary shelters to accommodate the Wildcat Canyon band for the time they would be there. Removing pacific willow saplings and branches from Garrity Creek, they would build a donne-shaped frame house in a short amount of time. (See attachment-5) The Huchiun utilized identical construction methods to the Pomo, as illustrated in this photo of a donne-shaped frame for a Fonio surnmer house. When the season was completed., they would abandon the structure and let the elements return it back to the earth. As you can see, finding the remnants of a dome frame structure would not be an easy task. There simply would be no trace of it -- after a year's time, it would start to slowly decompose after a brutal rainy winter. More than a century later, vital evidence of housing is not there to be found. The evidence we can see includes the plants, shrubs and trees to demonstrate that this site was a seasonal seed and plant harvest site. During the end of spring, the women from the Wildcat Canyon village began the seed gathering and harvesting of dozens of different seeds and plants that served for both diet and medicinal purposes. The women used burden baskets capable of carrying very heavy loads of seeds, which were held in place by tumplines worn on the forehead and attached to the burden basket. The Huchiun women would wear a basketry cap to prevent the burden basket from P-in? chafing their foreheads, as in (attachment-6). using a scoop-like seed beater in the right hand (See attachment-7),they cradled the burden basket in the left arm and waded right into grass. They swept the seed beater through the seed heads, loosening the grass seeds and knocking them directly into the large burden basket. The Pomo seed beater in attachment-7 is very similar to the Huchiun version. Within a few weeks, they would complete collecting close to one ton of mustard seeds, sage or chin seeds, clarkia and redmaid seeds and place them in temporary cone-shaped granaries made of Pacific willow saplings. The granaries sat several feet above the ground and could keep several hundred pounds of seeds safe from mice and other rodents. To mill the seed., the women put the seeds into a portable mortar and rolled a small pestle lightly around to loosen the hulls (See attachment-8). This seed pestle was discovered as an exposed artifact at the Garrity Creek site where the north and east forks of the creek join. I believe that this was a pre-teen's pestle because it is designed for a much smaller hand. I observed various seed grasses at the site that were commonly harvested by the Huchiun. The presence of these common food sources and the discovery of the pestle is convincing evidence that Garrity Creek was definitely a seasonal site to harvest seeds. Discovering the small seed pestle by the north and east forks where the creek joins is even more compelling evidence. The pestle was but a short distance from a few patches of seed bearing grasses. Ona small hillock over looking the Garrity Creek site are a series of three old live oak trees. In late September, October and early November, the acorns start to ripen and are ready for harvesting. Almost all residents of the Wildcat Canyon Creek village went to the oak groves maybe five or ten miles from home. So again during the acorn harvest season, Garrity Creek becomes a seasonal campsite. Soon the acorn harvesters would take acorns back to the Wildcat Canyon Creek village by the ton. The acorns were ground with pestles in mortar baskets. After the pounding the woman put the acorn flour into a shallow sifting basket and would shake the fine flour from the coarse. Even when the acorn flour was refined, it was still nasty and bitter. The woman would now go to the east and north fork of the creek and scoop out a hole in the sand. Using a watertight basket, she would allow the water to run over the acorn meal for a great period of time. This process removed the bitter tannic acid. Some acorns could be leeched more quickly than others could; some batches of acorn meal could take all day. .After the leeching process was completed, she would take another large watertight basket and drop great quantities of both the acorn flour and water into the basket. At the side of the basket she would have a small fire ,going with numerous round, spherical stones sitting in the fire. When a stone was hot enough, she would use long wooden prongs to pick up the hot stone and drop it into the basket (See attachment-9), adding many of these hot stones until the water would actually boil. These stones were called 'cooking stones'. (See attachment-10) She would use the wooden prongs to keep stirring the cooking stones so it would not burn her basket. Soon the boiling water and acorn flour turned into mush. The mush could then be baked like fry bread or eaten as soup or a thick cereal. Oak trees capable of yielding acorns for Huchiun harvest flourish near Garrity Creek. I also found another important exposed artifact there: a perfectly round, spherical conking stone formed of granite. Good cooking stones, like the one that I found made out of granite, could not be cracked or shattered. They were highly prized by Huchiun women. The fact that this cooking stone was located where the north and east forks of the creek join is equally as significant. Water is needed in order to leech acorn flour; also, the cooping stones in the fire had to be near where the water and flour were bailing in the basket. All this boiling process required a ready source of running water to complete the final phase of making the acorn flour into mush. I could only conclude that a Huchiun woman utilized the cooking stone at. this site during the annual acorn harvest. Also there were several buckeye trees from.which Huchiun could harvest nuts if the acorn harvest fell short. The next exposed artifact found where the east and north fork of the creek joins together was an abrader. Abraders are commonly found important tools that vary in size and shape, depending on the stone. Many of the Huchiun abraders are made of gritty stone shaped or in a natural form. Abraders served to sharpen, smooth and shape stone, bone antler, shell and wood. Rough-textured abraders function much like files or coarse sandpaper. Whetstones sharpened the edges of points of tools. (See attachment-11) The Huchiun abrader fits comfortably in one's band; however, it was designed for the smaller hands of a Huchiun male. The first question I asked myself, "Why was it discarded or left behind at this particular site?" I recalled seeing a black tail deer earlier in the afternoon at the Garrity Creek site. One of people who belong to the Friends of Garrity Creek informed me she had seen a huge full grown stag around the perimeter of the site. Then as I carefully examined the physical terrain more, I discovered that in the tall dry grass that there were some thirty indentations that had flattened out the grass. Looking more closely, I realized that this was where a herd of black tail deer bedded down to sleep. Then it dawned upon me that this was an area where Huchiun hunters came to kill deer. .Huchiun hunters used bow and arrows in their pursuit to successfully kill members of the black tail deer herd. Though I spent several hours looking for flaked obsidian projectile points or arrowheads, none were visible. In Contra Costa County, obsidian is very scarce, and the Huchiun obtained it solely through trade from Napa, Santa Rosa, and the east side of the Sierra Nevada. I returned back to the creek area where I had found the abrader originally. I looked down around the creek itself and saw fresh deer tracks from the animals drinking from the creek. I saw two or three trails that led directly away from the creek in opposing directions. Here, from the cover of the coyote brush, would make a perfect ambush site to get closer arrow shots at the deer. I had found the artifact sitting right next to the coyote brush that would offer the most cover. I then realized the abrader had belonged to a Huchiun archer, who would use it to sharpen his projectile points to be razor sharp when he would be hidden in the coyote brush awaiting to ambush the black tail deer. The a_-inA archer could have misplaced the abrader after sharpening his projectile point, or it could have fallen from his person as he took aim at the deer. The Garrity Creek site is a popular area for deer to graze and sleep in the summertime. From the vantage point of the hillock with the oak trees, Huchiun hunters would have the perfect view of how best to encircle the deer herd and get terrific body shots while'following the deer to the creek. The small Huchiun abrader gives the lead clue that the Garrity Creek site would indeed be a fabulous summer hunting camp. We found the last exposed artifact in the same area where the north and east fork of the creek join. In this case, it was a piece of volcanic black pumice. (See attachment-12) In quite a few cases at Huchiun villages and seasonal campsites, black pumice is strewn throughout these prehistoric locations. I noted that the pumice was not far from where the abrader had been located.. Pumice definitely was a part of the hunter's archery gear. The archer used it to aid in the beginning phases of smoothing out certain kinds of projectile points. The pumice acted as a prehistoric 'steel wool pad,' so coarse and yet also soft. When old projectile points became damaged or destroyed, this pumice was a critical tool in producing replacement projectiles. The hunter used pumice to initially rub out the rough edges of the newly fashioned projectile point or arrowhead until it had a semi- smooth texture, ready to begin the next phase of further smoothing. Carrying pumice would be an indispensable part of the prepared archer's gear on the hunting trail. This is another case in point of an archer in a seasonal location having the required tools to have a successful hunt. Conclusion In summary, i found compelling evidence that the Garrity Creek area between Manor Drive, Hilltop Drive, and hilltop Green was a seasonal big game hunting and seed/plant gathering camp for the Huchiun. I found a number of exposed artifacts -- a seed pestle, a granite cooking stone, an abrader and a volcanic pumice whetstone -- close to the locations where Huchiun people would have utilized them in daily life, close to the riches of plant and animal life regularly utilized by the Huchiun in their diet. It is my recommendation that this area be evaluated very soon by professional archaeologists whose knowledge is grounded in a strong understanding of the native customs of the Huchiun. This evaluation should take place prior to any disturbance of the area by future construction. Recommendations for further reading East Bay Express "Return of the Native" by Louise Lacey Oct 11, 1996 Volume 19, #1, Stone Bone Antler and Shell: Artifacts of the Northwest Coast, by bilary Stewart. University of Washington Press, Seattle WA, 1996. The Destruction of California Indians by Robert F. Heizer. University of Nebraska Press, 1993. The Ellis Landing Shelimound. university of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Berkeley CA, 1910. The Native Americans: The Indigenous Pepple of North America, by Colin F. Taylor, Salamander Books, London UK, 2002. The Ohlone Way, by Malcolm Margolin. Heyday Books, Berkeley CA, 1978. The Pomo Indians of California, by Vinson Brawn and Douglas Andrews. Naturegraph Publishers, Healdsburg CA, 1969. The Stege Mounds at Richmond California, University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Berkeley CA, 1924. NN,w�v ucsc.edu/ucsc/na--reserves/papers/Ld-nishihira-reserve/htmi Editor's note: A very thorough description of the way of life of the Huchuin can be found in chapter 4 of the following study housed in the Richmond History Room, Richmond Main Library. Investigation of cultural resources within the Richmond Harbor Redevelopment,Project 11-A Richmond,,Contra Costa Cogply, California. Prepared by California Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Peter M. Banks and Robert 1. Orlins. March 1981. Photos: Map 2.1 Location of study area This map, showing the various forks of Garrity Creek, delineates the area of the 1981 archaeological study prepared for the city of Richmond prior to the beginning of work on the harbor Redevelopment Project. Map 2.3 Map of Richmond vicinity 185E -- Garrity Creek is shown in.the upper right hand part of this map. Map 2.6 Geologic map of study area This shows the location of a probable fault near the El Sobrante area. The Hayward fault is to the east, thus this area is located between two fault areas and may be in a structural trough. Map 2.7 shows the plant communities along Garrity Creek to be riparian Woodland. Map 3.1 Location of prehistoric sites within the study area Map 4.3 Landmarks from historic documents Portrait of San. Francisco Bay peoples by Ludovic Choris, 1816 from "Voyage Pittoresque" I8i25: Plate VI. Women of the Hui.men tribelet 41,3, a woman of the Huchiun tribelet in 2, and women of the Saklan tribelet in 4135. 7 � i 1 } •1 s2frJ tom::... �',�",-s��cc. �'-2.�.��._. �C .-c.f•' .�-'.�',,�. /�'e;;�-"�"" `c-,t �.�K,,,� , r 3 I ,r6��P e.✓.�.�+�r�'"t� =� ....a;� ��. sem., +�`�^�"��--- . �.,,•;f.��,,,� ,rte-�,-�e... ,lam � �� „�.,�"� "__.. i � "L v i 4 , i } a..G'L'l d.Fi''�, :J/7''i-+•�+'C� 'y G.��v.. i i i _. _ ................................ Darwin Myers �4November 19, 2003 Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street North WLng 4th floor Martinez, Ca 9455.3 Dear Mr. Myers, As a resident of El Sobrante, I urge you to not approve the 40 homes in the unincorported El Sobrante, on hilly open land off Hilltop Drive. We have .moved here a little over two years. We wanted to be in a quite neighborhood. With this development, we will be denied our appreciation of this kind of environment. I am concerned about the negative impacts from this development on the environment, traffic, and flood control. Do not allow the County to grant no variances that would compromise creek protection, flood and slide prevention, or traffic and fire safety. Traffic on Hilltop, Manor, and Marin roads and neighboring streets would increase by 328 to 410 trips per day, creating gridlock near local schools. The local schools will be overburdened and we would see an increase in enrollment with any increase in staff or funds of supplies. There will be an increase in flooding and water management problems due to creating 10 acres of high density, impervious surfaces. Again, I urge you to consider these facts to stop this over development. This project will especially affect my property, since I am directly facing the Hilltop property. seely, Winfred Tong 4824 Hilltop Drive El Sobranate, CA 94803 0 "1 In i M I l i ................. ........_. ...__....—___.._..t�.._�....�'�:.•�;"�-.F_... .._...._..__`._........ ...-_... ..._. _-..!`.tee.:'-.....__. _.� ..`"�':.i�A..aI.I:�A. ._t,�,�.�,.._.��....._-..._ ._.. 1 t t U f r c 4-0 ----- --- --- . _.._ Yr ex, ,Yrz' r - �' 41461, ' L ,r Saundra England 5116 Hilltop Drive EI Sobronte, California 94803-1310 November 21, 2003 Mr. Darwin Myers Community Development Dept, Contra Costa County 651 Pine St. North Wing 4"' floor Martinez CA 94553 Dear M€. Myers: As a resident of Hilltop Dr. in El Sobrante, I'd like to extend a personal invitation to you. I'm inviting you to spend half a day at my house, day and time don't matter. And when this half a day is over I will ask you to explain to me how you can support any development at Garrity Creek, and at the same time, claim to be in possession of all your facultlesl The fact that this isn't your neighborhood..... ........... Taking into account all of signed petitions against this development, how do you justify recommending a 'negative declaration' on this project? Or have you bothered taking these into account? When was the last time that you aided the progress of a development in your own backyard? You and your department are doing nothing but making daily life in this town its own private hell for its residents. Please rethink your position on this project and stop any further actions that will contribute to its progress. Can't thank you enough, Saundra England i s� ...... zL IL r Ea �4,�y Mr. Darwin Myers Community Development :Dept. Contra Costa County 651 Pine St., North Wing 4`' Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Revised Project SD 01--8733 Hilltop Neighborhood Assn & Friends of Garrity Creel Dear Mr. Myers: After 56 years Marin Road is a narrow, very frail and tired street. 11 looks like a patchworl� quilt due to frayed edues, potholes and mended sewer pipes. In 1966 residents had I car and '1 garage per family, now there are 4 or more cars (I garage). We can't handle any more traffic on these roads! We already have constant annoying noise and fumes from the.f-80 sound "BARRIERS". Now add the noise and fumes from Marin and Hilltop Drive': I will certainly feel sorry for the future residents sitting in the"ditch" on a warn? day. We can't Dandle any more traffic on these roads. As to the "ditch", it is still a very valuable refine for the many different critters th!ho call it ho.'11e, and who have entertained residents for a very lon(y time, The buildin- of the. 40- home `project- on much needed Open Space is a s ery sad ending to a peaceful era for animals and humans alike. Please help us in our guest for saving the last Open Space in this area.. Hopefully, t DORIS B. kLSING 838 �VIA .ROAD El Sobrante, CA 94803 cc: Mr. Bob Drake oc: Supers isor John Gioia L.�e✓J•�"' !'t.....��`°Q�P �i'�dd-"+ of C,..�s`�r�r-'�%�'7•t.(✓4»+x r^'/-fir ��J�'7-'t�,,kwr:Y�c�%''�."-'j-c'l` �r VK t ji r s r` �,;�/ � � y• � � �' � �� • •�t�f l .s,,�^''� �• ,� w -�i a s E}f� Juu $ k '-r r+. •w��j, >✓,'b .,a'w �^iy � -: } K _ t F �•' t ' .. �Sk ...h�r 7 E 1 r 1 `�'.n,'ri n i r�2�� .t.t..�;s�`FCS � r Y-�• JL a A r I � , f7 t"2'7 I; .J•J tt / 1. f r,,f„tE ty `! Y'�.�,y ,' y. 1t �"�}�N"�k,�ia P1' f t� y� !� r`,{y i� c�ti,�•��'1 -J 4♦«.. "'i'�,r I �4/�-t ._�..yam a ;� Std�f�,1Y��'T;4�,dr�. f�11��L� _ � } 'j d P '....:.�5 Li r—fir,�.t,S. S. t';+i''fi'"�£w4 ,;. r•. 'i .,� I F{, '� •.' � '��,z� �' ` x: 14 �f � �` � --_ 47 Lu ,�� Cly tJ kms— �- Li +hr LU f M LU cc 1' _. Selya E. Gomez-Su..er 5065 Hilltop Dr. El Sobrante, CA 94805 Mr. Darwin Myers Community Development Dept., Contra Costa County, 651 Pine St. North Wing 4th Floor, Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr Myers, My name is Selya Gomez-Suiter and I reside at 5065 Hilltop Dr. El Sobrante, CA 94803 . At this time we have a big problem in our neighborhood, a big developer want to build 40 houses in unincorporated El Sobrante, on hilly open land off Hilltop Drive . In spite of petitions signed by hundreds of residents, and a resolution by the Richmond City Council , the County planner has recommended a "negative declaration" on this project, avoiding an Environmental Impact Report . I 'm very concerned about the negative impacts from this development on the environmental, traffic, and flood control . I urge you to grant no variances that would compromise creek protection flood and slide prevention, or traffic and fire safety. I just don' t believe that your department will not acknowledge the risk and consea_uences of this new development. The developer plans to minimize the creek and places houses directly over it . This will likely impact : > Traffic on Hilltop, Manor and Marin roads and neighboring streets would increase by 320 to 410 trips per day, creating gridlock near local schools, not mentioning the noise that will create . > Overburdened local schools would see enrollment increases without any increase in staff or funds for supplies . > Increased flooding and water management problems due to creating 10 acres of high density, impervious surfaces . The project eliminates previously open space that allowed storm water to naturally percolate into the aquifer. a-11a _. .... _....._.. _.__._.. .. ..._ ........ ........ ....... ..... . ....... _. _.. _. ._. Selya E. Gomez-Su.er 5065 Hilltop Dr. El Sobrante, CA 94805 ➢ Loss of wildlife corridor and open space to a development that creates higher risk of landslides and destabilization of existing homes . > Damage to Garrity Creek and wildlife, increase pollution, etc . Please don' t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions . Sinc !y 'J Seiya Gomez-Suiter cc: Bob brake Supv. John Gioia R-1 20 Margrit Hi 1078 Mitt"hell vvay El Sobrante, CA 94808 �.r J vy Jx Pep Yet- Margrit Haaf 1078 Mitchell Way EI Sobrante, CA 94843 R_7 Y Community Development Department December 13, 2003 Attention Darwin Myers 651 Fine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez CA 94553-0095. Dear Mr. Myers; We are opposed to development SDOi-8533 for various reasons: -t1 Re:Environmental Impact Report The area adjacent to our property: 894 Marin Road has already been identified as slide- prone. However, the county has not authorized a complete Environmental Impact Report. Instead, it appears that the county is willing to accept the misrepresentations of the developer who also has not prepared a complete study. For example, the developer has twice changed the design of the project. One of the changes calls for construction on the very steep area at the end of Marin Road. 'Yet, no provision is made for possible slides or damages to homes on Marin Road. The structural stability of past developments in El Sobrante have failed at great cost to long-time homeowners as well as the new ones coming into the development. The California Environmental Quality Act itself requires an environmental impact report whenever a project "may have a significant and adverse physical effect on the environment." Yet you propose a mitigated negative declaration instead of an EIR in spite of the great deal of evidence of significant environmental impact our group and others have provided. This is risky for the neighborhood, the development itself, and the county. 92 Quality of Life This project proposes to take land now providing a habitat to diverse wildlife, and replace it with asphalt, concrete, and homes. To describe such a project as having no significant environmental impact is a misrepresentation of common sense and fact. There has been much talk about quality of life and parks for El Sobrante. This site itself has been included in the General Plan as a possible park site. given its high accessibility and nearly pristine state, this seems an excellent use for this land.. #3 Re: Flooding, school overcrowding, traffic, and infrastructure problems This is a neighborhood already beset with flooding, school overcrowding, traffic, and infrastructure problems. For example, every day between 8:00a.m. and 8:3Oa,m., Hilltop Drive becomes a regular parking lot due to all the parents driving children to school. We are very concerned about the increase in traffic on our already congested roads. It has been said that the development will add approximately 410 more car trips per day.Hilltop Drive, and surrounding narrow roads cannot handle such an overload. We are already concerned about the increase in traffic accidents in the neighborhood, especially Hilltop Drive. #4 Re: Construction Pollution We are concerned about the dust and noise pollution that will result during the engineering of the hillsides and roads and the construction of the 40 houses proposed in this development. As an officer of the county working for the citizens of the county, we expect you to adequately addressed these concerns before making any final decisions. Sincerely, .Miguel A. Hernandez Edna Hernandez 894 Marin Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 December 19, 2003 To Darwin Myers We are opposed to development SDOl-8533 for-the fallowing reasons: #1 Re:Environmental Impact Report A complete EIR has not been done to address the fallowing problems. This is a slide-prone area, yet the developer's studies have misrepresented or not completely studied the site. (HERE ARE TWO EXAMPLES, IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THEM) For two examples: a.)The developer's study mentions only three of the five parcels. b.) Since that study was done the developer has twice changed the design of the project including construction on the very steep area at the end of Marin Road. Yet no prevision is made for possible slides or damages to homes on Marin Road. The structural stability of past developments in EI Sobrante have failed at great cost to long-time homeowners as well as the new ones coming into the development. #2 Re: California State law requirement: The California Environmental Quality Act itself requires an environmental impact report whenever a project"may have a significant and adverse physical effect on the environment." Yet you propose a mitigated negative declaration intead of an EIR in spite of the great deal of evidence of significant environmental impact our group and others have provided.This is risky for the neighborhood, the development itself, and the county. This project proposes to take land now providing a habitat to diverse wildlife, and replace it with asphalt, concrete, and homes. To describe such a project as having no significant environmental impact is a misrepresentation of common sense and fact. #3 Re: Park site There has been much talk about quality of life and parks for EI Sobrante. This site itself has been included in the General Plan as a possible park site. Given its high accessibility and nearly pristine state, this seems an excellent use for this land. #4 Re: Flooding, school overcrowding, traffic, and infrastructure problems This is a neighborhood already beset with flooding, school overcrowding, traffic, and infrastructure problems. (YOU MIGHT GIVE YOU PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF SOME OF THESE..)We are very concerned about the increase in traffic on our already congested roads. It has been said that the development will add approximately 410 more car trips per day.Hilltop Drive, and surrounding narrow roads cannot handle such an overload. We are already concerned about the increase in traffic accidents in the neighborhood, especially Hilltop drive. #5 Re: Horses This new development could intimately affect those of us who have horses and those of us that lave the rural neighborhood character they provide. Often new residents object to the odor and flies that they associate with horses and other livestock. Sometimes the new residents' desires over-rule those of the old residents. #6 Re: Construction pollution We are concerned about the dust and noise pollution that will resin during the engineering of the hillsides and roads and the construction of the 40 houses proposed in this development. We do not feel that you have adequately addressed these concerns. Sincerely, Claudia Crandall 1106 Kelvin Rd E1 Sobrante, CA 94803 December 21, 2003 Darwin Meyers County Administration Building 651 fine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez CA 94553-0095 1 am writing as a concerned adjacent property owner, to the purposed development off Hilltop Road (Sid Afsher Development). I own my home on Marin Road and.I bought this house because of the rural area and green space on the backside of the property. Now, that I have lived-here a while I am aware of the many important aspects of this green:space such as: the spring, the creek, the riparian grasses, the animal corridor and trees/vegetation. These are the elements of a healthy environment for all life. This purposed development would take that away, and be a stressor for the neighborhood and this community causing an unhealthy local environment. As homeowner in this area, I have made an investment and more to the neighborhood. I require having the space I decided to live here for, and not to be blocked in by more homes, more traffic, more flooding, and general noise/lights/activity. It is about a quality of life that I choose for myself when I came to El Sobrante. I believe the County Administration needs to be looking at how it can protect this open space and water shed area. It should be looking out for the best interests of the homeowners and community members here. Perhaps by a low impact park being created, if a change to has to be made, in this city that does not have one. Sincerely, Janet Laughlin Rom PD0. . . . .CCI I PHONE NO. 9252589779 JI;N. 24 2204 03:16PM P1 ;:- S ON Stephen& ,Unda Everett 15 Aspen Courr V Sobrante, CA 94803 M%Y , �l D I k January 2';, 2004 Darwin Meyers Community Development Department Contra Costa County County A6ninistration Building 651 Pine Street, 0 Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553-0095 Re: SDI-8533,Sid Afsher,Developer Our Property at 15 Aspen Court would be adjacent to the proposed development Dear MY,Meyers; Up to this point we regratUly admit that we have been silent on,the,proposed 40 home &vtlopnient of the parcel behind our property,unable to attend meetings. We have received several unbelievable fliers for the preservation of Gwrity Creek, and can only shake our heads at the efforts of those who call themselves "Friends of Garrity Creek!'. It's way Past time to voice our own opinions,and be silent no longer! We have received copies of letters sent to you from those who oppose the proposed development, Lzttars we would like to use to address our comments to their"reasons" for not having an established development,adding our own concerns for having the proposed development go forward. First of all to give a back.oTound of where we as homeowners in this area are coming from. We built our home in 1988-1989 at 15 Aspen Court, We too encountered opposition inspite of taldme, all the necessary andlegal to build. For example: (1) A neighbor who did not like the idea of our building our home adjacent to his property., decided to re-route,his water run-off piping directly on to our foundation during torrential end of December'rains, causing great concern from our contractor as to whether we would loose the project. We-needed to go to our property, re-route the neighbor's pipes off our foundati= It was strange to us that even though the neighbor told us of a back problem and wasn't able to help re-route his piping, was later found by another Aspen Court homeowner to have gone out and re-route once again his run-off pipes directly onto our foundation. We finally had to seek the advise of an attorney, who by his plione call convinced the ruthless neighbor to vad his actions. (2) Another neighbor adjacent to our property prior to Our Purchase of 15 Aspen Court had used the I u 0 I=d up the hill from our property for his own dumping, and tried to discourage our b ilding by first agreeing to pay for a. -retaining wall required to retain his property dirt, only after $15,000 later to i-triage. FROM = ADU. . . —COLLISION PHONE NO. : 9252589779 JAN. 24 2004 03: 17PM V2 Mr.Darwin Meyers Co"In"ali*Development nepanment Comm Cozaa Cbkniy At: SDI-*S33, ,yid Afsher,Developer Our Property at IS Aspen Court would be wUacent to the proposed devekopmtn, January 23,2004 page 2 Other causes encompass our concern for safety and negligence on the part of surrounding bonr-owners. (1) A few years ago, a fire was started by the carelessness of a homeowner on Marini Road throwing hot coals behind his home. During this very dry season,the fixe spread all down the hillside,burring trees, an old shed, which would be the parcels E and of the proposed developtxtent. It took several calls from a neighbor on Hilltop across from Aspen.Court to the fire department to get the fire department here to put the fire out. The fire deparrxnent had to use our property to get to the property where the fire was burning. Each year homeown= on Aspen Court have had to contact the fare department for assistauce to request the Marin Road homeowner to crit the dry grasses to avoid another fire disaster. Because of years of dumping at the end of the Marin Road boznecswner's property (adjacent to 15 and 15 Aspen. Court property), there had been a compost area created, and for days following the above desetibed fin, there was smoldering and fire out breaks. Por homeowners eoricf--med for the preservation of land and wildlife, I do not understand such carelessness. At the same time, our young teenage children, who were home alone at the tizne, acted upon rbeir own instincts to water down our property and deck,all the wl*�ile adult neighbors (Friends of Garrity Creel:) stood on the knoll adjacent to our property jeering and laughing at them! (2) The Garrity Creek that everyone is concmed about has been a bed of trash since before we moved to our home. Before all the wild growth, one could easily see refrigerators and staves in the dried up creek bed.' As far down the area as we could cee, the area had been used for a dumping ground' (3) Although I don't know first hand, I've been told that at the opposite end of the proposed development, have been found old mattresses, torn clothing, syringes in and among the wild undeveloped growth. Is this another case of preservation. of Garrity Creek? What about the preservation and safety of our children and grAndchildren? A letter attached as Exhibit A spoke of a concern for"elect=ts of a healthy environtnont for all life". I agree with this plea.. However, let's ,get real-, Why is it more important to preserve the vegetation, and animals of the, wild than it is to create an environment of health for our neighborhood families? This concerned writez of Exhibit A seems to ba more concerned that creating a healthy environ=ment for people would be a "stressor for the neighborhood and this community causing an unhealthy local en vino merit". ??? I muvt au bruit: For whom? For what?? This same letter also stated that the Counry Adrn:inistr"ation "should be looking out for the best interests of the and community members here". Again I respectfully submit that I cannot agree that leaving a wild area for the purpoms of dumping, careless fires and hiding for promiscuity FROM AMD. . . CCLL I S I ON PHONE NO. 92525e9779 JAN. 24 2004 03: 17PM P3 Mr.Darwin Meyerr Community Development Department Contra Costa County Re: SAI-8533, Sid Afther,Developer Our Property at 15 Aspen Court would be adjacent to the proposed development January 23,2004 Page 3 and drugs cannot possibly be seen as looking out for the best interests of the community we live in and its families. There is way too much-negligence! (4) And a proposed park? ?or goodness sakel! With all that has been going on in the wilds of these parcels! What are people d*ddng! That having a park would draw the type of people that would bring wholesome activities. I'd rather doubt it! And besides, who would pay for the upkeep and security for this park. Who would be responsible to keep trash out of the park7 (5) Giving reference to another homeowner Itna (attached as Exhibit B) whose, concern is the stabilization of the hillside throughout the development. If one would just review with the developer the careful plaais (and the re-planning completed due to voiced concerns of the swrounding homeowners), one would clearly see the efforts this developer has taken to keep the hillside stabilized, and not to harm any existing homes, Our property would become more stabilized with good re- planting and bringing in additional dirt. Right now there is growth coming from fallen trees that have just enough life in them to spring up branches that look like they are roomd. This growth is in a 15' drop off just beyond and adjacent to our property. Many, many times we've had to warn young children not to cut cross lots behind our property line due to potential danger of falling and being trapped without anyone knowing. Also we've had to warn an adult act to ride her horse-cutting cross lots at out property fine for the same potential reason. (6) Which leads us to another concern we've had. The neighboring animal nuisance. One 'letter spoke of those who had horses (Exhibit C) and the effect the proposed development could have for those 'Iffiat love the rural neighborhood character....Often new residents object to the, odor and flits that they associate with horses and other livestock. Sometimes the new residents' desires over-rule those of the old residents". We must say that several of these neighbors T believe have come into the neighborhood with their livestock and horses since we've lived here. We have neighbors with turkeys, ostriches, sheep, goats, horses. We've not complained although we've experienced terrible dust from the riders on horses galloping around a small back yard area (small for horses). When it came to the goats feeding along the fence line of neighbors' property lines, and then tending their goats who were left to come feeding up Aspen Court into our landscaped yards... we were more than pert=btd! Where is the courtesy of keeping livestock penned in under the watchful aye of those who own them, (7) Concern for dust and noise pollution as stated in letters (Exhibit C & D)..., I would think one would realize that this would be only a temporary situation. 'Unlike the constant dust from horses kicicing up the dust -in a non-grassy area. Also oma can't imagine the noise of what sounds to us like gun shots 6tu-ing the night hours, keepin.1, our family inside due to fear of what is happening out in the diakne,,s. 'I his shooting is happening throughout the month, if not once a week, although we aren't home every night so don't know how many nights a week it does happen. (8) Giving reference to Exhibits C & D (the letters seem to be duplicarted), regarding school over- crowding and traffic caused. in speaking with the develop= ourselves, he has made provision for a PROM : ADHD. . . . .COLLISION PHONE NO. 9252589773 JAN. 24 2004 03: 1 BPM P4 Mr.Darwin Meyers Community Development Department Contra Q).vta County Re; SDI-8533,.Sid A,fsher, Developer Our property at IS Aspen Court would be adjacent to the proposed developetunt January 23,2004 Page 4 curter lane to the proposed development over and above what is required of him With 40 homes goiAg into, the proposed development at an average of $580,000, the revenue brought into our cormnunity from property taxes should iccount for bringing in revenue for school improvetnent and traffic contrail. Why does one anticipate the worst, rather than lore for how these homes could increase the valuation of all our properties, and greatly improve what we t= of'f'er our children in the community. I submit that Perhaps homeowners need to take another evaluation of what we really want for our children and fa=t generations. Do we want a better El Sobrante or not? Are we really happy with what is currently going on in those parcels for this proposed 40 home developtrtent7 We respectfully mbmit to you., Mr. Meyers, that we at 15 Asp= Court do want to sea a better tomorrow, and do want to see a door-up of Garrity Creek, and do want to see a safer community for our families, and we do want a batter tomorrow for our future fa *4lies! We have enjoyed watching the red tailed hawk family in the trees, and the hummingbirds in the wild growth, Perhaps there's a way to keep the good of some of this nature, and stall have the development coxae in. But much of what is happening currently in the area of the proposed development, is NOT what roue would wantto continue! Them{you for giving this proposal additional thought and we ask.that.faux the safety, security and w-.11 being of our community you allow this development to go forward. Sincerely, Stephen 3.s v e. tt Londa R.Everett 15 Aspen Court 15 Aspen Court January 27,2004 Dr. Dent Brandenburg Bethel Baptist Church Darwin Meyers FEB04 li 1000 Sun Hill Circle County Administration Building. EI Sobrante,CA 94803 651 fine Street,4"Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Meyers, I supportthe development off Hilltop Drive,the Sid Afshar Development. I speak representing the Bethel Baptist Church at 4905 Appian Way,El Sobrante and Bethel Christian Academy 431 Rincon Road, El Sobrante. Our church and school family numbers nearly a thousand. I have been pastor of the church and chairman of the board of the school for 15 years. Having been here that long,I have become in tune with the issues of green space,marsh land,riparian vegetation,and animal corridors,etc. Sid has been a perfect gentleman with us,and respected any and every aspect in similarly developing a piece of acreage just above our own property. Out of curiosity, t slid a walk through to look at the concerns on the present property. I stand to gain nothing by supporting him in this project. This is not how I operate. However,I also do not like what seems to me to be an intrusive and inequitable effort to stop this endeavor after tremendous effort has been put into it, From what I see of this property off of Hilltop Drive in EI Sobrante, Sid Afshar and his group are doing everything required and even above the call of duty. Since his group owns that property, it would seem to me that he should be able to develop it as he wished within the law,and that people surrounding him,who live on formerly developed land,should not be able to stop him,based upon their own speculation. In my walk through,I saw how that neighbors and others are abusing that land. If these citizens were so concerned about the care of the property, I think they should have already been involved in stopping the abuses occurring there presently. They have not been engaged until someone stands to upgrade the property and make some money off of it. This smacks of class warfare. Mr. Afshar has had to haul off loads of trash--old refrigerators, dozens of old tires, and broken furniture—much of which is illegal, and then needles, mattresses stained with bodily fluids, and drug paraphernalia. Where has the outcry come from the neighbors while this has all been occurring? The friends of Garrity Creek have obviously not been friendly enough,or at least seem to have a selective friendship. Some of the friends of this undeveloped area have enjoyed the cover it provides for their illicit operations. After multitudes of studies and permits,Sid has made sure everything is up to the state and national standards. One reason for a lack of appreciation of property in El Sobrante has been the generally unkept condition. I believe new houses will aid decreasing decay and crime in the area. With new homes, an obvious security problem will be diminished. One acre of the property owned by these developers will be left untouched to preserve wetland and spring, and they will replace a presently missing animal corridor. In my opinion,the attempts to stop this project come from the campaign of a few,who have used the impetuous to further their goals. In reading most of the arguments,they seem of little value and predominately without merit. Someone wrote:"loss of wildlife corridor." I say: "What wildlife corridor? More wild life, than wildlife." Local schools would benefit from new homes. You can't have it both ways:we need more money for schools and yet say no to this increased tax revenue. Some of those roads up to this development are in very bad condition, and the developers will be improving the quality of all of that. They complain about the creek. I saw no creek. They talk about a park, The county has vetoed this because of how impossible the slope. Relative to the whole Bay Area,the closer people can live to Oakland and San Francisco,the less driving and,therefore, the less pollution People will have new neighbors that they might have to smile and say"hello"to. As far as"native-American artifacts,''sorneone who cares should go through and find every possible artifact possible,put it in a museum,and then continue the project. "Very likely many native Contra Costans complained when these own people's properties were developed. If less homes represents progress, would not tearing down present homes represent even greater progress? Why stop at just hindering future development? Perhaps we should rid ourselves too of old development. Please stop unnecessarily hindering this development. .incere , nt I3rande urg o ethel Baptist Chur i &Christian Ade , 1000 Sun Hill Circle,El Sobrante, CA 94803 cc: Bob Drake,John Gioia k�, 1STE-F�, SAVI:C) " & -F�El INC-. LAND SURY C1f{� � CIVIL ENGINEERS 3096 RICHMONO PARKWAY `0 n3 t i• .} I SUITE 214 €MATT"'L Wi, PRES. DONALD E.KISTER(1905-1863) RICHMOND,CA 84806 R.C.E. 38863•L,S.7115 PHONE(570)222-4020 CHARLES J.SAVIQ(Retired) PATRICK M.REI,Y.P. FAX(510)222-3716 PROJECT MANAGER MICHAEL P. REI (Retired) E-MAIL i n f o C k s r l n c . not January 27, 2004 Mr. Darwin Myers Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,-4th door, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Subdivision 8533 Dear Mr. Myers: I am writing in support of this 40 lot subdivision. As a past resident of a home for 7 years in the Hilltop Green Subdivision, 1233 Club ©rive, and owner of a business near the location of this proposed subdivision, I feel that this infill development will be an asset to the community. This developer, Mr. Sid Afshar, has a track record of responsibly developing other property in this neighborhood; namely Subdivision 8458 off of Renfrew Court, of which I am the Civil Engineer of record: ale has gone out of his way to address all the neighbors concerns regarding that 10 lot subdivision and now that the infrastructure has been completed I am confident he will build quality homes of which the surrounding neighbors will benefit from. I am also confident that Mr. Afshar will follow all the recommendations of his consultants and conditions of approval from Contra Costa County to responsibly develop this unique piece of property and build 40 quality homes. I urge you to allow this project to move ahead. Very Truly Yours, Matthew L. Rei President _ Foister, Savio &=Rei, Inc: MLR r sidsupport FSB. 04 2004 12:42PM P2' r�i OM AMD. . COLLI SI ON NO. 9252589 79 January 29, 2004 Darwin Meyers County Admirustration Building 651 Pine Street,4""Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553-0095 Dear.Mr. Meyers, I am.writing �,as a supporter of thr, developmont offHilltop Road(Sid Afshar Development).I own my home on 942 Kelvin Road, El Sobrante, CA and I bought this mouse because of runal look of the won and the county. ,Now that I have lived here for three years, I am aware of the many important aspects or this green space such as the spring,the creek,the riparian vegetation mid grasses,the r xiirnal corridor. I liked the w4 this project is dealing with sensitive above issues. I like and support the way in Vrch this development is dealing with my con=ns. As a homeowner in the are& I have m ado an investment and mo7e to the nei ghborlood but, unforttinately property in this area has not appmciatcd as much as some other neighborhoods and cities strop as Hyercules,,Pinole,Richmond,El Corrito, not even as much as San Pablo, I am happy to see new houses in ftp;area. It prevents our neighborhood from decaying. ,I belie--m the county administration needs to be jook.jng at how to enermrage sensible new INFTU,project. ehy��funh=am 942 Kelvin Road 61 Sobrante,CA 94903 cc-Bob-Drale John Oxcia Steven D. Benson 6 F- , _? ��, : 5 7 6050 Oak Knell Rd. El Sobrante, CA 94803 Mr.Darwin.Meyers Community Development Dept. Contra Costa County County Admin. Build. 651 Pine St.4th fl.,N.Wing Martinez,CA 94553-0095 -Re -SIWS533;Sid Afsher,Developer Although I do not presently live on an adjoining parcel,A am a long time resident of El Sobrante(since 1949)and did live on hilltop Drive from 1987 until 2001. During part of that time I kept an eye on the property for the owners and grazed horses on much of it,to keep the fire hazard down. During that time I regularly removed debris dumped from the adjoining properties,Tires,Batteries,Refrigerators, Mattresses,ETC.and repaired fences cut by the neighbors. I frequently found blankets and used condoms in the bushes,I guess that's where the local sex ed. is taught. I have reviewed Mr.Afshar's project and the letters from the friends of Garrity Creek,I find it interesting that many of the addresses are the same as those from which the debris came. True friends of a creek would not do that. I have studied the conditions for approval agreed upon by Mr.Afshar and The Dept.Of Nish and game and I find THAT THEESE CONDITIONS TRULY PROTECT THE CREEK. Therefore anyone who wishes to preserve the creek should be in favor of this development I have read the concerns of increase water runoff caused by the Development and I have studied the project engineer's design for swales to slow the runoff and increase percolations and I have discussed the design with the engineer. After through Investigation, I am convinced that not only will there be no increase in peak runoff but during heavy rains there will be a decrease. Anyone who is opposed due to increase runoff has not read,or does not understand the plans. Lastly it appears that the proposed development, meets conditions of The General Plan,Zoning,Flood Control,Public Works,Fish&game,Army Corps of Engineers,Fire Rept.Schools Dist.And Traffic Control. The only remaining reason to oppose development is so the opponents can continue to use the property without compensating the owner. To prevent the owner from using his property in a manner that clearly meets all Government Regulations would amount to the taking of property without compensation, which is clearly forbidden by the Ur S Constitution. Sincerely Steven D.Benson FROM F=;I1&I7. . . . . COLL I S I ON PHONE NO. 92,52589779 FEB. 09 2004 01 '.41 RI P February 3, 2004 Darwin Meyers County Administration Building 651 Fine Street, 4"' Floor, forth Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Mtyers, I am writing as a supporter of the.development off Hilltop Road (Sid Afshar Development). I own my horns at'f235. Baywood Dr; El Sobrante, CA and I bought my house beoaase of rural look of the town and the county. I have lived hens for twelve months. I am aware of the many important aspects of this green space such as the.spring, the creek, the riparian vegetation and grasses, the animal corridor, I like the way this project is dealln&with sensitive above issues. I like and sLTport the vvay in whloh tli s developmezi.t is dealing*ith my concerns. As a homeovcmcr in the area, I have macre an investment and more to the neighborhood but, unfortunately property in this area has not appreciated as much as some other neighborhoods and*cities suoh as Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, El Co'n ito, not even as much as Sart Pablo. I am happy to see ncw houses in the arca. It pnrvmits our neighborhood frova decaying. I believe the counter administration meds to be looking at hove to encourage sensible new INFILL project. Sincerely, cell ?� unoz CC; Bob D ale John Goia FROM AD&D. . . . C-U-L.I S I ON PhU IE NO, : 92525e9-179 FEB. 04 2004 4.2:42Pt Fcbrtiary 3, 2004 A-T . Darwin Mayers Count), Administration Building 651 Pine St, 40'Floor, North Wing Marrinez, Ca 94553-009.5 L ear Mr. Meyers, As a residcmnt of El Sobrante for the past 321 ycars. ';;'Jjst attracts me to El Sobrame was the diversity d'e mix of newand old coming together. El Sobrante is rich in history and I support any neti,, developini:nt that would increase our little town popularity friendly Citi*4ens. Sid Afsh.ar's Development* hich is slated rbr approval by the county T have seem in detail :and support his integrity in keeping with reinforc&mcnt and Beauty of the land. He has boen sensitive the local reightors concerns by creating addressing many ofthcir issuWs in much thowight out plans to s#P*ort the environment. I can approciare,sorne cit;zells attempting to block any nev,, developct ahl that they think would keep EL Sobranty small. I;that would be the case I mygelfwould not have been able to live and raisw my fan fly in the none: I live. I -understood the local neigg)lbors had also did not want ZtxyTaore-new bomeL,, in my area 30 years ago. EI Sobrante has always beets a land.of progress1vt scrtsitive dI:velopmeixts and I support salute Mr. Afshar's :hilltop Road that he has'sh -xn to increase the,soft bewaty of 1;1 Sobrante future. Sincerely, Sandy hitzgera Higgins L1 Sobrante Resident Cc: Bob Drake John Goia ROM AD&D COLL.I S I ON t=-CNE NO. : 9252589779 FEB. 09 20e,4 01:41.P'M F1 February 3, 2004 Darwin Meyers County Adininistration Suildirg 651 Pine Street,O' "oor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Lear Mr. Meyers, I am wvrlting,as..a,supporcer of,thetlevslopni.,nt offl�iIitop.Roacl (;yid Afshar Development). I own my'home in 331 C Clearfield Ave;El So rante, CA and I bought my house because countov Now that I hav,c lived here for tw elvc years,I am awarc of the Man y important aspects Of this green space such ars the spring,the creek,the ripen ian vegetation an.a,grasses, the ar ,mal corridor. I litre the way this project is dealing with sensitive:above issues. 'I like and support The way in %,vhi h this development is dealing vi=ith n`±y concerts.As a h memner hi the area.. I have made an investnnent and more to the neighborhood but, unfortunately property in this arra has riot appreciated as mT-wh as Borne other neighlborlioods and cities such vs Rercules, Pinole,Richmond,El Corrito, not even as much as Sari Pablo. )'am nappy to see new hoxcses in the arim It prevents our neighborhood. from Jeca.ying. I belie c-the county administration ne&Js to be bolting at how to encourage sensible new INFILL project, ircc�r iwberly Chan CC,, Bob Drale John Goia February 4, 2004 Darwin Meyers wk' " Urn Frank County Administration wilding 645 Stanley Lane 651 Fine Street, 0' Floor, North Wing El Sobrante, CA 94803 Martinez, CA 94533-0095 Dear Mr. Meyers, I am writing to support the property development off Hilltop Drive by Sid Afshar Development (SDI-8533). I live at 645 Stanley Lane, El Sobrante, CA., which has a similar environment to the proposed Hilltop Drive development. I moved to Stanley Lane in 1991, because I was attracted to the rural setting (green space, a creek, and animal corridor). This was a seven-home cul-de-sac, which eventually expanded to ten homes, and is known as Bay Tree Homes. Although Stanley Lane was a serene setting, there was no street lighting, unknown persons were dumping trash in the creek at night, and I would hear gunshots in the neighborhood at night, and on the weekends. Also, a large open area located across Dam .Load from. Bay Tree Homes, was being used by neighborhood kids to race dirt-bike motorcycles. The neighbor adjacent to my backyard has a horse that attracts flies throughout the neighborhood. In addition to this nuisance, the horse lives in a small backyard, and it just stands around all day in mostly one spot. I joined other neighbors, and complained to the SPCA, alleging this situation is "cruelty to animals," but the SPCA stated the situation is legal. I mentioned above, that neighborhood kids raced motorcycles in an open area adjacent to Bay Tree Homes (across Dam Road). A couple years ago, the Canyon Oaks Development replaced this open area, and the development has been a positive influence to the surrounding area. The new residents of"Canyon Oaks" appear to be responsible, and take pride in maintaining their investment, and it appears their attitude has filtered to the surrounding neighbors. In the "Bay Tree Homes Development," we have made upgrades to our homes, and home values have increased significantly. Also, the Canyon (yak developers improved the roadway and sidewalks on Dam Road, which provides easier access during peak commute hours. o� r no I have been employed as an Oakland Police Officer for the past 27 years, and I have observed an interesting phenomenon in Oakland. Some of the "old" neighborhoods deteriorated due to drags and other criminal activity. However, "new" development of homes in these neighborhoods, has reversed the problem. I believe this is the result of, responsible, new homeowners that are diligent to protect their new investment. I believe the Sid Afshar Development, off Hilltop Drive, will not only improve that neighborhood, but also "brighten" the entire El Sobrante community. Sincerely, 0077 Ron Frank 645 Stanley Lane El Sobrante, CA 94803 cc. Bob Drake, John Goia i 1 i 1 i I ETHEL, CHRISTIAN ACADEMY Eph. 6:I7b — "...the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of Goca'," 431 RINCONd LANE '3OBRANTE, CA, 94803 DAVID A. SUTTON, PRINCIPAL (510) 228-9550 February 11, 2004 Mr. Darwin Myers County Administrative Building 651 Pine Street,4th Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94533-0095 Dear Mr. Myers: I am writing to support the Sid Afshar Development off of Hilltop Drive in El'Sobrante. As principal of Bethel Christian Academy in Bl Se brante,I can attest first-hand to-the meticulous attention Mr. Afshar has given to the develop'rx ent of the property above our school(above Rincon Lane). He and his contractor have followed the rules and regulations of the county to ensure the integrity of this property and the well-being of the creek that rung below our properties. I am confident that Mr. Afshar will do the same with the property off of Hilltop Drive. He plans to protect green space by protecting the spring, creek, and riparian vegetation and grasses. He also plans to keep the animal condor, as well as make a host of improvements to the neighborhood. Mr. Afshar's development will aid the property values of the neighborhood and provide an increased deterrent to any illegal drug activity(needles and drug paraphernalia have been observed)on the undeveloped property. I am in favor of making the land useful, which is what the Bible says to do with the earth: subdue it and have dominion(make it useful and be in control)(genesis 1:26, 28). 1 would urge you to support Mr. Afshar's development of this property. Sincerely, Lt,wy t ,� David A. Sutton, Principal cc: Bob Drake,John.Gioia A MINISTRY OF BETHEL BAPTIST CHURCH KENT BRANDENBURG, PASTOR 0 1 A I FROM RD&D. . . . ,COLL 1 S I ON R-CINE NO. : 9252589779 FEB. 18 2004 04:45PM P1 February 12, 2004 Darwin Myers All In One beauty Salon County Administration Building Tami Davidson 651 fine St.,4h Floor,North Wing 4263 Hilltop Thr, Martinez,CA 94533-0099 FI Sobrante,CA 94803 Dear Mr. Myers This letter is to confirm my support for Hilltop Dr.,El Sobmate project. (File No. SD01-8533). As a business owner for last 5 years on Hilltop Drive I have seen very tittle improvement in the area.. I bave witaesed thou=d of houses constructed in the city of Richmond but very little in El Sobrante, I always wondered why is that. Until I reed the opposition letter for this project I had no idea of the meaningless issues that people will use to stop growth. I believe we meed growth in EI Sobrante and if Mr. Afshar's project complies with all the development laws and regulation which I am wre it does other wise the county would not have given hire the green light,Then I am all for it. We could use more home owners and fever renters in this town. I am sure it would he good for my business and all other businesses in the area., YOS Tami Davidson 1514) - - , P-1 A') PROM AD&t. . . . .COLL I B i ON Pi-UNE- NO, 92525,e9779 FEB. IRE 2004 02:QPM P? Fehruary 12,2004 Darwin Myers County Administration Building 651 Rine St.,4`E'Floor, North Wind, Martinez,CA 44533-0099 (File No: SDOI-SS33). Dear Mr. Myers My husband and I have lived very close to this project for last 5 yew. During this time we have witnessed brush fire,on this tot,kids constantly are fighting and running thru the field, people have used the lot for illegal activities and dumping ground, We have also been campaigned hard by other people in the neighborhood against this project. Frankly I like to see the neighborhood cleaned up. I don't mind some new houses incur neighborhood next to us, all you need to do is to drive thru El Sob-mate and see how our neighborhor4 is decaying,the county can not do anything to up grade the streets,hecause they don't have money and if a developer wants to do it, then we. :should help hire not scup him.. 1 am in support of this developtnent. It could only take unused land and make it Lmefitl, joh and tax producing property for the town and the county. you el Brika.and Jahn Applin n q A ) PROM AD&D. . . . .COLLISION PHONE NO. 92525e9779 FEB. 19 2004 01:54PM P1 February 17, 2004 Danuin Myers English, European& .Administration Building Japanese car services 651 Pine St.,4th Floor,North Wing. 4267 Hilltop Dr. #A Martine, CA 94533-0099 El Sobrante Ca, 94803 510.669-9028 Dear Sir I live and work in El Sobrante. I have done that for last S years. Frankly I love El Sobrante and I am committed to be usefW to this community and I participate in the local politics. When Mr. Afshar approached me about his project, I was not trilled to begin with but after we spoke and he pointed out all the particulars of his project such as the way he is creating a safe animal corridor, how he is dedicating 50' on each side of the creek as no development site, the way he fences of the creek so people can not use it as there old battery and old tine storage ground, and finally my favorite the way he puts no stress on the drainage issue of the adjoining properties by keeping Trost development surface water drainage level same as pre-development level and grassy swell,I am left but admiration and support for these new home. It is only going,to raise the value of out homes and bring much needed work and tax dollars to our iiaighborhood and county, Please approve this project Respectfully � Baroo A.hmadi n � A A Diane Carter 13194 Pierce Road Saratoga,CA 95070 Tel 408,867.2423 25 February 2004 Darwin Myers Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine St North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 54553 Re: CDD file # SDO18533 (SCH #24031.02107) I am the owner of the house at 1156 Parkridge Drive, El Sobrante, which I purchased for its pastoral view in the suburban neighborhood. I have reviewed the description of the proposed subdivision that is the subject of the file. I write to advise the agency that I feel the project as proposed will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The density implied by the large number of small lots (and small houses) will negatively impact property values in the area, first by eliminating the rural view-shed, and secondly by the down-scale value of the proposed homes relative to the established homes in the area. And of course the multitude of new homes will place a strain on the traffic circulation and other area resources. The location of this proposed subdivision is in unincorporated El Sobrante. There are no sidewalks or bicycle lanes in the area. This situation creates a high risk of accidents for children and other pedestrians walking to school and to the malls. I believe that risk would be increased by adding 40 new high density housing units. I urge the agency to reject the variance, and to enforce the established standards, which should result in a lower density that is more appropriate to the neighborhood. Sincerely, Diane carter (formerly Esteva) page 1 Mrs. Kathleen Braun 761 El Centro Rd. El Sobrante, CA 94803 X10. � 1 D-1 Ar iVa`r�ct '5f X444 Darwin Myers, Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 0 Floor Martinez, CA 94530 Gear Sir or Madam: My opinion on your proposed 44 home subdivision on 14 hilly acres connecting to Hilltop Drive and Marin Road in unincorporated El Sobrante (SD 41-8533) is that this proposal should not be permitted because; 1) This would dramatically worsen traffic on hilltop Drive. Currently this two- way county road is used as an expressway. Even though the speed limit is 25 miles per hour, I find most people travel at 45 miles per hour. It's already overburdened and continuously full of potholes. It is also very dangerous for school children with the right side of the street between Alhambra and Manor without sidewalks. And presently there are mostly makeshift sidewalks on the left side of the street. 2 1 believe that this will definitely increase crowding in already overburdened and under funded local schools. 3) It would also compromise a beautiful creek area and destroy the last existing habitaticorridor for wildlife in this neighborhood. 4In addition, this creates an extra burden on the county sheriff's department. And let's not forget the fire department. Yours truly, Marylin M. Thompson 5154 hilltop Drive El Sobrante, CA 94843-1314 Cc: Supervisor John Gioia, 11784 San Pablo Ave., Et Cerrito, CA 94530 R-I,.7 March 5, 2004 Mr. Darwin Myers Community Development Department 551 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez CA 94553-0095 RE: Comments on revised plans for Hillview SD 01-8533 Gear Mr. Darwin Myers, I am a concerned citizen who OPPOSES the approval of subdevelopment SD 91-8533 in El Sobrante. This matter will be before the Planning Commission on April 13 I urge the Planning Commission to, at minimum, insist on a full EIR which adequately considers the many issues raised by concerned residents, including: - Engineering and flooding issues - Trak and roads issues w Creek and wildlife protection - Need for open space in the area Sincerely, r" ., / € .-- �...: ..�= ....- sse Golden 513 Pebble Drive EI Sobrante CA 94803 510-758-9355 email: jessegoidencomcast.net R-148 �r.Z ooy i t on, W, L 'Bressem El.. cpbxante, CAA, 43�l 706 Doris Alsi g D"ts AIM" 838 3 838 Mnrfn £tbran#g,C A 948L13-1322 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1322 04 MAR 10 Pm f ..... ..... `^. x I i . X 1 + ry,Z, -� �^2 ie �z ` y 026 t t i CUofls Mktg 838 Marin Rd. El Sobmnte,CA 94803-1322 }k td 1 t r y x r_ a goi f . k I k March 8, 2004 Community Development Department Attention: Mr. Darwin Myers County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martfhez.'CA 94353':-0095 RE: Comments on revised plans for Hiliview SD 01- 3533 Dear Mr. Myers, lam a concerned citizen who OPPOSES the approval of subdevelopment SD I urge. the Planning Commission to, at minimum, insist on a full envirofiW64t-ad iriipact re-pott which adeqtIateIY't0nsidiE!r5 vital, issues such as: - Engineering and flooding issues - Traffic and roads issues - Creek and wildlife protection - Need for open space in the area Sincerely, Carol Osmer-Newhouse 4084 Lambert Road ' El Sobrante, California. 94803 n -1 1) "rT , 0;oil �$d��- � �'u-�,v �.,�� ,��J-�-�' SGS �l-- �X3;3 ,�.•r� Ota MAIR, -- ptj I: 54 r:iL to vivo 70"Inno &w, ,ao r Amy, 150 jjVw,p It 1 on) 4 ht�. �r��rimy, / �i � 5�' J `t' 77M Gtr r� 0� /ice AMA .`; 16 `I ., c t>/ t ;IAJ d, T-0 Wit_.. D r-�0 Q! AN AJ IL r Awa March 8, 2004 04 MAR -9 PH 1'. 55 Community Development Department Attention: Mr. Dar-win Myers County Administration Building 6 51 Pine Street, 4th-Floor, North Wing Martinez CA 94553-0095 RE: Comments on revised plans for Hillview SD 01-8533 Dear Mr. Myers, I am a concerned citizen who OPPOSES the approval of subdevelopment SD 01-8533 in El Sobrante. I urge the Planning Commission to, at minimum, insist on a full environmental impact report which adequately considers Vital issues such as: - Engineering and flooding issues - Traffic and roads issues - Creek and wildlife protection, - Need for open space in the area Sincerely, Ann M. Hershey 4084 Lambert Road El Sobrante, California. 94803 767 Rincon Rd. Et Sobnante, CA . 44803 Manch 8, 2004 Datw.i.n Myens Community Devetopment Dept. 651 Pine St. ��.; � .-:' j' �, Uonth Wing, 4th Itoon, p .,:7 Manttnez CA 94533 Dean Mn. Myens : We ane waiting to negand to--and in opposition to---the pooponed 40-home subdivision betow Hitttop Dai,ve in Et Sobnante. Thin anew is much betters suited at open space ( an it is now) got wJi.tdiije, with its hiiVides and cheek. Devetopment could cause Qood.i..ng, po64 bZe tand6iidee , and centa-i.nZy bhoutd NOT be appnoved without an enviAonmentat impact nepont. If it is appnoved jot development, it dhoutd contain fax 6ewen homes than the 40 being pnopobed. Not only would thallic on Hiittop and Manors Roads be won6e ion att of us who use these stneeta ; it wouk.d be much won6e fon the people who tive on Man.in Road, which witt be .the access toad. And not only woutd it be a tennibte distuption to these ouidentb white constnuctt.on was taking place with constant tnaI j i.c and noQ e 6nom construction equipment, tnuck6 hauting cement, tumben and att the othen matetiat involved. They witt face continued z envice v ehictes , det i.v eny tnucks , etc. us ed by .the new nen dente "down .the hiti" . We unge you to b eniouLty con6iden .the negative .impacts of thin pnopo6ed development and decide against it. Thank. you. SinceAety, Wi.tti.am 9 Cvetyn Stusingen �PnGE PREPAAED Fly NUJ,. P"t�..�t...!' `' .'—�"-� •7' e d �1. 3 c nye 34.E €R !Q 'M 2., 3 ' ....__.,.,_........._....�...._...� a.,....-...Q`_`".y'y".1...._. :._.t�Y,,`,.�+.. .�.Y��,. �+�rt.)Y?`_4'_,;�..�....�`i"�:`c+...v.:.r--_(e"✓`.'._......C��+LC✓T�,_.. .�\.!��`;--� r �_,,....._._.�..._._..__�-k�3 `^-�_.,_.�✓r`_e�.�;e�_�.,�- ,.._....r��er;r��c+v^��e.^^��_.._Ez��`?- l�5 ,� tr.�i.:c.� .c.�.�........,.._.....�.__�.__. � w . 1 F ......T__..�_._...a__ -..?•-�_._1c? ��v"r.^x�_._.�.v�,'_1zs.�._�_.+��??. �e.._.__�^='�_.�`�i'�^-�._...._��.4...,- ;�6�,�.r r "y"'.-Z..�#2.-v�.. Jnr'o""�r^.�.,.._. 'v°t � .^.._s.,�......, r' tr_'Va�-�... `.-�-•._.,..�.,"?�_ ��'.......t......_...,.... .._._..__..._..e...__... '?Ct,ZEE)!,__..,.._......� ✓..`��:�.t+S_f�!_..�,Gtr..�,...._�.^.;�,0_S.+V�.�.._...`_`...�'_.'�`!f➢-'L'^r....��...0.,...._ \.`-.`�. �_-.- y......... .............-....._.._... ... ............ PAG& PRE"AHED BY f NC7 lin GATE = 1 ..t .+�.�.�"�.a�� .., t.�.,7_�,;;,.._....�.:...'"`.�...,.._.,G'+w.<.�..__.La+t�i.�` .•�G?f��..._.�.'tr�-�:-...�.P.,,.....__. -»-----^^-- 1 ALo 41 i _,.,.,.__..._.w._.,,,.._...�_..�..�,�?r.�5??��-__s.�..� •z��_.� �,c� _�S:r:o .�;r�,,�5lic�2�._.�?;v-�:�,<sw...��t,?''�___.a.,,:............�___.._..._.._...._.w_.�_.... _._.�.—...-._..-_.... � /�5 "k.+._ '�-�.._ � '""�"`�^�i..� �-y'e2,�P✓tG.,�,._{,t,��Q„�... Gi�1;';'�4”lr�..$..M,_�,..__...._._.__..._. - - •-�. c € 1 d PRCVoaH)By PAGENO l Illy GATE ! I_ n .,f„ March 8, 2004 To Whom It May Concern: We are concerned citizens who OPPOSE the approval of subdevelopment SD 01-8533 in El Sobrante. We urge the Planning Commission to, at minimum, insist on a full Environmental Impact report which adequately considers vital issues such as: -Engineering and flooding issues -Traffic and roads issues Creek and wildlife protection -bleed for open space in the area The site Mr. Afshar proposes to develop is unstable and slide-prone. It has been deemed in the past as unsuitable for development and was passed over when Hilltop Green was built because of its inherent problems. Mr. Afshar's recent plan proposes building a road on the steepest, most inappropriate and slide-prone area, as well as putting a street of homes on that very steep and unstable hillside just above the spring feeding of Garrity Creep. Both of these aspects of the plan are objectionable, since the AMSO engineering studies have never located bedrock. The soil type beneath this site is extremely susceptible to liquefaction. The County has advocated approving this plan. We understand that you have been well informed by multiple sources about the current flooding problems below the parcels comprising SD 01-8533. We urge you to consider with fairness and take appropriate action to stop this potential and dangerous development. Sincerely, e4-©7 7 �� March 8, 2004 Community Development Department Attention: Mr. Darwin Myers County Administration Building 651 bine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez CA 94553-0095 RE: Comments on revised plans for Hillview SD 01-8533 Dear Mr. Myers, We are long time El Sobrante homeowners who OPPOSE the approval of subdevelopment SD 01-8533 in El Sobrante. We urge the Planning Commission to acquire the property for Open Space/Park area using existing Federal funding/matching grants, With the thousands of new residences recently built next door in Pinole open space for recreation is dwindling at a frightening rate. A few years ago traffic was so bad on Hilltop Avenue that several residents successfully petitioned for a middle turn lane between Alhambra.and Santa Maria Roads so that we could at least enter traffic one lane at a time to get to work. Hilltop is already part of the overflow of Hwy 80 traffic and traffic is increasing all the time. To build even 40 houses on Hilltop would increase an already bad traffic situation. Please do not give variances for this development, the slope is too steep and the ground too unstable. We don't want the extra traffic - Hilltop Road is already crowded. Sincerely, Mike Pelton and Jain Hutzell-Pelton, 772 El Centro Road, El Sobrante, CA 94803 March 8, 2004 Community Development Department Attention: Mr. Darwin Myers County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4th door, North Wing Martinez CA 94553-0095 RE: Comments on revised plans for Hillview SD 01-8533 Dear Mr. Myers, We are long time El Sobrante homeowners who OPPOSE the approval of subdevelopment SD 01-8533 in El Sobrante. We urge the Planning Commission to acquire the property for Open Space/Park area using existing Federal fimdingfmatchin.g grants. Hilltop Road already has bad traff=ic problems and traffic is increasing all the time. To build even 40 houses on Hilltop would increase an already bad traffic situation. Please do not give variances for this development, the slope is too steep and the ground too unstable. We don't want the extra traffic a Hilltop Road is already crowded. Sincerely, Vi and Robert Eressem, 770 El Centro Road, El Sobrante, C.A. 94803 Shelly Mazer & Julius Baler, Jr. 45 Aspen Court El Sobrante, CA 94803 (510) 262-1700 Mr. Darwin Meyers Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4h Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Supervisor Sohn Gioia 11780 San Pablo Avenue, Ste. D El Cerrito, CA 94530 March 8. 2004 Re: Comments on the revised plans for Hillview SD 01-8533 Dear Mr. Meyers 1 Mr. Gioia, We are residents of Aspen Court. A home of the proposed development is slated to be built directly on the other side of our fence, "spittin' distance", if you will. We apologize for not submitting this note in handwritten form, as we want you to be assured that we are part of the grass roots community organization that continues to express concern about this development. One of us suffers from tendonitis that makes lots of writing painful and the other's writing, even on a good day, is very difficult to read. We bought our home in September 2001. We were informed by the realtor that a housing development is planned for the space directly over our fence and we accepted that as a likely reality and were not opposed to it simply on principle.Although neither of us are in the construction or engineering profession, we felt that,just from common sense observation of the area, construction would have to take into account the steep hilly terrain and so the development would necessarily have to be somewhat modest. We were shocked to learn the reality of the proposal and of its pending acceptance, and we are now adamantly opposed to the approval of sub development SD 018533 in El Sobrante, Apparently the negative EIR submitted by the company hired by the contractor is being given validity. This appears to us to be a glaring conflict of interest. We urge the Planning Commission to, at minimum,insist on a full environmental impact report which adequately covers issues such as engineering and flooding issues, traffic and roads issues, and:creek and wildlife protection. We were appalled to learn that the proposal is to connect the development with Marin Road, and that their rickety little private street is slated to become a freeway for hundreds of trips in and out of the development every day. We on Aspen Court have our own traffic concerns as well. During pick-up and drop-off times from the local schools it can take a good five minutes to simply make a right turn out of Aspen Court onto Hilltop. To make a left is much too hard and to get to Appian Way during those times we take the long way around, looping back via the freeway.Any additional traffic would make Hilltop Drive a ridiculous stretch to drive. Aspen Court would require,at the least, a stop sign so that we could get out of our street. Admittedly that would be annoying and probably disorienting to all drivers since there is already a much-needed stop sign at Marin Road only about a half-block away. The first meeting we attended was also attended from people from hillside Commons. They discussed the multitude of costly problems they have encountered throughout the years due to retaining walls and roads requiring major repair due to soil and rock conditions that are not different from the development site. Common sense dictates that flooding problems will only increase, Our own street has road and drainage problems and our slope is small compared to in the proposed site. Clearly the site is unstable and slide prone. Our understanding is that it was determined in the past to be unsuitable to be developed,that engineering studies have never located bedrock,and the soil type beneath this site is extremely susceptible to liquefaction. Our further understanding is that this is not untested—that homes on the hillside near La Colina, built on the same soil type, slid so badly that even today nothing can be built there and also caused the homes above them to slide. Further, our understanding is that once the homes are built the developer no longer is responsible for what we believe are inevitable and possibly insurmountable problems. If the developer can't be sued I assume the county would be next in line. Our own home could apparently be at risk. There are additional issues concerning creek and wildlife protection and the need for open space in the area, Our original acceptance of a housing development in the site came before we learned about Garrity Creek as a precious natural and historic resource and that this development would shatter the ecology of the area.. Our household composition is that of a teacher, a social worker and a community college student and none of us are scientifically or technically trained. We were open minded about the development initially but simple common sense has led us to become adamantly opposed, and to feel that the development as proposed is outrageously irresponsible and dangerous for this small community. We urge the county to seriously consider all the issues raised here and by our neighbors, and revise the conditions of approval so that the county is not left open to future lawsuits. We look forward to meeting you at the Planning Commission meeting on April 13th, where we plan to express to you our concerns in concert with those of our neighbors. Please feel free to contact us at home or at work: Home: (510) 262-1700 Work: Shelly Mazer(510) 268-2912 - Child Welfare Worker,Alameda County Department of Children and Family Services, 401 Broadway, Oakland, CA Work.: Julius Baker, Jr. (510)482-2814—Owner,Baker's Martial Arts, 4226 Park Blvd., Oakland, CA Sincerel . Shelly Mazer and Julius Baker, Jr. March 8, 2004 To Whom It May Concern: We are concerned citizens who OPPOSE the approval of subdevelopment SD 01-8533 in El Sobrante. We urge the Planning Commission to, at minimum, insist on a full Environmental Impact report which adequately considers vital issues such as: -Engineering and flooding issues -Traffic and roads issues -Creek and wildlife protection -Deed for open space in the area The site Mr. Afshar proposes to develop is unstable and slide-prone. It has been deemed in the past as unsuitable for development and was passed over when Hilltop Careen was built because of its inherent problems. Mr. Afshar's recent pian proposes building a road on the steepest, most inappropriate and slide-prone area, as well as putting a street of homes on that very steep and unstable hillside just above the spring feeding of Garrity Creek.. Both of these aspects of the plan are objectionable, since the AMSO engineering studies have never located bedrock.. The sail type beneath this site is extremely susceptible to liquefaction. The County has advocated approving this plan. We understand that you have been well informed by multiple sources about the current flooding problems below the parcels comprising Sly 01-8533. We urge you to consider with fairness and take appropriate action to stop this potential and dangerous development. Sincerely, March 8, 2004 To Whom It May Concern: We are concerned citizens who OPPOSE the approval of subdevelopment SD 01--853.3 in El Sobrante. We urge the Planning Commission to, at minimum, insist on a full Environmental Impact report which adequately considers vital issues such as. -Engineering and flooding issues -Traffic and roads issues -Creek and wildlife protection -Need for open space in the area The site Mr. Afshar proposes to develop is unstable and slide-prone. It has been deemed in the past as unsuitable for development and was passed over when Hilltop Green was built because of its inherent problems. Mr. Afshar's recent plan proposes building a road on the steepest, most inappropriate and: slide-prone area, as well as putting a street of homes on that very steep and unstable hillside just above the spring feeding of Garrity Creek. Both of these aspects of the plan are objectionable, since the AMSO engineering studies have never located bedrock. The soil type beneath this site is extremely susceptible to liquefaction. The County has advocated approving this plan. We understand that you have been well informed by multiple sources about the current flooding problems below the parcels comprising SD 01-8533. We urge you to consider with fairness and take appropriate action to stop this potential and dangerous development. Sincerely, 1 March 8, 2004 Dear A,, , A� I am a concerned citizen who OPPOSES the approval of subdevelopment SD 01-8533 in El Sobrante. I urge the Planning Commission to, at minimum, insist on a full Environmental. Impact report which adequately considers vital issues such as: -Engineering and flooding issues -Traffic and roads issues -Creek and wildlife protection -Need for open space in the area The site Mr. Afshar proposes to develop is unstable and slide prone. It has been deemed in the past as unsuitable for development and was passed over when Hilltop Green was built because of its inherent problems. Mr. Afshar's recent plan proposes building a road on the steepest, most inappropriate and slide-prone area, as well as putting a street of homes on that very steep and unstable hillside just above the spring feeding of Garrity Creek. Both of these aspects of the plan are objectionable, since the AMSO engineering studies have never located bedrock.. The soil type beneath this site is extremely susceptible to liquefaction. The County has advocated approving this plan. you have been well informed by :multiple sources about the current flooding problems below the parcels comprising SD 01-8533. 1 urge you to consider with fairness and appropriate action to stop this possible development. Sincerely, r Neighbors 4484 Lembert Road and area EI Sobrante, CA. 944803 March 8, 2004 To Whom It May Concern: We are concerned citizens who OPPOSE the approval of subdevelopment SD 01-8533 in El Sobrante. We urge the Planning Commission to, at minimum, insist on a full Environmental Impact report which adequately considers vital issues such as: -Engineering and flooding issues -Traffic and reads issues -Creek and wildlife protection -Need for open space in the area The site Mr. Afshar proposes to develop is unstable and slide-prone. It has been deemed in the past as unsuitable for development and was passed over when Hilltop Green was built because of its inherent problems. Mr. Afshar's recent plan proposes building a road on the steepest, most inappropriate and slide-prone area, as well as putting a street of homes on that very steep and unstable hillside just above the spring feeding of Garrity Creek. Both of these aspects of the plan are objectionable, since the AMSO engineering studies have never located bedrock.. The sail type beneath this site is extremely susceptible to liquefaction. The County has advocated approving this plan. We understand that you have been well informed by multiple sources about the current flooding problems below the parcels comprising SD 01-8533. We urge you to consider with fairness and take appropriate action to step this potential and dangerous development. Sincerely; El Sobrante,� A. #944803 March 8, 200 ; '� r Dear I am a concerned citizen who OPPOSES the approval of subdevelopment SD 01-8533 in. El Sobrante. I urge the Planning Commission to, at minimum, insist on a full Environuental Impact report which adequately considers vital issues such as: -Engineering and flooding issues -Traffic and roads issues -Creek and wildlife protection -steed for open space in the area The site Mr. Afshar proposes to develop is unstable and slide- prone. It has been deemed in the past as unsuitable for development and was passed over when Hilltop Green was built because of its inherent problems. Mr. Afshar's recent plan proposes building a road on the steepest, most inappropriate and slide-prone area, as well as putting a street of homes on that very steep and unstable hillside just above the spring feeding of Garrity Creek. Both of these aspects of the plan are objectionable, since the AMSC) engineering studies have never located bedrock. The soil type beneath this site is extremely susceptible to liquefaction. The County has advocated approving this plan. You have been well :informed by multiple sources about thea current flooding problems below the parcels comprising SD 01--8533. I urge you to consider with fairness and appropriate action to stop this possible development. Sincerely, March 8, 2004 Richard Clark, Planning Commissioner P.U. Box 2668 . Danville, CA 94526 RE: Comments on revised plans for Hillview SD 01-8533 Dear Mr. dark, I am a concerned citizen who OPPOSES the approval of suhdevelopment SD 01-8533 in El Sobrante. I urge the Planning Commission to, at minimum, insist on a full environmental impact report which adequately considers vital issues such as: - Engineering and flooding issues - Traffic and roads issues - Creek and wildlife protection. - Need for open space in the area Sincerer, 9/u/"--A� Bryan Scott Creamer 3 5 Aspen Court El Sobrante, CA. 94803 March 8, 2004 Richard Clark, Planning Commissioner PC) Box 2668 Danville, CA. 94526 Dear Planning Commissioner Clark, We are concerned citizens who OPPOSE the approval of subdevelopment SD 41--853 in EI Sobrante. We urge the Planning Commission to, at minimum, insist on a full Environmental Impact report which adequately considers vital issues such as: _ -Engineering and flooding issues -Traffic and roads issues -Creek and wildlife protection -.Need for open space in the area The site Mr. A shay proposes to develop is unstable and slide-prone. It has been deemed in the past as unsuitable for development and was passed over when Hilltop Green was built because of its inherent problems. Mr. Afshar's recent plan proposes building a road on the steepest, most inappropriate and slide-prone area, as well as putting a street of homes on that very steep and unstable hillside, just above the spring feeding of Garrity Creek. Both of these aspects of the plan are objectionable, since the AMSC} engineering studies have never located. bedrock. The sail type beneath.this site is extremely susceptible to liquefaction. The County has advocated approving this plan. We understand that you have been well informed by multiple sources about the current flooding problems below the parcels comprising SD 01-8533. We urge you to consider with fairness and take appropriate action to step this potential and dangerous development. Sincerely, ' .............. . �""`� `�.." ' 171'9^-•C.'?''"; �' ,�..L Anomie Hershey and. arol Osmer-Newhouse 4084 Lambert Road El Sobrante, CA. 94803 Selya E. Gomez-Suifer 50365 Hilltop Cir. El Sobronte, CA 94803 12 March 10, 2004 El Sobrante CA,94803 Community Development Department Attention: Mr. Darwin Myers County Administration Building 651 Pine Street,4th Floor,North Wing Martinez CA 94553.0095 RE. Comments on revised plans for Hillview Sly 01-8533 Dear Mr.Myers, . I am concerned that your recommendation to adopt a proposed negative declaration and approve SD of-8533 dismisses without adequate consideration the legitimate concerns of neighborhood residents. The site Afsha.r proposes to develop is unstable and slide-prune: It has been deemed in the past as unsuitable to be developed,and was passed over when.Hilltop Green was built because of its inherent problems. Afshar's most recent plan proposes building a road on the steepest,most inappropriate and slide-prone area.,as well as putting a street of homes on that very steep and unstable hillside just above the spring feeding Garrity Creep., Both of these aspects of the plan are objectionable,since the AMSC? Engineering studies have never located bedrock.. The soil type beneath this site is extremely susceptible to liquefaction. You have advocated approving this plan. Without locating bedrock,the engineering studies simply cannot have provided enough data for you to recommend approval to this sweeping and radical change in Afshar's plan. Homes on the hillside near La Colina, built on the same soil type, slid so badly that even today nothing can be built there, and also caused the homes above them to slide.Afshar's current plan can create an even more unstable situation and cause our homes that have remained stable so far to slide in the future. Connecting this development to the western end of Marin Road is also going to have severe impact on all residents of this quiet dead end street,which is already very substandard. Your recommendations do not include requesting the developer to make any improvements to Marin Road, although the development will most certainly triple the traffic carried by.Marin Read each day. I am appalled that your response to his revised plan states that there will be no significant impact to the traffic problems in this neighborhood by adding 4o homes while not making any improvements at all to the infrastructure. I can assure you that it will have a severe impact, since Marin Road's intersection with Hilltop is a dangerous bottleneck now. You have been well informed by multiple sources about the current flooding problems below the parcels comprising SD 01-8533. Paving the vast majority of the zo-acre site to Serra E. Gomez-Suiter 5065 Hilltop ter. El Sobrante, CA 94803 You have been well informed by multiple sources about the current flooding problems below the parcels comprising Sb 01-8533. Paving the vast majority of the io-acre site to create a 4o-home development eliminates a sizeable aquifer recharge area. Also,this plan uses creep culverts,which typically make floodwaters more powerful and more damaging downstream.. You recommend allowing this high-density development without an environmental impact report to provide adequate data about how it can worsen flooding downstream-- a position which creates high probability of future lawsuits against the county. A good compromise position would be to recommend that a maximum of 20 homes be planned for this property,incorporating plenty of riparian conservation and recreational space. Lot 29 containing the spring feeding Garrity Creek and the western end of Marin Road(containing slopes greater than 25%,per county ordinance 814-612)would remain undeveloped open space.There would then be no need for a second entrance/exit to the development and the impacts to infrastructure--traffic,streets,schools,etc.--in the neighborhood would be greatly reduced. Leaving more open land would allow more water to percolate naturally into the aquifer during flood season,thereby decreasing flooding impacts downstream. I am apposed to irresponsible over development in our small community. I urge the county to seriously consider all the issues raised by myself and other neighbors, and revise the conditions of approval so that the county is not left open to future lawsuits. Sincerely, Se y mez-Suiter Cc: John Gioia, Supervisor Len Battaglia, Planning Commissioner Nyman Wong, Planning Commissioner Steven Mehlman,Planning Commissioner Jahn Hanecok, Planning Commissioner Carmen Caddis, Planning Commissioner Marvin Terrell, Planning Commissioner Richard Clark, Planning Commissioner rk -, 3f10/04 PH 54 Darwin Myers Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street North Wing, 4th floor Martinez, CA 94553 Pe: Siavash Afshar (SD 01-X3533) 1 am very surprised that you recommended against doing an environmental impact report on this proposed development. There is so much to consider and so much at stake with this proposed development. Mr. Afshar's proposal to put 40 homes on these 19 acres is far to many and would have such a negative impact on all the surrounding properties and the people in this area. I would not be adverse to a scaled down number of homes, but l also want to know that the beautiful Garrity Creek and it's surrounding wildlife habitat would not ,in any way be harmed by this development. I get the feeling,that Mr. Afshar is looking only to see how much money he can make from this development and that he really doesn't care what an impact that a development of this nature will have on its surrounding neighbors. Mr. Afshar I believe lives in Orinda and will never see the effects or be effected by such a development. Why do we have to forever live with the results of a developers greed? The proposal to extend Marin load now a dead end road to a connecting road for this development is so absurd I can hardly believe that it was proposed. Marin Road is not an easy road to drive at times, with just the people that presently reside on it Adding more cars to this road is a ridiculous idea. Please reconsider this development as it is presently proposed. Sincerely, Mabel L. Draxton cc. Supervisor Jahn Gioia 04 MApt 54 e X67 l 9_�A. Ile r . �, --- _ chime- i r _ r Community Development Dept. Attn: Darwin Myers 3. ;,.• 651 Pine Street,North Wing, 4hfloor ` 55 4 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Myers, I feel compelled to write you to express my concern about a project that's being considered at Hilltop and Marin Road in unincorporated El Sobrante(SD 01-8533). As a local resident who will be directly impacted by this project should it be built, I would life to voice some concerns I have. Firstly, I live in a neighborhood that accesses Hilltop Drive as the only means to leave my immediate neighborhood. During peak times,which is basically the time I access Hilltop Drive during every work clay,my wife and myself frequently have to wait several minutes (literally 2-3 minutes) at an arterial stop sign in order to enter Hilltop Drive due to excessive traffic. I believe that this is the case largely because El Sobrante, as an unincorporated area,has not developed in the sort of logical manner that many cities have. There are not many of the stop lights,side walks,road repair and other hallmarks of a city that many who live in such cities desire. In fact, it is the rural nature of El Sobrante that makes it attractive to many of its residents. Regardless,my point is that Hilltop Drive already has plenty of traffic on it without being fiirther taxed with additional traffic created from a major development. As a second concern, I am very bothered about development taping place on one of the few remaining open.-space areas within El Sobrante. Speaking for myself, I love the nature that both surrounds and exists within El Sobrante. Whether we're talking about deer,hawks, owls, woodpeckers, robins, raccoons, etc., they currently exist in this immediate area and they are loved by many of its residents. Simply stated., if this development were to proceed, the only wild-life corridor in the area would be cut-off and there is no doubt in my mind Haat the wildlife would surfer. in fact, I believe that El Sobrante is under-served in terms of public access to the pockets of nature that exist in the city. As is too-often the case,this development would open the door to more development in the immediate area down the road and the essential nature of El Sobrante would change as a consequence. A development such as this will acerbate flooding in the area. The area already has problems with flooding, due in part to poor planning,but also due to plenty of concrete/asphalt covering the soil in the area. Additionally, this area is prone to sliding. The hills are shaped the way they are for a reason. Please do not allow a developer to come in and re-engineer a hillside to allow a development that is simply not appropriate for the site! I can tell you that I would not want to live down-hill from such a development. I will conclude not with a concern,but with a plea. I believe that this area would be an excellent candidate for public open space, This is something that the entire community would benefit from and it would allow the continuing quality of life that people in the area.experience. If any such proposal should crass your desk and if you have any influence over such a process, please do give it your measured consideration. Thank you for your attention, / } -S Thomas Wuttke and Victoria House Cc: Supervisor John Gioia 11'780 San Pablo Ave., Suite D El Cerrito, CA 94530 f __.�___..__�..__._ � �ht'�..t9_ _.1:"� _._.�1,✓ V_�.....`��,�� _dam. t�f��..__._�_v.._._.___.� �,_..._...�,.._.._..__....-_.....-�,._,___...___ ----__ 4 r � ._... _ _ I I n nnn ............ ................................. ....................................... _.... ._..._... ......... ......._. . .............. ......_.. ......... . .................................................................................. ........................................ • 3951 Charles Avenue El Sobrante, California 94842 March 27, 2004 Darwin Meyers County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4�h door North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Dear Darwin Meyers, Subject. The Sid Afshar Development I recently met Sid Afshar and he was very polite and well mannered person. Since I have been living in the El Sobrante Valley for 23 years and have seen a lot of changes in the valley, good developments have gone up all over the valley, including many housing and business developments and there are still many things that can be done. It seems to be that more development would be more tax revenue for the area in a time of budget problems, more would be better. I have seen plenty of vacant lots in the valley and they have lots of trash and no one seems to be cleaning up these lots, but The Sid Afshar Development group has taken care of their land. If the neighbors had been so concerned with this property, where have they been before now. As far and Native-American artifacts, I have heard they lived here, and these are important things that need to be preserved for future generations to study and learn from. These items need to be in a museum somewhere. I see no reason to deny the approval for the Sid Afshar Development and what I have read he has complied with everything that he has been asked to do, including road improvements and a park area in his developement Respectfully, ames Ruppert cc: John.Gioia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, MY NA`ME``I S'C H ELS EA MARION, I AM 12 YEARS OLD. I AM A RESIDENT IN UNINCORPORATED EL SOBRANTE. I WISH TO HELP STOP SIAVASH AFSHAR BUILD HIS HOME DEVELOPMENT OFF OF HILLTOP DRIVE AND MARTN ROAD. INSTEAD OF A HOME DEVELOPMENT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A D06 PARK FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THIS AREA AND THEIR PET'S. NOT ONLY WOULD BUILDING A HOME DEVELOPMENT CORRUPT THE ENVIRONMENT BUT ALSO THE COMMUNITY. THE MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT WI DTH 1570 0 FEET, BUT SIAVASH AFSHAR 15 REQUESTING 56 FEET OI` FOUR HOMES. ALSO THE RETAINING WALL WOULD NEED TO BE RAISED FROM 3 FEET H 16H TO 10 FEET H 16H. 50 PLEASE REMEMBER THAT `I`H ERE ARE OTHER PLACES TO BUILD HOME DEVELOPMENTS AND THE CITIZENS OF EL SOBRANTE WOULD APPRECIATE A PARI. THANK i OUP ` �cc CHELSEA MARION 1 Appendix G Comment Letters of the El Sobrante Valley Planning & Zoning Advisory Committee & Comments of the Friends of Garrity Creep / Hilltop Neighborhood Association TABLE OF CONTENTS El_Sobrante Valley planning&Zoning:AdvisoZ Committee Letter (4/19/03) C-2 Letter (4/15/03) C-5 Response from Applicant(4/10/03) C-6 Letter(3/16/03) C-7 Letter (2/3/03) C-g Lehr(12/27/02) C-10 Letter(12/23/02) C-11 Friends of Garrity Creek!FhlhoD Neighborhood Assn Letter(5/27/03) C-13 Letter (5/24/03) C-14 Letter(2/7/03) C-18 J S 's ci � w w � 0 ax e o �' � N ca •" b .,ruo, 0 er w.y 0 o 7 t7 y m •cE °J o v u � W :� i�-s m L"r y R � -p WRpy 1•r.F" 6Y ��' W � �? V] � U .[S a� Q7 f" �+ � 'G O �' ,� U . « S U U Q, •CJ C.• v1 6�J i U G U a Fi z7 R m y ° NUStRk U vm '�✓ vi O m °m'. o.° a� C$ ro m w k a G u y m om >'� - wao o � ywdsq � vm .7 a$' b 40, 0c la,gy a r is. oa ds w �� m �y ry w R ..,, +' �O b U y a nr O [y +--. +'�i �« G ds '.a m ds v1 O � ° oU U A a a ori ° wo' b w 'g • fi tli +U' sU- wO m'„ 'Se'i u' �t ted 'LS a `m'7 •�y wb O m: allo G y - N r, 793 bt18 �= '° W° ,� a ads U � ash m o a «• N " G ` � a� � o q � G as 3 vY�'•,`.� . G m �N. . q O 8 aa �Zy3 ®F'i k'Q`.1' M.^,ua�� m "dt'i ',� •u�g �cG� � 40, co dd5i mFo .°Us. 0 ' � `0" ;�r2](•' S it o � � ro a� o � d) ��.d �� .5 �m •aen �•a�, � � gj �' m �' � � � � �� U �.� b� m m y� °�. p +�'�+ ar aai R m m cai °�' a a u '� o -�' gra 3 o•° .y' ° �seqnoaUo °adsaa� 'v.. Goar ym6 b cs R$ oq�3 a°n m o y batiw ,b_ U 00% o ° •wo+ -0'a0 z U arny ° te ' °J aw. ' �Lrte J8-C�vli .WaN:34Qw1 'rtQl�}} `�• C7 d{"y)�_""-i�.gG-i'�G7 °YG7 W� r(D.a+ C�7 _�4,U8 lu 0cs.• 3 .�7..'r �>�� .�-"�.'�y{Sj"��qb9}+ �yr�b �•'n W ✓ .' "� w° eeeeeeUttt ct� � •H�O 0 y fV Z y .'1 'c� "O y,U G`+ Go t? � U .fi a Gs tr. 42 b, U O 8-1 ply y� GR p a U td.2 .0 2-,.� O a•19 G ,,,,, W � � � �' � aU, O 45 �r� P � ° ,.r..�' b0 C•• �O �w p � aO °J `«s v a m ° m + ° 1+� b O �# ....y O G d5 m 67 w 7e7 t4b as 8 b p, ars m� �s R v y Y 'S o O Om ;i3 � � +�+ rS7�.� U �i rn .�+''C.7 40.y �•� O i. .� � z ern y q c ,� o a U0 a `p' .", 0.M cu ° °air o �' owar •° � w o ° ° 6. ,^L""1v i1e � o m U ri a qS rn �.� v � "�� as oo °�cr� �i,•� o � � u� �•�•�,� ,� y � � `' •� " cJ 3 a °' �.qi RL7 (� m °: y w r3rncn ivy a $ u8 wsi ` 3 � � �' G•c. � �" y°'.,o � '�' o ,�', � aro � �° O 4s a OD �a so om ajz rh o ` ' r° as t � }+c pip'44 U ^«" +y��' '�j �` G5 CyyW �y y.+ j,4• y .•� tesla�� U� �,�� ° � o •"� a �"� � � � � � � �,�� a i5 � � ��a bz o °aro o � Cw�o aro Ile Q •� � a di oP 41 ta � �`� �...45n n'�".'ami cy w �','`��'•`" �t � �+ " ,� ® O t'� 45 Is • ""� N -8--a m n° = &'Z '�`(d" o"row, *' y ° ,•+.�y' . ° tlobEl n�i � a � � ai � a"ia✓ a °'� nna CY ao aha u^ •� s t m� o a U co ..�y o ca CJ v3 c� '��.. °.,;'p �� •se ...., v a a o `� a U .�, � �•�n � r'p ad 61 � Oq � p.� U G� r'Y� � LC +� ..9 tz I � avaroai ° racsm � ra °c�� o a � aonar3 � raci� a � en � O °z� ck sa .� ti dwi e e su W � �;.. � r8ds} cntWUt ia `. . o a`r`c+ U '•��'�p mss. "' ni b0 'n u' m ° a o t o 0 Z,*a, � 2o a y k .� aro � 'CS G•. co r� r~ � 316 � a lIX � C m sa n a %I t' Va IMANIt 1A t ' X� � � 'A . �1� 51�\ vai " p e r nl ai `8 c o U 09b no or da� C' 78 10 /f, CV .� �N YA Gni � � •°w� � N 6 ��+r.y`� O[t U tai r5q .7 75 48 V t.Y OU di Gr t+r � � 'r°�� U v�U �,� �' � •� ... �� epi � y` N go a, C7r ix w0 a r- r V GLV.. Ea s to pla. a 3, IS $ d � .� , t, 0 4 •y�+y d, cn F� � Vi � "� � � �,� A ,� Com`, a U •O ,S 1w ,N � 'n � CI �� N � N � Y Y � •� � mal ��' � � � � � � � � � b '�' � � t/^ '�` .fl 4"-. r� v � � S+ �taSy �l �y Y a�7 �Cy � •� �i`" u'„ �a��y �+ � ,V�. � .[aj" .^'� sj• :�y � ql •a°' ya � F!1 r 1 M � .� � � ,w,� 'u' i� �O �.., a 6� A y � N M s � N cl- KSt8 43 V. j 18 d Ok t r1�1i } w o e� �.j s 'Qy °� o y •" w 0-8 V p C ca v c i S.�„ tJ1 ✓ O G 6 1. .f ;5 q sd 'rS om �,,,�r .9 p��Y* �y N ++�, d7•� C7 a6 •� si y� N � y �^. lool tA �U p + ` • , 5 pa �` A-2 ° 40, +r��; � �'� T ,crnqq� � 6 y ° � �y r��,� ami Uy 3 •O' ��-� 6.7 N '"�' `°� a.s1 � �.� ..3E � '� 47 � .4 ci '? ,y�. Afl• '"� a9ji !? y ,�-'` r + r12 _ 4. ' U a � o� 9o +dpv�� vpoN� o � � id �+ b �•-y by > Y C{ U +� Ck v' U 6) f� � �q � U 69 ...° •�'r. €k'� tl ;, . ( 0 :n COWRA i:G'TA C@UNTY v rr�� CCpp }g� S� yy ' ��74U tlt 1 "t'VU' 4 r^•'� '^+ p wU, zt- GOfi�!«tACY OEVEL ONNT It p ri, o.� > Ig lot =*'.51 U °�' a ori oma° w 9 vol ° ' Ln rZ CD ` air W 41 kn Q v ax � j Df U�lzrtld1 � P ',,, .�o S� T�° � °+"' � `chi t, ifi � °�,' .✓••. 'FS LI a .� N .cy v ++ H a 'fl � Gy+'� O �� s3 •µ ' ' a 5 °� a tA C3 L� `� O LS "G '�•�• Kt �"c, # t4 d" w " a Lei 7L ti.� °' .ted 9 c v , , a7✓ °; ° c> � a� ,� � •� «y �.may �a3� �. � py� � A'C, .� �] oo��c3� �' �j•Gi' � t�j t� , � `�.•" .r+ i' � 6} ,.SQ S+ •d;. �Gi` d�'3 4�K1 �. r� .++ N � `�„ 7., � � .y 6 Lµ3 �'#r 6 t3 ,-+ � �j id � �^" � as c x c+'t t] .� q7.r+ w ✓ at d ..+ °� � �� •��' q �, p� �n� t5� 'd r'� � w y C+ � Gy11`/`� � H � �" C7 � �4,'.''% ��`+' •` to t 41 00 Po ¢9qv a v c3 � � os. c i•'• +J r�SSa 1'` 0 p ',� � 1;4 � 'tG iyc # ss •"iitn3 ry ss41q t33 A LO HO J � � -� � 00 all IL a B E N.14 Ja �. a . �� i"t 06 N N N N N 14 N tl if -o< a: a, 8 9 SLY p a i1 iJ •*. Y�•y.D '�"., ix � � a � - ygiY} t�7 NQy(� ` C" G ,R {Ip O i $ - J4J +9t - ' +p• O �1W1 �Fl '-S P+'t7 42 ` [:'a a A INV+�,` • ,��}y �• C �'� �g ' 1gpa, �, C N o ani N `C °f.4 U �+ 3p .-rte CV 'S. ° 6) .�. •� w N N •ti3 O ..-, � .� ai•O^CLC..). r � uyqpt y ii`QQ.71 rn U o rr' vob ' 3 oa c toc°n p AL�z7 o� a ov' a7 as > -5 °aoy� ti c 3 o n fl �� Ud ai vro ® o y r W o 10, A �'C � •�', �� coo � ��'� � � � � '' �� .� �'� � a. �, �� y a I� � ,�, °•fir o�� .� •� � o " c, �'� ° �'V rr cJ 41 � c°in o�� ° o `�� p ° m ° ° n � � 0 - 3 v 0000 M .00 .2 a � p m rsa ami n y o � � - 5 a ° nO " b O k •v�o ) = b�a oar" $ �a c o F1� P. .4� O Cn•"+ Cq "� 6 Q�j `w` m. "` I L .0 p � (J H 7'+ to `Lay7 0 Ei a.Y' 'Q" L O 63 O. S-2 ! Ern a "4 4. �� a .� 8 < ti `^ 6s,-i2 v5 c a ° ° W Y n o bO bi pQp p �', -02 cin '8 U m Oy FL pp O 'n w a) O n Oay ❑y C9 v 45 �.� Q7 ,Sd Cl � o o �° a it go 0 a ao tri v k aYri a•a~ Url C7 Fn C7 rz w a b iD 61 PJ � Ki p� F d7 wC w w kc6l}7 Ls u p w b �a-a •Sl 4tj yw., � eQ w w w•�. �'t:t PS,E '.� C'd `" «•y °' cowl � a °� x° ° o � n - o u � c y � u a � el N..� 4 •� .� O `� y � � eg tom.. C�•L� � p' xt� a Oyy w Cj � uw y ° r4U p .G p"4 07 C? 't7 `in CJ � � �+ � ta'✓ d 3 a a w •o 0 g s°tl w° v o a U o U uq of.� ' U vw `� `� ;� u•� yoy � '� C !7 U "„' ."wy' v� w tS R •Yy o 6 S� w O u w o m y ow e LL in cna79 u u w y wA,. m -rt � v 3 co c 3a u b ro u cv U m es 0`5 w a w ' r w t1 0 .c w r- � m® Uw � ua� °�G542U ab2aaa w int n o. (� 2 s E3 a <C o wC)w °rs' c�x'U w a c ad3 ?� d. c� a aE� Uvs m y 3G ^C o a y w `" tw�y cry w a`ryS w d ;j U u .. � G !�y� •�y} qNj '}`` ..+° lei y N '°4a. �`v� W'° � w `4' �f1v 23 • �j ° y ,� '� � � cn npw�, ¢Y✓y q•cy yOy U� ��+ a E�+ �,may ,b p � 'mow" `8� ¢� w•� al •w •b w a0i --. q ,awU3 N a Aa, ,f..t' i.S •� C�� r�! b w y6, 11 .. Gx � "C7 U 6 � .,�i d� Ci°� w m.�d � p� pi •• p]�✓K�+7 � {„- p.cS • 'L7 �'. �! � eC b � -�},�•xn � �L W.�.1� �°8� ��'-� b �*+ � c} id� � G ` a n1� .9q w oQ yi bO 43 � y��;� ai `� •n `� ,�wa{t.� � � � v°� � � awi ° o. � ¢ ,� i(.��-•p��i' �' o x � r".p'y ${�j! � v❑ .�". t10 - �+ C '+� 69 ttl +� w w •V N (� w w • `�' „^ tL � w .O y kN .� ^G+ ^d ��j O .c1 Q} •�1 G 5a �7y"'.�`F`-� � � � �" „p ai � � �� ❑w )a bA � O .54 ,w � .bw �, �:� `y 6Y �' '� sa w � '� at ,� a � � � � .� � �, .� ,�+, b ai � .� •� .`�. N v.�� a o w LS a ax y a .a m@ w ro . ° x b ®t " 3 c m w v ° a 3 w n v •� C °ti w •a mP,,,, C� � a w es � s'� u .. u y, ew ,n ca�' �.�� cr3 � �� 'p w ur �•; o `� � > `�� co �•a �. b a,b w np w � w >p � � ® o �-w a .� y y.,.,�.� '� w � •� a y, � o� �' w � w u b � w '� � � ca w ao � '� .w 11 41 > TE n« ss a - q xa n oa w o a c r a re mcdo w " " �• > •p � ncwio 23 ,anaaaw . p G7 alb a a ao � w u w Q ti a m >;.c•o.• ..�� .�'� � � � � � � � b 0. � � c�i R•� '>� '> w �w'� � � o sa. � a� � w O � w w C C xq:'.' � =:� �=i � °��' � p � w rri � O D O � �J w'C7 •� ill g` fY M1) w w >+ to w U a a ts� W 3 � <t <C c .� <C wr �C r� aac? ya bcna1 �+� •..• hl ri � vi �ci t•� �o tT '. » . � � \ CD 0 @ e - ® <5 \ \ & / © 2 /3 / = ©\z 'r \ƒ `°\ & ) �$ ƒ Ere A e ® } »ƒƒ 799 ) / Q / «3� '3z a © — g/ \ &a § ±fg // 54 o C.A .dam is � H � � it �j a u� t7 d � Pj �� rA� �°� � La .+moi '�j w'•J N rr10, � a u � � °'fi a .' � o d�, { ti O 0 15 ca � oma ° 1 11 do), ep Er` o a �j p d `T. La ca - Y3 a SS a A l' 41 i9 i.i N sex vd O •✓ Te.34 5-t q�j41L+ H tL 0 lot, s os 18• 61 y„ J 61 c'•r� °,' a �.7` '62 p., �` Fy1 y t� '„� s.. ia�c"i .ri ' q oa 0•d a d d Q R t to 104 -��^', s,i +^ x ° N d a fig` of sw �&t tli cg ,` 18 3 41 b tn °�' �3• �``a+ fid{ a� ro �'� b ��' ��{� '� �, gj� {°�'"ci9� �,� U� �+•�Sa �U��° �,�, S�.a `�f''" ait Q`�' o" o o" � o cry cwt K?w *Ua Sig to �� o '��y � '> v; •��` � �v �o � �� d3 r�� ;,� � ora nr�s . '� Asa` 16 'rk 6�ry y sl 00 tr- 3,1 d d �, r� "Si GN w�H34• � ,� ''`� . - � p mus .j� '"n��7 � G � .✓ °�' y 35 w '" N � '� �..• � a� Lid � .-� `��; �'r�,'""` Mo °d uo •� .� � � �"amu � g,. � :,�s� � "' �� a� °�sa," °� s �• �� , � � off' � lg 14-6 ami iL v Ki 45 �°c�i� o �' '� � � °: VSs'. •�. � d °� os w c� � a�.a °�� o �� n � � w4 � � d' c� c o cs A i , let I 'q 51 c.� � ° � +°' .��+ :via c µ a ° > d � a 3 oar z> roo a any E3 *v orsy "" $S a ❑ �' '�'p ¢ �rs v a cL u a �7, a I as a� a3 rr o •,�+,c .°"i �'� °'' G a.-°�'° off°' "� a� ,'3� � � �� X33 goon �' c 4 w :a i7 a c g s a �, a � CA I . O �i� a 6y C.7 v a .' 'Q•''y_+ �Cd•'+'� .'way` a. �A,�� S I. j 41 a c a go ' o c a b o tsi -a Via D -u ate+ ,1 � � �gy 'fir "r�� ffi `�y � �.�*'� O � � �" � � .v y � ;y� � �t+' � ��^^ •�� N S a I'S � 1, �U`� r•� 19 FO 7.0 °� � °" � � �� 'tea °�' � � � � � •� � �..' ra `� t� to r'� _ 6 6a5r � .D �, `OO � � Fi 01 4ti � G .��" �y �" N M ep �"c•2 b 'eG ±? y °' N .e`Oc+ �¢.,•.0� '9�.t O r'� b y CJ t c "O b ..y y❑C� J �II5 t�y�y "� yy � �O aptly � � "yb � NO 6 f� Jy .� t�6 Why � � �gy� � 1-i ,d ,t cf.I fy+ Q7 g' .tea ry ili `7 YJ ,b d ( _1-7 _ Ei ay � c .c•� °m � � c � � .n � � � w •� v •�, � o E� � � � � . 3 � a o �"� G p y " wcx w �•,y u� U�r, 'm u.� -C ��7 m Yu nC+ firi C�.ty � �•� eC ,� t~d �, c7� � ed �'�7• � +., tv"f b� �.� ^J.�J' `D 4Wa 'p q � C� ��" •., -'C- U Z. !2 � G1" t� 1, B' LO c ar U� o °r�, � °` E7 � 45 �'0 o � a � SKr o o 0 4) y y q w a13 § gtza"� vpoo � w v � Nca r-4 0 rib ©t" 4S `r� ``"w3 ' gQLayaai ��`• � h e� is F C.j.-. '+ rT, c., 'd �, etl C7�.-. C aa�� F, Qi ^" a+� � .�7 C � �.' .:: .d «� �� ❑ � r+� � � S1 �+•� � °C �} �+ � � as �in Y � 'c �s o �`� �i p •q $' � � G rl ow a � � G 3. � � � '� � � ° �� °°0. 5"' � A °`� � ar � b4 '� °�'''>+�wo, ,� � a. � w •� 3 •� 0 93 15 Oh ow pp ° � o s7 0a � c� •�o �� N �, eri o Y, a a � ati 400.«.. � n0 � "' 'o � �° •�.— � �� x H � •:3 p .,"�, � � w H �° E-r a. � ^o r5 � o � � eh $ ca,eq asz. ° w' .� °.w� •�f-+ � u y.• m yya �� tt�� M i`� t~d � M 97 C') C"! til M M 79 C`d y as o •C o C etl C, y c 46 aJ� � Cti y 5CD � J cd� Y 5cw •� " op0oa�.s¢ w Is "a w y m 'C7 p ai ^ � t7 � C •,� .�y � V '� ni � Fal»� •-' 0 41 'n 6 v' 6 "a`e7 iC •„y° c`� a� 61 '.'�". 10 ij � � s° , & oa79 CJ a o as � '., o o '� ai o � a� o c`'l, � ami s ° •� � t''_1Q N •� 'CS a 45 3 16 Q^d as `'� •"oo .pa Q, " ° ys Id 1 41 i rv ' Tim" b ,x3 °tlb °} � N n4�� N'33 ;,, b � C.1 ca��d; �y, ��'y �� •z# �°�� 3 '� �, o` r� ry p �p��'r p� Cfp r+t U'� N, .+ "�.. u5 S}y..' `� sNsrr�� .r.+ N.D•'�' + ^..Sµ N ,pY.i W"� ac .� aRa�2u� � ao ', ° " aro CC w v� va -++ U ,c� a _ya•»° a 1. N �cs �' � ,� � � °"�" �'+ 4—OLasp^� +a. 00 a o > b o n 00 00 o " ct a ams m 14 .. zs N ' o a 0 q ° rA p o No"c3 p ° Nc3 cf a M m o > a bAS -9 � a ° too 13 M C O' NCA •at"t ddS ' may+ o 'w on ' ot ° ki Is 61 � � � �' a� .•+ a y t7. y++: d •y as � U +r y, � p.,.0 �+ g� \ke-al � � as � � � � � � � �'µr' o $•p IS dpi`"'` �+ •�„? �'+� ��d� �� ` N� F�6 �, tb rU� 4d ?.'A d an a�n�,d .�3 D, •+ N a! ."ti .w++.'s•�•'�" rn' 5It, �`� 16.°i °3 a� w+.✓ ffi v+ N T..^ 'mss cp,� It a� a� � � � �°•,a � � � � ..� �i"a � `F'n iia d� L7 �•'� 4 °d p i nary '�ti•• vM '�� ° '��,, d ala c� °''s� z' .• '�N ✓ '"` "f" l f1 'r, tl d �" d .., ..+ � �� . �Qa ;•79 °,1' � 'd ai 'ti3 rpt "� .5' e� ''d G ""� � -u as '3 0 ��' , 0•+ „�'„ � z, -zi � E'S °}, ¢ _ G .° s or j�• C be IS as vy�.�a � �,�1 py �,n cs,� � o ,y�{ �5 eaA�,1-., °erg'e� }yy•�,+"a�e �i � �yy� ° � 'd' � �' '��'�y°� �' It .•s �-� N�� d� (?9 � �•��`� �� .'it d��'O�t4 C5�:"C', '•'� W^ D,�.y� �+i-� tyoy "��'`Q N �y„��u' pT Pig 1� .e•+ :✓ i -5 p '✓ ~ N N SN ..a'w d �. 45 V1 V• i'✓ Syy Cbgi, �N d �. au to cd»+ ° � ..p .Q (j N m d ✓it's i,. ga.°� G 41 a)w".�,'�' Vol o C--a Na tl� y °.1 7tV pd .yl° '( C7 L`•1 � a Nf N na ° vn� cn ,i, J` � � .fie i�� C5 67 VJ � G W•'u�yi '� � b � '� ro V' .52 �s-t ''ti. i� � e9 'C a� �i •C y,' � �� O N C: w. � � Y,� "ph C �i' � a7 w +:+ R� � �" +�� rte. � '�'c�„ � W .0 � •F3� �a�q" ^ as79 ^.� �+ Ky .,. y, .tf 6y 'C] Gt`-73 ,�f• � '� b.'� �+%, O� ed IH I Am Lis d �. 84 � o a, y b �".J C7 y� � � pl � � p � O N oD � •,.by u O 'g v7 '�O ° U s. p M _' U 2 -0 madames > bWrop �o�o ° U NO op q t�Yi .�4' .r� Cy (� cgqct \ ( Ll Yr ci Y Y •' p 0.Y k vt CL q 37 4i fir` t►� N a NA Y �w � Wa a a ° a� a, a� y 'fir ei eAi- i U as � �'� �� 9� ern Y,'.�� c�`3 � �.. 7`v � W u,w•� CJ S L v rd Ei Le <G c x m b 0 0 � m,.wwnatt, '�.. S ,g° c '� •9 1 LSV" n � � � .� �� ;;v^^°�77 � � � •y `� }C�}7+ u � bq 761' �' o c°'a� � �j ,y� c 0 a ° � � � �1+ � � .car f9 �•L C) '�40+ V. �'�a � `•++ (7 06-- V � © a� ° oo � � � b � � :� o° � � � �t rob ° � � •°a � � •� 6. � o 'CJ o ,,ay aw 6i',� � �° w o � � � ,. 5•: ''' Ctl " �`:1 '� m � �+ Tp. c � y 0 � ` m � �' � � � � epi +� •� '� � �� °a `�'s `� � °' �� c ��', os � a°r •�' � 3 ti ca.� m ° � $ � °' � $� b6) � p.• Bey � � �y ' ip is '4"'n `'b ,� '� ' "'� �Y c�E � � � Cyt � ,� ¢i v � �� 6� � �qj5 �� 'a •tigg3� � y+� ©'� � ,� � � `� r � � � °a't '� � "•.� � p '� � `y ti tt„+3 a A••y � w dT a9t G'�' G '�t3„ �+ � � r.4 0 gra • � c � d .sv�{y � a,o �.� � .� $.. m � s� r; bM id '. .F c zs .0 y, m t .8 o 79 cl o a � &"s °J m � � cL�.N� � '� [y � ,� �3 N �y 3 � •��. i. .g y ° � � y� y� � � w 3 a a� Q'� N79 F4 b e 5 � o � � b w 0 N t3 tiY ��.X �rr��r w, � .• t 4. - � �. .• _. ter' 9�n. c., f i v..'.. ',µ' t t t 1 gat, nv ro 00 rA uo NO k S $ h Z✓1 CS 6� C LJ q ax . 4pu �, q10 144A En Zo C:-23 Y � ?•r ZY'x�4 ��s��2�} + At }l ��3� s �`f"S� �. .��-�. -k� s.. � c �� a,,.ysG° r •"' s�4 VIIA i� t �tt ,y Y 4 ,`XSr ��.#aL,�,;,r 3'� # �ePE'��t �� _��,� � ��.: ,,,,,•�( '�u d^v'".I` _ ltttl �,� `sl iti � f��,iy,� �Yt `'+e*"�jf�'�x�. 7 r ti ��i$' �ry. y � � �' •, t t � i�� b#�'/.x,�`ti` v,�e` � i ,�n�w{..�"y }elryw+•C�Es�"� ' 4 :r ; rr xt Cs"'n i"+� 3 • �°�1`` r {i+r i.k L}s .s4, ' `{♦. {. rt t `s`_ �tS£k J S`�k.;s.�`��a{d�'gN a _ ^'ar+?♦ i °"1'i #.�+,€ Yi 1 i � �2 �} SS,tS <_ r,� 7'r .•+`tam+.. 1 r�'fi�'t "'• '�ix3��t '��{s� �<� a.. l' �.,`i `�,�A} �na4 -� a :�w� ,a.F� i �.�y+�*k �T f 41, r' tr 'q 45 �, axv ly,.+K".+ a#.45 Alf N+.. � (�'a'^• .ar � a ,3i uhf f'Y, l+ f„F+._=a. "' ;`4•, N ° 3M'`. _ .+qx`,�,}}Sr *k ltd-�'� q�[T"=}"" Y}e, ♦ Fpycj... 1 " S T a i paln+r OF Sc,srcr�, fl,, V�iert<-+•.c- , �'>/E ya ,=re*" 7'6P O� i,JoteSr ." Drr✓rr�Fa �y'/�ruC,#Slurs„ S+.'/ 5iy� 5 C Mt �„r'I`t J� f 5 f`,�f, `j'N v�rieTSCGG A rsyr IIS v�,cS,tS -. �t.'I'i4z,A£A{yvt c"9G 5'.t`L!c•,dc�f/�- Dry r�L " ..-. p� �,° 'r'F/�xry-rrE• : r//t yrt-•�' df ,7vG- ' t sCt,go $rML {rze 6,- V4 ,V4 f, ti e+9ftr(i,4r. +"'Aff2cwt+/�',Drf PA.eIs• F,eaGa, tffSk+�,c.v dv/S f6t fv7 TY r✓ S[roe is rB° v srb cFo .i- S/f=35, 'fSWvc�i/� S4urrf //4�r 54r oC Ce9/Ze5 5e001 - V�L%% 35 acvG �KrCcepZ • rti:1 itG/aS.Th'Is" c+<jdrouf 7"a� diG 4Lt�� }mL/ffK`LSGroS12 /C/Z-- Tap" d) 5•C.dR.r'!`ri roi: f/ 5 r/:1 S cry•r `.,.. � � S' c.�nrox�a'7v� Pux.rdsss ®ave, ce.o54 'rb 541) C/ r e As 101" cF ? 54(De ' ��,•"G fL �1 SGL�(�+ U 1C•/1�...y \ �— .y ` � `••... _ f rl � ,yf v i 1 .�A I� r srssr . .4 -01*/PrV a n'ryy+wr 47 YO rkvljp PM ytt�r -�.Y1rxtty �r+a�u:�gnj ....err,r s lY�r ij *f `f ?� r�z J:+YI" � , l � �3I ts!.c•�r+t �aas,�l """rte �'�7 Appendix H Feer Review Letter of Monk & Associates MONK & ASSOCIATES LLC Environmental Consultants September 20,2002 Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,N. Wing—2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553. Attention: Dr. Darwin Myers, Project Planner RE: Hillview Subdivision (SD 8533) El Sobrante, California Dear Dr. Myers: 1. INTRODUCTION Monk&Associates (M&A)has prepared the attached Initial Study checklist for biological resources, and has prepared a discussion of biological impacts and mitigations related to the Hillview Subdivision in El Sobrante. This discussion of biological impacts and related mitigation measures is based on our review of the December 21, 2001 Biological Resources report prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA), the July 1,2002 hnpacts and Mitigations report prepared by Mr. Michael K. Wood, the July 8,2002 application for Section 401 Water Quality Certification prepared by Michael K. Wood and submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the July 9, 2002 Preconstruction Notification prepared by Michael K. Wood and submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a two page report prepared by LSA that includes special-status species survey results and the results of a site visit With California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and two draft versions of a streambed alteration agreement prepared by CDFG for the proposed project. These CDFG draft agreements are not dated, yet are stamped by Contra Costa County as being received on January 3,2002, and August 28, 2002. Finally,we also reviewed a June 26, 2002 vesting tentative map prepared for the project by Klemetson Engineering. Based on our review of the above referenced documents,We Were able to determine potential project-related impacts and prescribe suitable mitigation measures. Many of the impacts and mitigations provided in our report were taken from.Mr.Michael K. Wood's impact and mitigation.report. We felt that these impacts and mitigations accurately reflect the project and the true impacts that Would occur from project implementation. 2. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project consists of construction.of 41 single-family homes on a 10-acre infill site in El Sobrante, Contra Costa County, California (herein after the project site).Residences surround the project site on all sides. Two drainages traverse the project site: Garrity Creek and an unnamed:tributary to this creek. This project Will require placement of fill into the unnamed tributary to allow construction of an emergency vehicle access road, and temporary dewatering of Garrity Creek to facilitate construction of a road crossing over this creek. Riparian vegetation 11-36 Saranap Ave., Suite Q + Walnut Creek + California + 94595 (525) 947-4867 + FAX (925)94'7-1165 MI ONK ASSOCIATES LLC Biological Impacts Analysis Hillview Subdivision(SD 8 53 3) Page 2 will also be removed along both of these creeks. Potential project-related impacts are discussed further below. 3. PROJECT't1VIPA+CTS 3.1 Waters of the United States and Waters of the State The proposed project would result in direct impacts to 16 square feet(26 linear feet) of unvegetated waters of the United States subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Approximately 5.36 cubic feet of fill would be placed into waters of the United States (the unnamed tributary)to accornrnodate construction of an emergency vehicle access road. On July 9, 2002, the applicant's biological consultant,Mr.Michael Wood, submitted a preconstruction notice to the Corps requesting authorization for the prof ect under Nationwide Permits 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) and 33 (Temporary Dewatering). Based on prior conversations with the Corps,Mr. Wood received confirmation that the proposed project qualifies for these nationwide permits. On July 8, 2002,Mr.Michael Wood submitted an application to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for Section 401 water quality certification for impacts to waters of the State(the unnamed drainage).Prior to impacting the unnamed drainage, authorization from the Corps and the Regional Water Quality Control Board must be received. 3.2 Stream Channels: Section 1603 of California Fish and. Game Code The proposed project would result in several separate impacts to Garrity Creek and the unnamed tributary. These impacts are bulleted below: • A 161-foot long section of the unnamed tributary to Garrity Creek will be impacted by placement of 6,033 cubic feet of fill in this channel. • Construction of the Mahnaz Drive ingress into the project site would require crossing Garrity Creek. An oversized, open-bottomed arched culvert would be constructed over the creek for this crossing. This road crossing would result in shading impacts to existing freshwater marsh (220 square feet), and construction of the 45-foot wide road crossing would result in covering 450 square feet of CDFG regulated strewn channel. • A total of 6,155 square feet of willow riparian habitat would be removed as a result of grading for home lots and roads (this willow riparian habitat has been separated into two categories. "upper riparian" and"lower riparian"habitats in the mitigation plan and in the discussion of square footage of impacts). Finally, seven native coast live oak(Quercus agrifolia)trees and three native Fremont cottonwood(Pvpulus fremontii) trees ranging in size from.2 to 24 inches in diameter would be impacted. MOS ASSOCLk= LLC Biological I=acts Analysis Hillview Subdivision(SD 8533) Page 3 CDFG has prepared a.draft st<earnbed alteration agreement authorizing these project impacts. 3.3 Nesting Birds: Sections 3503 and 3503.5" of California Fish and Game Cade and The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act All birds, their nests, eggs, and young are protected from direct "take"under Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Cade. Raptors (birds of prey),their nests, eggs, and young are also protected from direct"take"under Sections 3503.5 of the California Fish. and Game Code. Additionally,raptors are also protected from direct take under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In 2002, a pair of red-tailed hawks ($uteo jatnaicensis)nested in a large cottonwood tree below lot 29.Riparian vegetation removal on the project site could result in impacts to these raptors or other nesting birds. 3.4 California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonit) The California red-legged frog is a federal listed threatened species.It is also a state species of special concern. Both LSA and Michael Wood Biological Consulting conducted site assessments for the California.red-legged frog on the project site. Both of these companies determined that the project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Regardless, in CDFG's draft Strearnbed Alteration Agreement, Condition No. 3, it is stated that precautions must be taken to ensure that the project does not result in"take"of this federal listed species. Please refer to the corresponding mitigation measure. 4. NUTIGATIONS The following mitigation measures would reduce all impacts to biological resources to a level considered less than significant. 4.1 "Waters of the United States and Waters of the State In order to mitigate impacts to-waters of the United States and waters of the State, the applicant is proposing to widen the unnamed tributary at a 1:1 ratio and enhance the channel with native riparian plantings. To protect water quality, grassy swales vegetated with native species shall be created and all surface runoff will drain onto these swales before draining into the creeks. Mitigation for impacts to the project site's waters of the United States and waters of the State shall be completed in accordance with details and specifications provided in the July 5, 2002 Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prepared.by Michael Wood Biological Consulting. Additionally,prior to issuing a grading permit for the project, the County should require documentation that the appropriate permits have been authorized by the Corps and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the project. 4.2 Stream Channels: Section 1603 of California Fish and Game Code In order to mitigate for impacts to GDFG regulated areas,the applicant has agreed to replacement planting and stream restoration as prescribed in the July 5, 2002 Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prepared by Michael Wood Biological Consulting. This mitigation includes: MONK & ASSOCIATES LLC Biological Impacts Analysis HiEview SubdiNision(SD 853 3) Page 4 • Replacing the lower riparian scrsaub habitat at a 3.1 ratio using pole cuttings and commercial plants, • replacing upper riparian scrub habitat at a 2.1 ratio using pole cuttings and commercial plants; • replacing freshwater marsh habitat at a 2:1 ratio by transplanting existing plants and seeding with native wetland species. • The native oaks and cottonwoods shall also be replaced at a 3.1 ratio with 15-gallon container sized trees. • Debris and refuse will be removed to enhance the tributary. • Lnvasive exotic species will be removed from the planting areas. • All existing and created riparian habitats will be protected by a deed restriction established along Garrity Creek and the unnamed tributary. This deed-restricted area will be approximately 40 feet wide between the houses' backyards and Garrity Creek's top- of-bank. op- of bank. A six-foot high wood and wire fence will be constructed at the edge of the 40- foot set back. This fence shall have signs posted along it to discourage dumping and also restricting public access. All other mitigation measures shall be completed in accordance with details and specifications provided in the July 5, 2002 Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prepared by Michael Wood Biological Consulting, with a slight modification made to riparian survivorship. On page 24, Table 9"Performance Standards,"the column under riparian performance standards states that "at the end of five years, the total number of native riparian trees in the riparian zone will equal at least 70% of the number planted." Condition No. 23 of CDFG's draft streambed alteration agreement states that riparian survivorship at the end of five years shall be 80%. The mitigation and monitoring plan shall be modified to meet the CDFG condition.Plant survivorship at the end of five years shall be 80%. Likewise with the canopy cover, the mitigation plan should be revised to reflect CDFG's streambed alteration agreement condition that canopy coverage at the end of five years is 75%. In addition to the mitigations presented in Michael Wood's mitigation plan, M&A would also add that any riparian plantings installed as mitigation for the proposed project shall be irrigated by an automatic drip irrigation system that is operated by a clack-tuner. If the drip irrigation system is not hooked up to a timer, and it is left to a maintenance worker to oversee the irrigation of the plantings, there is too much room for human error, which could result in tree/shrub mortality. Hence, the irrigation system shall be equipped with an automatic timer so that it is ensured that the plants are watered on a regular basis. Znplementation of the onsite mitigation and monitoring shall be a condition of project approval. MONK & ASSOCIATES LLC biological impacts Analysis Hilhiew Subdivision(SD 8533) Page 5 4.3 Nesting Birds: Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of California Fish and Game Code and The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act In order to avoid impacts to nesting birds, CDFG has required that vegetation removal be confined to the period of August 16t'to February 10' (Condition No. 6 of CDFG's draft streambed alteration agreement). .Also,if earth-moving/grading activity or construction-related disturbance will occur on the project site during the raptor and passerine bird nesting season(February 15 to August 15), a focused nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to determine if this activity could disturb nesting birds. The ornithologist must have experience detecting/identifying raptor and passerine bird nesting behavior. Or, if necessary,two biologists shall be hirers: one with experience with raptors and another with experience surveying for nesting passerine birds. If nesting raptors are identified on the project site, a minimum 500-foot non-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest tree. This buffer shall be fenced with orange construction fencing. A qualified raptor biologist will periodically monitor the nest site(s)to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone disturbs the birds, and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent nest abandonment.No disturbance shall occur within the minimum 500-foot buffer zone until a qualified raptor biologist has determined that the young have fledged(left the nest), and are flying well enough to avoid project constriction zones, typically by August I". If nesting passerine birds are identified on the project site, a 75-foot buffer shall be established around the nest tree. This buffer shall be fenced with orange constriction fencing. The non- disturbance buffer zone shall remain in place until it has been determined by a qualified ornithologist that the young have fledged and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones,typically by August 1". The County should not issue a grading permit until a nesting survey has been conducted and the non-disturbance buffers (if necessary) are fenced. 4.4 California Red-Legged Frog In order to prevent project-related impacts to the California red-legged frog, CDFG is requiring a preconstruction red-legged frog survey to be completed within 48 hours of any earth-moving activity or construction on the project site. This would require two nights of nocturnal surveys. M&A adds to this requirement that the biologist conducting the preconstruction survey must hold a federal 10(a)(1)(A)permit for California red-legged frog or be considered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be a"[U.S. Fish and Wildlife] Service approved"biologist(the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a list of Service approved red-legged frog biologists). If California red-legged frogs are identified on the project site, all work on the project site shall be placed on hold while the findings are reported to CDFG and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and it is determined what actions must take place. The California red-legged frog preconstruction survey shall be a condition of project approval. MONK & .A.SSOCLA'nS LLC Biological Impacts.Analysis Hillirew Subdivision(SD 8533) Page 6 5. CONCLUSION The proposed project would result in potential significant adverse impacts to waters of the United States regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,waters of the State,regulated by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, stream channels and riparian vegetation regulated by the California.Department of Fish and Game, nesting raptors,nesting passerine birds, and the California zed-legged frog. Mitigation measures could be implemented that would reduce impacts to these aquatic features,habitats, and special-status species to a level considered less than significant pursuant to CEQA. This concludes my analysis of biological impacts that would result from implementation of the Hillview Subdivision. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (925) 946-4867, ext. 203. Sincerely, Sarah Lynch`, Senior Associate Biologist MON ASSOCLkT LLC INITIAL., STUD'S Environmental Checklist Form (Biology Section. Only) A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION To be prepared by Contra Costa County B. ENI ON-MENTAL 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. N Biological Resources C. 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. LXJ I find that although the proposed prof ect could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions have been made by or agreed to by the applicant to incorporate mitigation measures. A NUTIGATED NEGATTVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an EARLIER EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,no further analysis is required. LJ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENV`IRONf TNTAL IMFACT REPORT is required. The analysis will focus on issue areas which have been identified as having a"Potentially Significant Impact"warranting detailed analysis of impacts,mitigation and alternatives,and for issue areas with"Unknown Effects" for which inadequate information exists at this time to make a determination. D. EVALUATION OF ENNTIRONNI:ENTAL EFFECTS A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"Aro Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g.the project falls outside a fault rapture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g.the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. MONK & ASSOCIA= LLC "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence leading to a fair argument that an effect is significant.If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the dete=J ation is made without the possibility of mitigation,then an EIR is required. "Less'Than Significant w/Mitigation"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures may reduce an effect from. "Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than.Significant Impact." Mitigation measures and a brief explanation of how or whether they reduce the effect to a less than significant level is provided in the text of this report" Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to tiering,Program EIR,Master EIR,or other CEQA processes,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EITt or negative declaration.jSection 15063(c)(3)(D).l Earlier analyses are discussed in Section G at the end of the checklist. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, Would the proposal result in impacts to: Significant Potentially Less Than ; No Unknow Impact Significant Significant Impact Impact Impact w/ j Mitigation a)Endangered,threatened, or rare species or I X their habitats(including but not limited to tants, fish,insects,animals,and birds)? b)Locally designated species (e.g.,heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest,coastal habitat, etc.)? d)Wetland habitat(e.g.,marsh,riparian, and X i vernal pool)9 e)Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X Comments: (a)Less than Significant wl Mitigation. There would be potential impacts to waters of the United States, waters of the State,drainages that are regulated by California Department of Fish and Game,riparian vegetation,native trees,nesting raptors and passerine birds,the California red-legged Log,and wildlife corridors along the drainages.The proposed project includes mitigation measures such as native vegetation planting and monitoring, and dedicating a perpetual open space easement over a stream zone buffer that includes the charmel and 40 feet from the top-of-bank-These mitigation measures are detailed m the attached letter-report.The mitigation measures would be a condition of project approval. Ap►prendix I Comment Letter, 4th Grade, El Sobrante Elementary axn H-0 �,�q" r Vf F.I _..�1_�rf-�ne_ _ � X45 -�— -- - __ _---- --- - -- the: an�ma,IS-,_ __�ea�u,r� .;__�-�'1�►"___ �_ent�.l--- _._th-e�—�.ic��_-t do _- ---- 4910 Manor Kootj M e C M k 2 ooq � NO1 ° CA 9953 lo�m, writin l� le4lear �,o See �� cruko � rd . ,)W- re �e IG.rr' NJ rPek MAIll t I 1 *114e �o fcL < P- Vln.V 6 t4 0 A r PIS 1o � Yak/ cectekids - — - ir CP-11 e ---- Cy' 1 7. Ov t • �r a 4 4 � �� C�,.fJ ^` J� J fir=i. �. � �'Er�`�`,_.- ,.'S� t.�.r'�-�"'' `'��k " •�''`�� G�� t+c'_ „-w.' i ;.w.j Lf'-"�;:� ••, �... ',b- L`�l � ,� °`'��..e. �r .ri.�I-�;/ U?�.2�”' `°� `.;rr �rtE,: (.�. La Y97 i v . . , f i a I t ~ � 3 F' r-01 iajJ air- ;- ? j _t";t _. •+ El n F , t' j i L ._i.�S r,.�. j- r , + t , ` �y 1 —rl�4 O.Q ul�1a1�� v 4L .1,.0!1-1 _� Ems ? z — I...} r: f :•. .� °�� _"' ' c 'R> .`_. _._._ 1060 �oa -kl - �rr V,elo pine, I ear Afhi Y i 1'Y1 �✓�J r C��000 . Ufa r_ y+ t twki c ea O/j et. Go, .'A� -C- ......�(o Gi e, p Ci �..it 4 .l .f'�'-S'�' „ ,�7 ewa l-! �`'�n ti J fL l,rA, .� '�-'4J A,,e }'�,� a i Ld '31 _._. - ..._�./..""•-__' --� S..?",-L.�J�.� .� �.. ...__ "_£ .__'__.. ...i Vit.._.__.k,�F...r..�t'' z..��r _.__..._.__._..E�,.�. '.`.'�=.m..- 0.0 . ... _. .. .. 91. ze4i -- ` YVI w �... s r F _....----. ...__......._ j 1 Q, r s _ FA 3 Y � _._ - .-L -�_ C11 a.w_ ° r"7cj � iI __. .. ri . 5 _ u, I%v ldliw bAb p t '..._ "Pill- . :.tt3ttt -..-.. ------ . Ile `. ' _ ;�syW=y'`�r.Y"yam' t ` d ! 5 t Y. E. ;� ". �" :.._3•.-r"vK. .'/:...-..: ._ est__ � � x e. ! yrs .�s•. �.' � r "Y k � —Fy$, Ira lk ot ...1:! _...._.:_.....__...-..--___.._..____._.��.�..d}.:Ja; _L�u�....�.._.YUA wr<i. i'�r.:_ >�..-�-�+-L'--�•°....8_. --__S�.r!=':.__��tL_. %.__ -.._r .._fiw:._:Y�',�: �...._.�,._Ig . ---_ t ! { 5 -_._?.__ _. CA 7 _--..____ OLE. . � r � �...___._ j -17 F - I { 3 EF--so, _ v i to Ca 4 . Cis c .�4's��,✓."---. , t k.--..:_:_��*.�� __. :i— Y � F �CArA -...CAJ .t�A��.t�r�it��a.'-_.�'�=;thU� y•'..�__..__S„rl� ..i� ,'{"�1 ._ _._u..?�:,I�_�.t�S-�_�_,�'..�1iS_._�..��.`��c?(�'�_.�t�C)r__...��t7.L�.J---��'��--- � �::c;�oAA Y"p.,. Al, I 3.1� -E'_t' .�,C u1.r f , i r , ? _ _ 4 N a I i )0- rte _ : Uut opp m t h r v ay-7,i _- 0 _ __— __ tit , I-- -c—ani 5. o V o_nvv_c_ c `�. TZ�/' -&-re 4 t�r t `t�l ve- 17, �• is i � — — - : ' De � P` z P,_4 n\tt Lk4- [Al r\ _ Kiri +tf rt _ a I a V i G_ V(� #'. a y` r OU f _�,tJly t tial s c-��.F.t� ttr-f7.i'yy Y" � . _ r' �.� L 1,1— � `r ' w ",Ld��.—_!o�� t,1.V�* t �',!�``+Y►. �p''__�_��.. �L,,�,�" ��_t � t.� � _L`.;�Q t,?��_- C J .D C_"".I s _ I oy e e? c a N C:7 s 1 r'c_ o n i M-d—J, I- 5-53 jp WL ot 4 S 9 --j�� ....._ ` �,—.V._+ lt a � i l CTS b'Ul e _ e C3'u"fIfLa t i p — _....... Gr✓ `� .. . ..i... .. J. -------- 4, t .. t LA) A � 4 dad 4a t6,r- n- gas r' C� a` - 1 5 r � No r- Yo f is f'l o _ � t� ' us °._=AL n' i 1 ------------ 11-14. st ;t L' . _ ' i. t `-� � - _ r Appendix J Mitigation Monitoring Program G� c!� � tia S A zn d w� �~ a. � is c�; � ❑ ` � ��n $��. �`� IL � 8 � 1 I a I � I w v o 6 o .QI i ( u Jw J4 w a 8 IT U:n U u .� I bo i w al o e � A � 91.0 i U U p O lUl � v g U f Gh b Yr Foff+ PT w b c�c .:... xis �p� a ">� � § �� •�� ' �„ U.�' tf ° �wC6 o .o. ar" y.. w u q F4 a qp,, a ,*,fie,..'- it •a i ry all 14, a 11 w w U W J c� m ' tea. ! 9, N t ri a' a J-.r= -8 il L�-[I. 6 �o �g. e o' �i•B o r ng6 � "h n c a bA .m � y n a. 6s � E3 0 3 � �J tea . d � W O F"gip 9 a,* WQQ�,,ro a p' rc7' qj ry a � G+,a o -41 ut fIf ', d. E7, 3 Ila Its It F p .•t� ��' p. C a a � � °p �kl a e�pg.5 0 i 0 o S. � n i T•'h R'.C� O � n Er C�1 m; a Lq U U 13n if a bb 3 SA a U a U U O U .pp�ppp b w0 �-� y.� U � �' � '.fig p�u 7�. b•�� .b.�i� �•� II 21 y� •. `t7 www o o ,_ .a ` ��? Oil ro u o' t9. F4 Fi 1 dY t O •SS 'O d O 0. a tl P C4 O w •� aGi d N G ❑ �i ji U y LS y W ! J o. !l3�''3: 'pO �� moi' � °� �+ � t�, `' a7 �� O'Tj C uR• (1'� per. � `b d f"�.� �� O �• 4�2 �j 0.d O� + '�w' q�'� •�� u •'� i7� C3 n m » 2� i# _ta<;•. � � y.'tom• � '�. s ��+� �.�_ P C n a o " " d M O W C 41 a OR " ' 06 .Y o ......... oil Ht a y� � p G 5 s?i M h I a b �wu M � prig d a, t d : I 41,111 iitq U � 98 5 a G � C 4 chi A A q G b O •� I 'I � a.9nB F3 •�' y $a n � g2 m " u ti O Ilei t, � .� � IT •�� '��}'� � � � � �egg � �� a °� Cf I� O w � �+ *� �• � a �'Si �w m #y u u � co � 6 U� a o � 0� Q Am 's . pTa � � � 0 'Eli � .�a tl p � �. YY f .... rg•0 7+ 0 49, b p, Ua '•d L7 yrs't:lit ° .cg rr o o ffi.� b ray EP F5 A ti O ❑❑❑ CCC P �'Cr b Ln. '4``�r` i� � m tr• �'�d° �Q'B � � � r'1' p as 47 0 is o R- ol M h Ch pipee '' m t � 8 o ❑ o pu. p ' .: ma j � �_�C a ".3• �nii G tbn: ti ir'�iY 4a?F FH„vj'"y? " n 1.1, it :: ------------------------- r�Z s MEEK I x1rNa, i� EX Is/ ON W.U. s R1.17/10 U Ile ............................ MINOR , ENRON:, ...... .. ........ . ......... . . . .... . .. ... ......... ......1' ' millii limp 11IN 1111111 .......... . . . ......... . .. . . .. . .. . .. .. .............. ... . Ills, x ................ ........................ .... ...... _1_. box: ... ......... mom'19"'X ....... .. i?. MI . . .... .. ....11 11 .. ...... 0, ................. �g . . .. ... . . ....... ......... ... . . . . .... ... . . ..... ......... .... .. .... ...... . . . .. ... ..... ..... .. ... ... I .. .. . ... . . .. ........ ............... . . . ...... ... . .....I . ......... .. ...... ..... .............. .................................... ..... . . .... Blow! .... ..... ....... . 1 all ill MIll limil mill .............. .. ..... ..... ..... . . . . .. .. . .. ... . ... . . ... .. .... . ........ .. Bll... ........ ...... .. .. . 1 ... ... . . . . ....... . ....... . . ... ...... . ......... . .... . . .... . . . ....... .. .. .... .... .... . . . .... 1 1 1 ..... . ...... . .. .. . .... ... . .. .... .. ... .. . .. !loll ill.. . .... . ............... ... . .. . .. ........ ... . .... .. ... . . . . ..... ... . .. . .... ........................... ..... ... ... . .. .. ..... . ..... ..... ............ .... .... ...... .. 1 1 .....I . ... . . . ... ............... . . . .................... ... ..... .. ............ . .... .. 11 ...... ...... . .. ............ .......... . . . ......... . ............ NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 20042.-30 p.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El. Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creep and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 V2 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet;minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SU018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017, and 426-192-0105 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 33 5-12 10 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By. r Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk li�-1 vw SsV113 JLSNI:i S„ l": t NY gkv d O.L`11H €r � Yl '(? A Z4VC9GV6 V3 `Z3NIINVW "133HIS 3Ntd M ga woos `Mayos :o x83. 0 Jl1Nnoo b'isoo VHINOO FIRST CLASS MAIL -- ---........................................... .............................................................................. - ............................................ NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY M3,2004 2:30,o.m,in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and (B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 �/x feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet;minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SD018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator h B �- - Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk SSVID ISNIMA OSM VO `alueigoS Ig OA Icl dollpH SSO£ 6ZZVC99V6 b'3 `Z3N1J.WW 1332115 3NSd M soy wool `aavos :io ma -10 Amnon visao VHsMoO NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2444 2.34 p.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Comer of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El.Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends ii 'Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 % feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots l 1-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfre,%, Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and It fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:.30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on .Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator t � n By �, i � �. Danielle Felly, Deputy Clerk _.ttiYljtil3(tffs(L1;fir�ti�;f..t�flS4i�fitt�t31135_f..:#Sf3Cflt£:)31#3 i3 1ff ISI1 !0 3 iF INN t3 )s ti 3 £ 39 No laquo axymn0a ON £08t,6'uD `ajut,aRoS la aauQ culetIgUTIJON 6t,89 s ` poonmjg 1013 M ? F p� nt l -CG9V`6 VO `Z3NI1.HV N 6zZ1� 1331SiS 3N{d M E?� FIRST' � ,C:LASS MAIL ................. NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13,2004 2.-30 a.m., in the County Administration Building, 6151 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra. Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass, Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and.(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 'l2 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots I 1-14)(proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Read. County File#SD018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department,County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 .Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the Administration Building, 651 Pirie 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at (925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Bate: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator awl,LIJ L,n Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk livw Ssyla iLsi",di:j t )pq L91 0 .0 Pard 'spule f S`f h + l UZ V99076 VO 'Z3NIJ.IIVW } 133HIS 3NId M Al noo t/isoo"IN03 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COS'T'A COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2:30 p.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Comer of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 112 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (bots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet;minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 1.00 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SD018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant & Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p. . on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk livw SSVID Isili:1 E006 UO "juviqoS la 1110AV A�01A[JV OES vuvw .............. ... ...... UZ VEMP6 VO 'Z3NIJ-MVW 133HI5 3NId M ... go G wOOs ,csvOs :j0 )4N3 .......... JdNnw visoo vmlNOO ........... ....... FIRS CLASS MAIL - ............................... NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MA'T'TERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2:30 ptm*, in the County Administration Building, 651 Fine Street, (Comer of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning.Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creep and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 1.0.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 V2 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lets (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 maybe examined in the Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &,008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. .Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator 1h / r , By }� fl✓ i, LL, Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk livw SSVID JLSNI:l Z3NI.LaVn )(08 0 C, f. M03",hi *-94'N ' fi 6ZZ -CSGV6 V3 'Z3Nl.UJVW 13SHIS Mid M go b WOOH 'auvos -40 )4'8313 AlNnobvisoo"INOO .............. ..................... . . ............... ...... FIRST CLASS MAIL ....................................................................................................... NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13 2:30 p.ns,. in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Comer of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the Centra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 '/z feet in combined height) within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (bots I 1-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SD018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant& Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California.): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board. of Supervisors and County Administrator By ,, Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk ........... .......... livw SSVID iLsvi:j -0-�.,>j A,01,4 ON vi '96WA141H RZ vc.9z Nd IA ....................... UZ VC9016 VO '23NI.LHVW 133HIS 3NId M ga woos I1NVOSAONN313 klNnoovisooVHlNO3 FIRST CLASS MAIL --................................................................................................................ NOTICE OF A PUBLIC BEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2r30� ,in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez,California, the Contra Costa.County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass, Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative reap to divide 10.09 acres into 40 bats. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 % feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as;56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 8). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SI3018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez,California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development.Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 20104 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator B toy Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk livw Ssyla JLSNI:j Z09176 VO GNOWH:Dl8 V S83NMO3WOH N3380 011�H V690-W V9Z-P NdV ' �gyps � 6ZZ VC99V6 VO `Z3NllHVW ' 133a1S 3Ntd 459 hl.Nt1oo viso3 "iNO3 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBItANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY3,,.2004 2.30 p.m.. in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 1/3 feet in combined height) within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots I I-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#517018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department,County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator �1 , h ( ,. �By `' G (- - �-' Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk - livw ssyla ISNI:j CORM VO `a�tt�zgoS I� OAlJG ppa,j3IV OSOZ � f 133NIS 3Ntd M 906 woou `Ctuvos dO 3{bno A1Nnoo visob VN1NOO NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13,2004,2:30 pm.,„in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez,California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 1.3 1/2 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant &Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez,California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County.Administrator By.-L"4 .Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk ''I'll.,............I.................... ................................. .............. I ivw Ssvl :) IS'*d 1:1 EM76 voa @AIJ(j piv- , , T, ,,Ooz alsilloill, - ..................- 6ZZ K99V6 VO 'Z3NI.LHVW 133HIS Mid M 90t WOOHalivos -40 NS313 ................. ........ AlNnoo visooVNIN03 FIRST CLASS MAIL ----.............................................................................................. .......... NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2:30 p,,m.,in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez,California, the Contra Costa County.Board.of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter. Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass, Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative snap to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 X12 feet in combined height) within the required yards (structure setback area);',and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required.), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection., and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SD018533, Siavash Af'sshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department,County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 4261-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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,July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the Administration Building, 6151 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 pm. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Beard of Supervisors and County Administrator Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk � ' �r;r�:�rtr��:txiE��trtst:�frrtt��rx�ittt��;.x{irr��tr�ri'�rt:#{� ITWIAI CCWml '*% IS'*d 1:1 0£9t,6 bD `01rUOD 19 130JIS Iatjj3At''f-,,T SZ9 j, yu��Cxg a�� r �1 133a1S 3Nld M 9U� W04H `(]SVOS dU MN310 _.... Al.Nno3 ral'ism VN1NOO y, FIRST CLASS MAIL ........................................................................................ ...... .................................................................................... NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2:30 p.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lets. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6)feet in height(up to 13 1/a feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SD018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive,in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator B .�.- . Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk llyw Ssvl :) JLq� mj OStrb IIS`o}�ua�t3 :. a , pajjS jai QN89 SZ9t h.M OleZI �. . 6M-EOV6 VO `Z3NI.LHV I 133NIS 3NId M AINnoo visoo VUINOO ._ . ..................................... NOTICE OF A PUBLIC NEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13. 2004 2.30 p.m.. in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentativq ap to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining:walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combW6-d retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 %z feet in'comlbined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum`average lot width standard.for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet;minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 140.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File##SD018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 4.26-2101-007; 426-182-001 & 017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. 4% Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of supervisors and County Administrator By Danielle Felly, Deputy Clerk h .......... ........ ................... ........ livw Ssvl :) WLSNI:j ,4,t,6 LID 'Puotupi, Cl UOMAA.O ............................... 6ZZ VEM6 VO 13N ILNVWM133111S 3NId 90 wo `Cluvoe =10 XN310 ......... y. a. .. ....... AmollnoovisooVHINOO FIRST CLASS MAIL -................................................................................... NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING NIATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 230 P.m.,in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of fine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 Vi feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SD018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &,017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator I ByL�- ' �L Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk >:: livw SSVID OLSI11:1 E08t'6 VO `OlLWi o +� - >W x >> qY, '• ' f C_ r .. ' AINnoo visoo VHINOO NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13 2004 2:30g.^. in the County Administration Building, 651 Dine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra. Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and.(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 '/z feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet;minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(sots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant & Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12,2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John. Sweeten, Clerk of the :Board of Supervisors and County Administrator BY Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk ��sq tE..ytl}#3LF�S�EEtlEft(§r1Eiifxi{.tE2fl.�tt.�ft S��Ef34sfFlf'��Ef SSY13 MLS,*dl:j b�«w"l b r�k o E fp*;meq r.1. vial alvAloa EOSb6 ,lu-exq°S to zapu,euia ,apu'8taN . sz .- vs VO `Z31�11121'1Yw 133 113 3NId M 9a woos =clavas .4o )I1313 A1Nnoo visoo VSINOO NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA. NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2:30 p.m., in the County Administration Building,651 Pine Street, (Coiner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra. Costa County Beard of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Bearing on the appeal by the El Sobrannte Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, .Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative snap to divide 14.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)constriction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 'J2 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet, minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop give, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop give intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road.. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant &Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez,California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-401 &017; and 426-192-045 &,008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-93.30 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2044 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board.of Supervisors and County Administrator BV , Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk livw SSV13 JLssI:j 909V6 VO ©NOWHOW N1 AJVd VZ O1VNV} q iV�JIVUV ZS30 IlkVlllftf#l$z1114ilcil+'lYtttW 1 43ro.'Sittl tx,f►sat3 tsktt{t 3 f 6�i5111�1 � '3S3F S �t } w x0a O a> UZ VC99V6 VO 'Z3NIJL'H W 133111S 3NId LSA A1Nnoo visoo"INOO NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 20104 2.30 ,,m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed,), and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 /x feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection,and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File 4SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&.towner). 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 Community.Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925)370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 20034 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk ..................... ...........I........... ................... .......... ................ livw Ssyla iLsmi:j 08t,6 BD '31U'C-lqoS 19 iawol-e,l vi Z6t, zopueLUOH 73PUBION 11 iT 18! Naril-IX 6t6z-TcZZ6 VO NAV IT vmsaffl-R T60ET Mid dxa Z76WIff R --- --- 6ZU 13SHIS 3NIld WD qoWOON 'aHVOiEI :10 34H313 ....... - AiNnoo viso* VHINOO FIRST CLASS MAIL . . . . ............................................. NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRAN'I"E AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2.30 p.m., in the County Administration Building,651 Pine Street, (Comer of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California., the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass, Friends of Garrity Creep and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 V2 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and.for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) '(prop sed widths as small as 56 feet, minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SD018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez,California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 425-210-007; 425-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13,2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the Administration Building, 551 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925)335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator n By_ ' % . Danielle Felly,Deputy Clerk ' livw SsV113 JLSNI:j £08+76 VO `eauvaqus Ta V# ent,C do411?H L9Z+7 I� } x f r +�.3+�tt rr fat_ � �y +� [ +�{�'�q V44 M-&gSV, Y D 'Z3NI.LH Y W x .. . 133HIS 3Nld M v° 9AL w©om G'HVVO8 :jQ )4H3l3 t If FIRST CLASS MAIL ........................I.......................................... .......... ........... . ..................... NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOAR} OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JVLY.I3, 2004 2:30 p.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative snap to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 f/2 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area);and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (gr.o.posed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department,County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator x Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk - t 1 livw Ssvl :) JLS"d $ r. 1_ o-�le ->w < 6ZU 6 bO `z3NI.L VW 133NIS 3Nid M gm woos `Q2 vola -40 M11313 AiNnoo visoo vHl Noo NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13,2004 2:30-pm.,in the County Administration Building,651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass, Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed);and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 flz feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-1.4) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet, minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive,approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File##SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator r B '� La y �' Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk ................................................ llyw SSY13 iLsvi:j E081,6 BOilumiqoS Ig V" Ila �ljl�I LZ6 S )tu -ax ul Dfku A?V*0 6ZZVt99V6V3Z3Nl.L'dVW 133HIS 3NId M go 4 WOOH 'auvos .40 )4113 AlNnoo vism "INOO FIRST CLASS MAIL ................................................................. .................... NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MAT'T'ERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 1'3,2004 2.10,m m,in the County Administration Building,651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass, Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 1/2 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Dots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant & Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 & 017; and 426-192-005 & 008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin.Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator / n r By Danielle Felly,Deputy Clerk livw SSY13 JLSNI:j v °2Iu�IgoS C3 £a8tb QAUG ptmj�p jnS ptn21a C .. 6ZZ4-£59" 6 bO `Z3N't.LMVW 133HIS 3'Nld M ga UVpo `a23yt3S io mu3io NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY X3, 2004 2.30 p.m., in the County Administration Building,651 Pine Street, (Cerner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 112 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14)(proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Dots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department,County Administration Building, Martinez, California,): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 425-210-407; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925)335-1210 or(925)370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board.of Supervisors and County Administrator � By Y./ f `` Q 1 � Danielle Felly,Deputy Clerk ............... ...................... ......................... livw SSY213 JLSNI:j EM6 OD 'aimqoS la PL'OU UO3'Ur d 06L XtPOIO(l ........................... 6ZZKGGV6 VO 'Z3NllHVW 13SHIS 3NId M 90 4 WOOH 'CINVOS .40 XH313 ............ AlNno3 visoo "INOO FIRST CLASS MAIL .............................................................................. .. ........................ NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2:30 p.m.. in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and (B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 '1a feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SD018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator , _. By_�- Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk - ..................... ....... ................................................................... livw SSVID JLslldi:j 008t,6 VO 31Nt�SOS i'13 �(l d01111H 53AMI SOI,V ............. ......... ... ........... ... ..... -CSSV6 VD 'Z3NII.HVW 6ZZ 133 IS 3NId 09 m WOOIH 'cW08 .40MU310 .. ....... UNnobvisooVNINOO ......................... FIRST CLASS MAIL .................... ......I..........................-............................................... ..... NO'T'ICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA. NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13,2004 2.-30 pen., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez,California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and.Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative snap to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6)feet in height(up to 13 2/2 feet in°combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14)(proposed widths as small as 56feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Roa"illtop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant& fawner). The locution 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by.3:00 p.m. on Monday,July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. .Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and. County Administrator n By ' ��' , , Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk IIVW SSVI :) IS'dl:l ,UM76 LID °alumiq.os to OAR(I dojjj!x ssos xa;InS-zautof:) .a LXIOS 4 ti K� h ... .-..... 6ZIjq M /fir N W M VO ... 133NIS 3N[d M Y' , tom{ got �tl�t os `alivL s ao MN3'10 / > NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARS OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL OBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY-13, 2004 2.30 n.m., inthe County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 V2 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the.minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots I i-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet;minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#5D018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant& Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1.30 p.m. in Rohm 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Danielle Felly,Deputy Clerk ............................ ......................... ................................I..,.............. livw Ssvl :) iLssi:j '3 '0'u' ejqOS 19 d 6VL pp�l mo juo- t uoojo�In X 1:;" UU-MV6 VO "Z3NI.LNVW 133111S 3NId t99 sot woold 'aW08 :10 )*1313 AM=visob vmiNoo .. ............... FIRST CLASS MAIL -.-.............................I....................................................... NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANFE AREA -.NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2.30 pm., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,(Comer of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter; Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 Ya feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area), and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (bots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). The location of 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop.Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the Administration Building, 651 fine 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk 11vw Ssvl :) mLs1ji:j £08ti6 P3u `alumxgoS Ia 8Zg#Pvo2I z�".". , ',. .UviP g H ana�` .�;� 133NIS 3Ntd M 9EI Woolf `tt2�VO8 :10 X11310 Jl1hlno3 vi oo"IN03 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS" ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SORRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,.TLILY 13. 2004 2.30 p.m.. in the County.Administration Building, 651 Pine street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of supervisors will held a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 Vi feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area.); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14)(proposed'widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 1.00 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SD018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room. 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925)335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator r By , Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk ................... .................................. ......................................................... Ssvl :) iLssi:j E08 6 lolueiqoS to 8.Zg#'p'e6"&m(j olqd urS ocztl JUZleH QAOIS ... . .......... ............. 6ZU ------ -ESM VO 'Z3NIIMVW ........... K 133HIS 3NId M 9M 1 OON 'GHV08 .40 3IM313 .. ......... AmnoovisooVHINOO FIRST CLASS MAIL ................................................................ .............................. ...... NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBtRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13s 2004 2.300 m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Comer of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter. Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed),and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 1r'2 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the;minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet;minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant& Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin.Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335.1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator f y h 1 By� Danielle Felly,Deputy Clerk ............................... ...................... ....... livw Ssvl :) JLSNI:j M8t,6 L'D ';Dlu-e-TqOS 19 pyo nNAIJuag HL v. .................. 6ZU-CSSV6 VO '23NI.LHVW 133HIS 3NId M 9M wo ou `Cit vos :io mlia'13 AlNnoo visoo VNINOO FIRST CLASS MAIL .......................................................................... NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNT'BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,.Ur LY 13, .2004.2.-30 p.m.,in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez,California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 14.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 !/2feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to:-the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14)(proposed widths as small as 56 feet;minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 140.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 104 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File##SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Crista County, State of California, generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in the Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez,California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive,in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:34 p.m. in Room 148 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1214 or(925) 370-9334 by 3:40 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2404 Jahn Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County.Administrator $y % � Danielle Felly,Deputy Clerk livw ssvl :) ISSIM4 £081,6 V; °QluuagoS Ig z� P130-d' A'-QJJUQU I ZL i 0000-ussilow �a aitI s 4 3< 133HIS 3'NId 459 r MW4OM `CINVOO :10 )*1313 s . AlNP1C1o''1 ism VNINC» NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2:30 p.m.,in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board.of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek.and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative reap to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lets. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining cvas taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B)combined retairfiig wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 1/Z feet in combined height) W- un the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum aver 4 1,tvith standard for four of the lots (Dots 11-14)(proposed widths as small as 56;feet;minimum 70 foot-widths rewired), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SD018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&fawner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop.Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &,017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925)335-1210 or(925) 370-9334 by 3;00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk livw SSY13 iLsidli:j L # `P-eo-d urvQ olgud ut's oS I b , zn iD lo(l P810- 3 6zz .-09016 VO `z3NIsHVw 133H1s 3 Id M 906 Wada OtIV08 :10 XN313 AiNnoo visoo VNINOO NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBR,ANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004.2:30 pare., in the County Administration Building, 651 fine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa.County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height (up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combinedretainingwall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 1/z feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14)(proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the .Board of Supervisors and County Administrator Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk livw SSVID JLSNI:j �OS#�6 � `a�crezgoS I3 peo6601 I -. .... d f . 6ZZb-CSSV6 VO `Z3NI.LW i[ 1331115 3Nid W9 9U wooCaws d4 w43*3 _ A1Nf1oo v.Lsoo'HIN03 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2x30;.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and,honing Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of ret fining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed),'and:" I.. dixted retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height.(u to 13 1/2 fit ip, mbi�ied height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and**ano s to th6 minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Bots 11-14)(proposed Widths as small as 56 feet;minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected,trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection,and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File##SI3018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). The locution 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez,California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1.30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and. County Administrator f By. % Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk i 1 �Ssvl :) JLSI*di:j 6 VCj `a;imigoS la iea u� P 2I u S Z", �zi7 x l ItIOS4 vi Kiu-t� f � R �M. 1 max. 6ZZVC99176 b3 `Z3 IJLMV i 133HIS Mid X59 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JUL 13, 2004.2.-30 n.m.; in the County Administration Building, 551 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez,California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed),and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 '/a feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as'small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive,approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File##SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator l By Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk livw Ssvl :) iLsvi:j I £08tr6lB3 `ojuuzgoS to ` �o?3zum(l ojged a'OS Zt9t, 47 uos ��f�u1ouzIT .` ` Is, 01 v f Z1�` � V6b `Z3NIJL-H 'W 133HIS 3'Nid M AiNnoo visoo t 1NOO NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE ARtEA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13»2004 2:30 p,:m in the County Administration Building,651 Pine Strut, (Cerner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek.and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. 'variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than.three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and )combined retaining.wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 I2 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required.), and approval to remove two protected trees(sots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department,County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &.008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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 staffwill be available on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(9.25) 335-1.210 or(925) 370-9334 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12,2004 to confum your participation. Date: June 25, 20034 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County.Administrator / n By ' ' -- Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk f livw SSY13 JLSIdl:d £OSb6 L� `alLiu�gO�j 19 _`'. P,,°,duz,eQ alged u13S OM, ........... six -C99V6 bO`z3NI.LSV W 133HIS 3N1d M NOTICE OF A PUBLIC"HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY13, 2004 2:30 y m., in the County Administration Building,651 pine Street, (Comer of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Beard of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following natter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning.. dvisory Committee, .Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creep and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lets. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet ih height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B).combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 %feet in cnrnbined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minim-um average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 1€10.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SI3018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant& Owner). 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 Community.Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 .Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007, 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(92 5) 335-1210 or(925) 3 70-93 30 by 3.00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and. County Administrator , By L Danielle Felly, Deputy Clerk ............ ........................................................I................ ..................... ............ ................................ .................. ................. livw Ssvl :) OLSSIM4 9,0916 VO aluejqoS 13 Aem uetddV 1918'v 6ZU j 133HIS 3NId M 90 WOOH '(38VO'8 .40 M'8313 .. ....... -------- AiNno3 VISOO VNINOO FIRST CLASS MAIL ................. ........................................................................ NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY.13 2004-4,30 p m„ in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,(Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez,California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter. Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creep and.Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lets. Variances are requested for(A);constructign of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed),and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height-{up to 13 $/2 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area.); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths'as small as 56 feet, minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop give intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#S 018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant &Owner). 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 Community Development Department,County Administration Building, Martinez,California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426492-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you. or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-:9330 by 3.00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 Jahn Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator r Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk ......................................................... ............................................................... ................. ssvl :) lsvl:l qoS 19 'Lirs-Lsos Pt O-a tallt(I uoutiv stun Q. ............... ............................. UZ VC99V6 VO 'Z3NlllJVW 133HIS 3NId M m woom ,atjvos :jo )4H3io AlNnoo visjay o"INOO FIRST CLASS MAIL .....................I.................................................................._____-._ ........... ....... .... NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANKING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY T3,,2004 2 30 xr m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Cerner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing Oft the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass, Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 401ots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and B ibined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 TIS flet rribined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances tp ti - inimim average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed width fl1 as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protec es'(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop D ; approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, brad it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDOI 8533, Siavash Afshar(.Applicant&Owner), 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez,California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-401 &,017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in.Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-121t�*t��(925) 370-9334 by 3:04 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 Jahn Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator el Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk -� livw ssvl :) ISNIM4 E08176 LID `amjgoS Ig aI°1z�.ItTH unS 000I gzns{t Lg Iag�ag Ua UZ K99"VO `a3NI.LNV u 133MIS 3NId M AlNnoovisooVVINOO Y FIRST CLASS MAIL ................----------------------------.............................................. NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2:30 p.m,in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision Ove a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(W c+ t xetion vfretaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in her d proP0sed), a., 4(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in h � to 13 Vi fbet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area), antrrances`to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14){pro sed widths as small as 56 feet;minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection,and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SD018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant &Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 Jahn Sweeten,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator n By ( � Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk livw SSY813 JLssl=4 OM VD `alutugoS I3 aloaF� IIIH Ilil�y Ringti2T3 ' UZ VC99V6 VO `z3NI.LNVW 133'H1s 3Ntd M 40 M19313 9M WOOH '43UVOS . A.Nno3 visoo vuiNo NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA.COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13. 2004.2:30 p.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Comer of Pirie and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lets. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet.in height proposed),;end ) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6).feet in height(up to 13i/2 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed rividths as small as 5:6, 1 feet; minimum.70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two`protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection,and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File 4SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1.30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 Jahn Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator yF Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk -' #_rEEf a#f#33 F.F [{pf3{ Ef.Jt3F i {#4f 3{44PF#.s,.4ld{ 4F. 1443F. Z`s'S'. wtv ara.wats livw Ssvl :) mLsNi:l E08f6 YO ',Oluv"'igoS Ig 2A1I(1 o-IIu2 u�roy�gueod Rt f O-M a 133HIS 3Nid X59 90 i 0DH `(lHVO8 d0 )01313 A.I.NtI{ v1SC3o bf1NC NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NO3TICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13.2(144 2.-30n.m.,in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and.Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lets. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 Y� fit in comb hen t) within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances t�tl inaverag,e lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths-b. 5` nft=u n 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 19�and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and if fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant &Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez,California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 & 017; and 426-192-005 &0308). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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 staffwill be available on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development.Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:030 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County.Administrator Danielle Kelly,.Deputy Clerk livw ssvl :) ISN1:1 £4SV6 VD `alu*exgoS[q pnoo almaquoa-'D nE au d ltoojPP."I f u �w tF� j 5 `v 6 -£9GV6 V3 `Z3Nl.LNVW M o-1 90 W OON `crdvog :14 XH313 FIRST CL.ASS MAIL ................... ..............._......................-..-...-..-.-.-.-.-.................................................................................................... NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRAN'PE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 20114 2.30 p.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California., the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creep and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lets. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and (B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 % feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area), and for variances to the minimum average lot;width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet,r ;tm u 70,foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees,(Lots 18 40, Thi prap #y fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately I00 feet ; uthwestof the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDOI8533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant& Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1.210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25,2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Danielle belly, Deputy Clerk Ssvl�3 JLslji:j £OSM LID `oluvagoS Ig 4noD o*o.zquooxq tSS£ � F 6M~€99#► vo `Z3Nliww 1331115 3NId M 9ft WOON`A2#vos -40 )414310 AiNn©o visC3o VNIN03 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC NEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13,_2004 2.30 v.m.,in the County Administration Building,651 fine Street, (Corner of fine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Hoard of Supervisors will held a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.019 acres into 401 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6).feet in height(up tip 13'1/2 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback.area), and.for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11.14) (propod widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to removevo protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#Sf7018533, Slavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-0107; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13,2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk livW ssvl :) ISN1:1 "A'511-\1 '1 (NI c ..i �08t76 130 'altm-IgaS is PDX oiluaD is OLL fid j atggOX V ?A. 3 _ 4. qe, x4 133a1S 3NId ga Wags `aavas ziO )4H310 AlNt1C3o'd`.!soo"IN 03 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRA'LTTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13 2004 2:30 p.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Cerner of fine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6)feet in height(up to"13 1fz feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required.), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 1.00.1'7 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop:Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File SD018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 & 008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2044 at 1:30 p.m. in Room. 148 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9334 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2404 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator r By '' Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk s livw Ssvl :) JLs""dl:l �Q8 dolChH A 43M VON , a UZ VC906 VO °Z3Nl.UlVW k 133HIS Mid 149 E 9U 6 WOOH `CINVOS 40 XH313 AiNnoovisooVSINOO FIRST CLASS MAIL ............ .............. .................................................................. ................... .............................................................................................. NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2:30 t.m., in the County Administration Building, 551 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, BarbaraPendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed),and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 1!2 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the,lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 55 feet;minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SI.7018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant& Owner). 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 Community Development Department,County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-407; 426-182-001 & 017; and 425-192-405 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2044 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Beard; (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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2444 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator r Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk IIVW SSVI ,D JLS'*dI:i 2 Q , f 3. S` 4 £08t,6 ED `ajcrexqaS G anu(I 09UuDD 19 t�BS u�xoy.�8ax� ��xoyOWN \I�crea,� RY-MV6 VD `Z3Nl.LHVW 133HIS 3N1d M 9M WOOH `cluv li -40 X X313 ................................................. NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SORRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2.-30 p.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Comer of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public bearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to tO feet in height proposed), and (13)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 V2 fbet-"intombined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum avers lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet;minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two proteded trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop,Driv6, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#51018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant& Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25,2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator B LI�, �, Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk ........... livw SSVID lSlld' l:J C08176 VO oiuvigoS Ig pL'oN 011UOD Ig OLL uzassaxg uago d P1m IA r --?` ci t ry y,, 6�G -t99V6 VO 'Z3N[.3i.�ii W - 13SHIS 3NId M h 90 WOOH `t]uvos J0 XH370 .E. AiN loo VISOR INOD NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MA'T'TERS EL SOBBANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JC1;Y 13. 200- 4 2:30,rn., in the Chanty Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Cerner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height ppped ,and{B)combinl rung wall/fence structures in excess of"six(Ei) feet in height yup tt ::: 1� et i1,co t inert Leight)within the required yards (structure setback area); and fcr ees to te-rnnimurn average lot width standard for four of the lots(bots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop give, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SI7018533, Savash Afshar(.Applicant&Owner). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Centra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in the Community Development Department,County.Administration Building, :Martinez,California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-041 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room. 108 of the 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 Beard; 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 pm. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: ,June 25, 2004 Jahn Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator f r By "& iA(-a Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk Ssvl :) IS'*dln4 jqoS Ig elu } ---------------------- 6ZZ L�£ 516 �3 ` 3N112 tlltlt 133HIS 3NId M aa wop `aidy6s :io mH3-io AINnvo vlsoo YNiNOO FIRST CLASS MAIL ........... .............................................................. ............................................................................................ _ . NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2:30 p.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,(Cerner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in J.wight(up to 13 Vi feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area), for variances to the minimum average lotwidth standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) d widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 74 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop give intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-0031 &017; and 426-192-005 &048). If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only t ose issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in tten correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. f S Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be a ailable on Tuesday, July 13, 2044 at 1:30 p.m. in Room. 148 of the Administration ilding, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answe questions; (2)review the hewing procedures used by the Board; (3)clarify the issues being con'idered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve, or narrow any di re es which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call Darwinyers at the Community Development Department, at(925)335-1210 or(925)37449x0 by 3:401 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2044 to confirm your participation. a Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator F By °�� Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk livw Ssvl :) MLSNI=4 £0$V5 eD cpuocuu3'�i peon Iaxxed tr 1 t£ uatloes olief t r� N �:r +'��(y,��{I./'/� try{�.�•"� I(qy��^/�1��,{j�(/�+',2}�( 133b1S BNld X59 M WOOS! 1(3HV S AO XH313 AiNnOo'disoo VNIN O i ' FIRST CLASS MAIL .................................................................................. NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2:30 p.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Comer of fine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and.Zonizig Avvisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighbhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentaoxlile map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction ofretainin walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up-,.,t 2. feet in;cornbined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet;minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County Pile##SDO18'533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator / Bye{ Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk --- ilvw Ssvl :) OLSI11:1 1 1 3 anuQ 01- r 133NIS 3NId M 90 WOOH 'f3HVO8 =10 XH310 AINCIC3o visoo YN INOO NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13. 2004 2;30 p.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Comer of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 '/� feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (bots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as,5'6 feet;minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and.38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive,in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and CountyAdministrator B ' Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk livw ssvl :) IsNinq EOS#76 t'3 'aluvJgOS I3 peo'a m.a.UuQ2f I ZL a�aa��ssttay� 4 nLv Yl +�.a.,w, Y f , VZVKrslr6 V3 'Z311:laL W 133815 3Mld X59 :.;. Ai N foo visoo INOO NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING NUTTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13 z30 .m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested.for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed),,and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 1/2 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum.70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SD018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant &Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:301 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3.00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: Tune 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator r' By Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk livw SSY13: JLSNI:j £08V6')0 '33 uoagoS 2 '4s 'P2i 1DQ olgDd uoS 099£ 0dW auoigos 13 6zz -CSSV6 VD' NIJL8VW 133HIS 3Nld 159 wow : uNn©o vi soo V111NOO NOTICE OF A PUBLIC REARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBR.ANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JUL E.13, 2004 .30 zr.m.,in the County Administration Building,651 Pine Street, (Comer of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the Contra. Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. 'variances are requested for(A)construction of retaining walls taller than.three(3) feet in height(up to 10.feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 1/2 feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots(Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 74 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Dots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 1003.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive,approximately 1€303 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#51 0118533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration.Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 .Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 4261-18.2-0101 &017; and 426-192-005 &448). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 20104 at 1:301 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925)335-12101 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Bate: June 25, 2004 Jahn Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator f By Danielle Felly,Deputy Clerk livw Ssvli :) JLSNI:j C08176 EO `pizolgoi-d p ZI6Z f snRi 2LI2�EA d AVY <: -------------- 133HIS 3Nld M 9Ut woom `Cll vos AO NH310 ii AAtte�y/ i O NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,,JULY 13. 2004 2:30 pare., in the County Administration Building,651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Malley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass, Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lets. Variances:are•requested for(A)c6nstruction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up16>leet ix :beight proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six ( )e't in he ght(up to 13 1/2 feet in combined height)within the required yards fair (structure setback area), and variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (sots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet;minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Dots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant& Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive,in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007, 426-182-001 &017, and 426-192-045 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and CountyAdministrator y Danielle Felly,Deputy Clerk. ......................-... ......-..... ................................................... ..................................................................... ...... .................................................................................................... ..................................... ssysi :) ti V TqoS 19 p-eo,a uwc, uoumo AF ................................ ........... 133NIS 3NId M gu woo*d IONVOSAO MN313 .................... Amnoo visoo vuwoo FIRST CLASS MAIL ...................I............................................ ..................................................................................................... ...... _. . .. ......... _. ....._. _ _. ... ._..._._.... ......... ............_........__. _........ ....... ........ ..._..__ _ ...... r,. �jxOtO Xlnda�l`X11a�011ajui:0 � .I / Xg xolt'xlsjultupv Xlun00 pu-e saosLuodnS jo pmog aqI jo V013`uOlaamS ug0 f t70OZ `SZ ounf :Olt'O -uoiledimued xnoX uuUu03 01 t700Z `Z I Xlnf `X'BPUOW uo •urd 00:£Xq 0££6-OLE (5Z6)x0 OIZI-S££ (SZ6)It' `IuatulMCb(j luacud0lanad Xjjuntutu00 ogl To siaKW ulmn(l Ileo asrold�jj.els tlljm Suipaui sjgl puallt' 0I gsjm noA jl •alndsjp ui um-Luax tlojgm saouaxajpp Xut' moueu ao oAlosai 41luopl of Xllunlioddo ue apjnoxd(t)pug 4pxeog aql Xq paxaplsuoo gutaq sanssl Og1 Xjjxelo (£) °pmog aql Xq posn saxnpaooxd SuLm agl mQTAOJ (Z) `.su0ilsanb xamsue (I) of aapxo ui sorlwd polsaxaluj Aim pm laauu 01 `zauilreN `130x1S Quid I Sq °Sulpling uo11e4sli mpV aql jo 801 ui00a ui •ui•d O£:I It' t ooz `£I Xln f `fiepsanj uo algellent' oq Illm jpns Iuomz mda0 luauidolona(j Xliununuoo `SuLmag gill al xojxJ uixt'aq oilgnd agl `ol xou xo `1t'Xlunoo oql 0l paxanjlOp oouapuodsonoo uoupA ui x0`ooilou situ ui poquasap Buuvoq ollgnd aqI lt'posit'x Osla ouoatuos xo noX sanssi asogl Xluo Suism of paliuzil aq Xeui noX Tattoo ul xall�eui sal O UO eq no jl '(800 V 900-W-M,Put' `•L10 V IOO-ZS I-Wt `LOO-OIZ-9Zb slaoxed) -ton aluexgoS Ig agl uj `OAu dollljH £Z8tt�si ssaxppe alis loo�gns agL :(t'liuojljt' `zaujlxeW `Suipljng uojlpxlsiuiuxpV Xlunoo `luaurlmclo(j luouxdolo a0 Xliununuo0 ag1 ui pauiumxa Qq Xeui uoilduosop osioaad axoui-e)molaq pajjjluopj Xjlt'muaS `t'luxojlleo jo alt'lS `XlunoD elsoo exluoo jo X unoD agl jo Xxolpol palexodxoouiun agl ulgllm sl Xlxadoxd laafgns a ll jo uoiWool otu •(xaump V luvollddV)xegsjV gsient'jS `££58 JOGS#olid X1unoo •pieod uumW jo snujuual uxalsam aqi uo sluoxj 11 put' `uolloasxazui an. G dollljH./P'g Id maguo-d ail jo Isomglnos laaj 001 Xlalt'uiixoxdde `anjxg doilllH jo Opjs isomqpou olp u0 Iooj LI'00I x0j sluoq Xlxadoxd aqI, `(8£ ptm 81 sloj)sOaxl polooloxd oml Onouxax 01 IvAoxddte pue `(paxinbax sglplm-Ippj OL umuijulux`.Iaaj 9S ste llt'uis st'sglpjm posod0xd) (j71-1 I sIo'I) slol atll jo xnoj.ioj p-MpUUls glPim 101 ORP.IOnt'umuziuiui aq1 of saoueuLA xoj pue !(eon 31onglas axnlonxls) spmA pojmbax oq1 ujiMm(lgSlag pouigtuoa ul laaj 'Ih £I oI dn)Ig81aq ul laaj (9)xis jo ssooxa ul soxnloiuls aouaj fllvm Sumlejai poulquioa (g)pine `(posodoxd jgSjag ul laaj 01 of dn)IqSjaq ui IaOj (£) as ill urip xollt'l sllt'muluit'lax jo uoponxlsuoo(V) ioj palsonbax on saoueix A 'slol OV OR saxot' 60'01 apjnip 01 dVui anjlt'lual 8uj4san t'anoxddr of uoisioap stuoissn=o.-I Suiuiield XlunOD Oul jo uogeiaossV poogxogil9jaX dollM Put'IOOJD X*Im0 jo spuoud`sst'xBxapuod rmgxt'g `aalljuxuxoD XxosinpV SujuoZ pine SuF=ld Xallt'h alut'xgoS lg oql Xq It'adde aqI uo Su. OH :xallx;ux 2uxmalloj agI-xapjsuoo of SuLmag ojlgnd e Plod IIIm sxosLuodnS jo pnog XjunoD elsoD t'xluoo atll `muxajllED`zaujlmW`(slaaxlS -mgoosa pur aulcljo xau103) laax1S Quid T59 `gujpling 0jj,'e4srulu pV X1un0D aq1 iii 'ur• 0£: foo ffT?12l`uo It'g1 uae S Xgaaag si HDIZON Valtv a.I,AT' MHOS ria SIHjIIvw OATINKVId ATO SHOSIARWIS do CMV0EI AINfIO3 VIS03 VH I.A100 aRil aaodaff Oh Man aI'IffIId v do a3I,LOAI _... _...... .. __ .._.._ livw SSY13 JLsldl:j CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ........ CLERK OF BOARD, ROOM 106 651 PINE STREET MARTINEZ, CA 94553-1229 r> o{ ;'..... .'' AP N 426-221-010-9 CORALYN TREAS } 5301 KA NABER RD#107 ``4 PRINCEVILLE HI 96722 1 E C"C &A A '!' FIRST CLA% ................. .............. .... ...... ......... NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SORRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13,20042-30-p.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Fine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California., the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lets. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and (B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6)feet in height(up to 13 ?/z feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14)(proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (bots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.1'7 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop.Drive,approximately 1€10 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SD018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Centra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in the Community.Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (.Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the.Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to(1) answer questions; (2) review the hewing 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator A l Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk '- IS"'d livw ssvl :) L1O,6-e0`kltZ)KiO( L6EZ X°g.O'd za,,uog unx . 33VIS 3Nld M go WOOH OHVO8 d0 )4H313 "Anashla Lloyd" To: DKell@cob.cccounty.us <alloyd@cctlrnes.com> cc: at Subject: Re:`REVISED"Nearing notice to be published on Thursday.July 1, 06/2812004 02:43 PM 2004 1 LEGAL NOTICE CONFIRMATION , TYPE: IN-COLUMN CLASSIFIED LINER Legal number: 2687 PO#: 976 Publication: WCT Run Date(s): 07/01 Amount: $88.40 The attached Microsoft Excel spreadsheet contains various information regarding legal notices for Contra Costa Newspapers,which we strongly advise you print, copy,post, save and forward as necessary. Thanks! PLEASE NOTE: In addition to all of our offices being closed on Independence Day, Sunday, July 4,2004, they will also be closed on Monday, July 5, 2004. Anashia Lloyd Legal Advertising Coordinator (925) 943-8019 (925) 943-8359—fax Contra Costa Times ATTN: Legal Dept. P.O. Box 4718 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 DKell@cob.cccounty.us wrote: Anashia, I will need this published in the West County Times...Thanks Danielle Clerk of the Board 335-1902 -----Forwarded by Danielle Kelly/CUB/CCC on 06/2812004 11:20 AM ----- Danielle Kelly To: alloyd@cctimes.com 06/28/200411:08 cc: AM Subject: Hearing notice to be published on Thursday, July 1, 2004 ` LEGAL PUBLICATION REQbfSTION Centra Costa County From: Clerk of the Board To: Vest County Times 651 Pine St., Room 106 PO Bax 104 Martinez, CA 94553 Pinole, CA 94564 Requested by: Date: Phone No: " .CIO '' Reference No: 4a--- Org: Sub Object: 'Task: Activity: Publication late (s): l % No. of Pages: LEGAL PUBLICATION- ****Immediately upon expiration of publication,**** send in one affidavit for each publication in order that the auditor may be authorized to pay your bill. Authorized Signature: Please confirm date of publication & receipt of this fax. NOTICE C A,PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE TY`T. CONTRA COS`JL A COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVI[O RS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2:30y.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lists. "Variances are requested for (A)construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B)combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 '!x feet in combined height)withitn the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14)(proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File 9SD018533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant&Owner). 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 Community Development Department,County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 hilltop Drive,in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 & 008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13,2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at (925)335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25,2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk L0—NTRA,C0STA COUNTY SERVICE AREA R-9 COMMITTEE 6191 Hillside Drive El Sobrante, CA 94803 CC County Board of Supervisors RECEIL 651 Pine St. , Martinez, CA 94553 LJUN 3 2004Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on S OI-ti53.3 ��'��) SIRSD5TA Ct). Tear Board Members_ On Thursday, June 171h, the CSA R-9 Committee met in regular session to consider various tiia'tters in connection with parks and recreation issues in El Sobrante. Among the wrnmunity members present was Eleanor Loynd, Chairperson of the El Sobrante;'galley Planning and Zoning Committee. Ms. Loynd brought up the matter of the Afshar 40 home ffilltop Drive project, pointing out what she felt were the numerous problems connected with its.approval. Of key interest to this committee is the fact that the developer, while nude aware that the local planning advisory group and community numbers wanted a play area built on the site, no such provision has been made in the approved plan. The;P&Z has therefore requested that, in lieu of building such a play area., that the developer be required to pay a fee of$50,000 to $70,000, to be paid into the fund administered by the R-9 (Parrs& Recreation Advisory) Committee. It was the consensus of the group to support the appeal in general, and, on the matter of the parks fere, a motion was Exude and unanimously adopted to support P&Z's request that the developer be required to pay a fee($50,000 to $70,000)in lieu of building the desired play area. It should be noted that there is ample precedent fior this request, as not long ago the developer of a 27 home projiect at the cornea of Appian Way and `'{alley View Road was required to pay $75,000 in lieu of building a tot lent, which the original plana called for, In addition, Braddock &Logan Services, lrnc., currently in process of planning for a 43 home subdivision in the old Albertson's shopping center on "galley View Rd., has generously offered 550,000(in addition to regular parks dedication fees)to help build a children's play structure at LaMoine Park., about 2 blocks away. We therefore feel that this request is reasonable and will help to mitigate the negative impact of this development. Sincerely, Donald Bastin Chair, R-9 Committee cc. Supervisor John Uoia C1 Sobrarnte Planning&Zorfing Committee Ruby Molinari, E.S.M.A-C. Danielle Kelly To: alloyd@cctimes.com cctimes.com 0612812004 11:08 AM Subject: Hearing notice to be published on Thursday,July 1,2004 Anashia, 'lease publish the attached notice in the CC Times on Thursday, July 1, 2004, reference#976 Thanks!! 07132004-SDO18533 appeal.di Danielle Clerk of the Board 335-1902 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE T CONTRA.COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2:30 p.m.. in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Fine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass, Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six (6) feet in height(up to 13 % feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SID18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant & Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 & 017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator raj Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk 3� BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF ) } Appeal by El Sobrante Valley ) Planning and Zoning Advisory ) Committee,Barbara Pendergrass, ) Friends of Garrity Creek&Hilltop ) Neighborhood Association } } ) I declare under penalty ofperjury 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 mail with Contra Costa County Central Service for interoffice mailing, a copy of the hearing notice to the following on the following County Departments: LAFC4 P/W Flood Control, Jerry Fahy P/W Traffic P/W Engineering Services Planning P/W Special Districts Main Library, Pleasant Hill Health Department I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct, Martinez, CA. Date: June 28, 2004 -- Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF ) Appeal by El Sobrante Valley ) Planning and Zoning Advisory ) Committee, Barbara Pendergrass, ) Friends of Garrity Creep&Hilltop ) Neighborhood Association ) ) I declare under penalty ofperjury 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 mail with Contra Costa County Central Service for mailing in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice to the following on the attached mailing list. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, Martinez, CA. Date: June 28, 2004 f anielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk APN 426-113-019-1 APN 426-113-020-9 APN 426-113-021-7 BILLY&JEAANNINE TRE JACK LEE ESTEP MARY H ROMANO BURROUGH 901 MITCHELL WY 1098 MANOR A RD 1098 MANOR RD EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-172-001-7 APN 426-172-002-5 APN 426-172-104-1 THOMAS &YVONNE TRE LAUMANN SHIRLEY A BUSH ROBERT L& LILIE TRE WALKER 810 MARIN RD 808 MARIN RD 2533 GROVEVIEW DR EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 RICHMOND CA 94806 APN 426-172-005-8 APN 426-172-006-6 APN 426-172-007-4 SELYA E SUITER AUGUSTO& LYDIA MORERA G PATRICK& EMMA JALBERT 5065 HILLTOP DR 5063 HILLTOP DR 5049 HILLTOP DR EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-172-008-2 APN 426-172-010-8 APN 426-172-011-6 ANIL PRASAD CLAUDETTE A DAVIS RAY S TRE& MARY C WAKIDA 5045 HILLTOP DR 5025 HILLTOP DR 5017 HILLTOP DR EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-172-013-2 APN 426-172-014 APN 426-172-016-5 BOBBY TRE &CANDIE L RUSSELL MABUIKE K KHAN KIRK D SCHUMANN 5089 HILLTOP DR 804 MARIN RD 5009 HILLTOP DR EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-172-017-3 APN 426-172-019-9 APN 426-172-020-7 CALVIN O & KACY L ANDREWS JULIUS BAKER BRYAN SCOTT CREAMER 55 ASPEN CT 45 ASPEN CT 35 ASPEN CT EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-172-021-5 APN 426-172-022-3 APN 426-181-001-6 THOMAS E & BOBBIE A JEFPERY STEPHEN J & LINDA R EVERETT EDWARD G BALLOU 25 ASPEN CT 15 ASPEN CT 1099 MANOR RD EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-181-002-4 APN 426-181-003-2 APN 426-181-004 RANDALLM & GEM A BURNS JOAN C BARKER LYNN D HARRIS-SATTERLEE 1091 MANOR RD 1085 MANOR RD 1079 MANOR RD EL SOBRANTE CA 948013 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-181-005-7 APN 426-181-014-9 APN 426-181-015-6 DARRELL A&DIANA M INGRAM TRACY LEE TAYLOR ERROL KUHN 1071 MANOR RD 815 MARIN RD 817 MARIN RD EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-181-016-4 APN 426-181-017-2 APN 426-181-018 SHARON LEE GOODS RONALD A&ARJA SCHULMEISTER WILLIAM SPENCER 819 MARIN RD 833 MARIN RD 839 MARIN RD EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-181-019-8 APN 426-181-020-6 APN 426-181-021-4 CHRIS WILLIS BARBARA ANN PRATT LILIANA H VARBANOVA 847 MARIN RD 855 MARIN RD 869 MARIN RD EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-181-022-2 APN 426-181-023 APN 426-181-024-8 JAEGER B HILL ALICE MAY TRE WRIGHT MABEL L TRE DRAXTON 873 MARIN RD 879 MARIN RD 887 MARIN RD EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-181-025-5 APN 426-181-026-3 APN 426-182-002-3 LAWRENCE G & FRANCES OELKERS SUSAN TRE COMBS MIGUEL&EDNA HERNANDEZ 891 MARIN RD 899 MARIN RD 894 MARIN RD EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-182-003-1 APN 426-182-004-9 APN 426-182-005-6 TRINH TRAN VERNA J CALDER LAWRENCE E TRE OELKERS 892 MARIN RD 888 MARIN RD 8.78 MARIN RD EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-182-006-4 APN 426-182-007-2 APN 426-182-008 PAULA PALLADINO MICHAEL A&KRISTINE THINGER CARROLL R& LINDA R PHILLIPS 874 MARIN RD 1463 YOSEMITE CIR 860 MARIN RD EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 CLAYTON CA 94517 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-182-009-8 APN 426-182-011-4 APN 426-182-012-2 VICTORIA I CANDIA JAMIE L MCGRATH DORIS TRE &AXEL H PETERSEN 852 MARIN RD 836 MARIN RD 828 MARIN RD EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-182-013 APN 426-182-014-8 APN 426-182-016-3 BERNARD A& MARY N TRE WILLIS JAMES SMITH DORIS B ALSING 816 MARIN RD 814 MARIN RD 838 MARIN RD EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426.191-003 APN 426-191-006-3 APN 426-191-015-4 CLAREMONT INVESTMENT COMPA HILLTOP GREEN HOMEOWNERS A CESZ ALMIRA Y MANALO 1815 4TH ST#D NO ADDRESS 24 PARK LN BERKELEY CA 94710 RICHMOND CA 94802 RICHMOND CA 94803 APN 426491-016-2 APN 426-191-017 APN 426-191-018-8 PATRICIA A DAVIS LUCIANO &ANA A SANCHEZ FRANKIE & CORA ANN DEITRICK 26 PARK LN 28 PARK LN P O BOX 819 RICHMOND CA 94803 RICHMOND CA 94803 LINCOLN CA 95548 APN 426-191-019-6 APN 426-191-069-1 APN 426-192-003--9 JOHN H CARPENTER HILLTOP GREEN HOMEOWNERS A KATHERINE F INGRAM 34 PARK LN NO ADDRESS 1111 MANOR RD RICHMOND CA 94803 RICHMOND CA 94802 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-192-004-7 APN 426-192-005-4 APN 426-192-006-2 ROBERT A& GINGER E ORTIZ MANAGEMENT LLC BRILLIANT CLAREMONT INVESTMENT COMP 1103 MANOR RD 114 CAMINO PABLO P O BOX 5533 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 ORINDA CA 94563 BERKELEY CA 94705 APN 426-192-007 APN 426-192-008-8 APN 426-200-008-8 CLAREMONT INVESTMENT COMPA MANAGEMENT LLC BRILLIANT STEWART E & DIANE L HALL 1815 D 4TH ST#D 114 CAMINO PABLO 894 SOLANO CT BERKELEY CA 94710 ORINDA CA 94563 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-200-009-6 APN 426-200-010-4 APN 426-200-011-2 STEWART E &DIANA L HALL STEWART E & DIANA L HALL STEVEN G & NOLA E GIDDINGS 894 SOLANO CT 894 SOLANO CT 887 SOLANO CT EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-200-012 APN 426-210-003-7 APN 426-210-004-5 STEVEN G &NOLA E GIDDINGS ABDUL NAZIM & NAZMUN N JALIL RONALD A FRISON 887 SOLANO CT 4901 HILLTOP DR 2523 EL PORTAL DR#101 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 SAN PABLO CA 94806 APN 426-210-005-2 APN 426-210-006 APN 426-210-007-8 RONALD A FRISON ABDUL N & NAZMUN N JALIL MANAGEMENT LLC BRILLIANT 2523 EL PORTAL DR#901 4839 HILLTOP DR 114 CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO CA 94806 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 ORINDA CA 94563 APN 426210-008-6 APN 426-210-009-4 APN 426-210-010-2 PIEDAD ALEJANDRE PATRICK&MARIA K GEOGHEGAN JAMES R HILGENDORF 4781 HILLTOP DR P O BOX 1985 P O BOX 423 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 ORINDA CA 94563 LAFAYETTE CA 94549 APN 426-210-011 APN 426-210.012-8 APN 426-210-015-1 MARTINO TRUST AGREEMENT TR KRUGER CARMEN THERESA JORGE J &SUSAN A GOMEZ 21 SNOWDRIFT CT 4949 HILLTOP DR 5001 HILLTOP DR EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-221-003-4 APN 426-221-004-2 APN 426-221-005-9 PETER COSENTINO COVELL ESMERALDA EST OF MICHAEL DENNIS MARTELL 4760 HILLTOP DR 3260 BLUME DR#110 P O BOX 394 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 RICHMOND CA 94806 ORINDA CA 94564 APN 426-221-006-7 APN 426-221-007-5 APN 426-221-008-3 STEPHEN W &WI'NIFRED TONG CARLOS REYES GLORIA J TRE OKEEFE 4824 HILLTOP DR 4836 HILLTOP DR 785 RENFREW RD EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-221-009-1 APN 426-221-010-9 APN 426-222-006-6 VIRGINIA LEE TRE WISEMORE CORALYN TREAS IMA D CHRISTNER 2800 BRITTANY DR 5301 KA NABER RD#107 5542 OLINDA RD ANCHORAGE AK 99504 PRINCEVILLE H1 96722 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 APN 426-222-012-4 APN 426-222-013-2 APN 426-341-004-7 ANN P TRE LOPEZ FRED S ARSENIAK EMILIO&CONSUELO OZUNA 762 RENFREW RD 4900 HILLTOP DR 1116 PARKRIDGE DR EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803 RICHMOND CA 94803 APN 426-341-005-4 APN 426-341-006-2 APN 426-341-007 JULIE TORRES FRANCES R PENA DOROTHY HAYNES 1120 PARKRIDGEDR 1124 PARKRIDGE DR 1128 PARKRIDGE DR RICHMOND CA 94806 RICHMOND CA 94803 RICHMOND CA 94803 APN 426-341-008-8 APN 426-341-009-6 APN 426-341-0104 LANCE D FRITS ROWEN & LILIA MADAMBA BARBARA J LEA 585 VILI WY 1136 PARKRIDGE DR 1140 PARKRIDGE DR PLEASANT HILL CA 94523 RICHMOND CA 94803 RICHMOND CA 94803 APN 4226-341-011-2 APN 426-341-012 APN 426-341-013-8 GAJA N &SHRI SHARMA OSCAR ESTRADA BELINDA D BATES 1144 PARKRIDGE'DR 1148 PARKRIDGE DR 1152 PARKRIDGE DR RICHMOND CA 94803 RICHMOND CA 94803 RICHMOND CA 94803 APN 426-341-014-6 APN 426-341-015-3 APN 426-341-016-1 DIANE J ESTEVA MICHAEL F PLAYER VERONICA J CLAY 13194 PIERCE RD 1160 PARKRIDGE DR 8 PARKRIDGE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 RICHMOND CA 94803 RICHMOND CA 94803 APN 4261-341-017-9 APN 426-341-018-7 APN 426-341-019-5 RICARDO& MARITES TRE LEROY&LORETTA BROWN JUANITA W CLARK SAQUING 12 PARKRIDGE CT 16 PARKRIDGE CT 20 PARKRIDGE CT RICHMOND CA 94803 RICHMOND CA 94803 RICHMOND CA 94803 APN 426-341-020-3 APN 426-341-021-1 APN 426-341-022-9 SUZZETTE C JOHNSON HILLTOP GREEN HOMEOWNERS A HILLTOP GREEN HOMEOWNERS 24 PARKRIDGE CT P O BOX 311 P O BOX 311 RICHMOND CA 94803 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 APN 426-342-001-2 APN 426-342-013-7 APN 426-342-014-5 CHRISTOPHER M& CHARLLEIS P NASIR SALEH MOHAMED FEREDIDUON MADGLESSI LOVETT 1741 MARKET ST 12 PARKRIDGE PL 6 PARKRIDGE PL OAKLAND CA 94607 RICHMOND CA 94803 RICHMOND CA 94803 APN 426-342-015-2 APN 426-342-016 APN 426-342-017-8 CHRISTINE A HANSON EDWIN EDEBIRI HILLTOP GREEN HOMEOWNERS 60 PARKRIDGE PL 52 PARKRIDGE PL P O BOX 311 RICHMOND CA 94803 RICHMOND CA 94806 MARTINEZ CA 94553 APN 426-342-018-6 APN 426-342-101 HILLTOP GREEN H'OM'EOWNERS A HILLTOP GREEN HOMEOWNERS A 1960 SAN PABLO AVE 1960 SAN PABLO AVE PINOLE CA 94564 PINOLE CA 94564 Use Averya TEMPLATE 51600 AVERYS 59660 s r Sid Afshar Stan Klemet on Notification list for 1.14 Camino Pablo City Pleasant Grove Sb0)18533 86 East 100 South t?rinda, Ca 94563 Pleasant Grove, Utah 84062 P/W Flood Control P/W Engineering Services P/W Traffic Jerry Fahy CC Resource Conservation Comprehensive Planning District P/W special Districts (Advanced) 5552 Clayton Road Concord, Ca 94521 i Sierra Club -- SF Bay Chapter El Sobrante MAC Hilltop Neighborhood Assoc. CIO Mike Daley 2530 San Pablo Ave, Ste 3550 San Pablo bam Rd, Ste E-533 i Cita Jesse Golden Berkeley, Ca 94702 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 ' ' 613 Pebble Drive El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Friends of Garrity Creek Tina Low Contra Costa County Fire Clo Barbara Pendergrass Regional Water Quality Control Board 2010 Cea Rood 745 Renfrew Rd 1515 Clay St., Ste 1400 rY EI Sobrante, Ca 94803 Oakland, Ca 94612 Pleasant H111, Ca 94528' East Say hfunicipal Utility District City of Richmond West Contra Costa S7Y�it�uy District East Service Planning292t31�illta�Drive Water - 1Xrh street, MS',TO 14031 Marina Way,oath Richmond, c Richmond, Ca 94804 Oakland, Ca 94607-4240 West Contra Costa .School Sheriff's Office - Administration & Richmond Environmental District Community Services Defense Fund 1108 Bissell avenue 1980 Muir Rd. P.O. Box 70953 Richmond, Ca 94402 Martinez, Ca 945!53 Richmond, Ca 94807-0953 El Sobrante Valley Planning & Shirley Petty Lisa Virani Zoning Hilltop Green HCFA urban Creeks Council P.O. Box 203136 10195 Parkside drive 1250 Addison St., Ste 1017 I El Sobrante, Ca 94820-0136 Richmond, Ca 94803 Berkeley, Ca 94702 Gwynn O'Neill Arnold Chu Main Library, Pleasant Hill 210 Tunnel Ave #3 9 Charlotte Court (interoffice) Richmond, Ca 94801-3982 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 2 CC Resource Conservdtion Health Department Bob Edwards -111`bis 4t< (interoffice} 904 Solano Ct 555 a , rl Road E[ Sobrante, Ca 948033 _cord, Ca 1 www.avery.com { Use Averyo TEMPLATE 5160@ AVERY0 5160® Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District Robert oyCB LAFCO 155 Mason Circle 921 Loma Linda (1A 7`�ROFFICE) Concord, Ca 94520 El Sobrante, Ca CIO Charles Beesley District Water Distribution Planning Mike Martell Nel Ben633 Kern& Nick Despots Division, EBMUD Mailstop Pacific River Supply 3675 San Pablo Dam Rd, KerStreet 701,375 11" St, richmond, Ca 94845 Oakland, Ca 94607 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 USDA Soil Conservation Service State Clearinghouse Steven D. Benson Office of Land and Conservation Office of Planning & research 6050 Oak Knoll Rd P.0. Box 3044 841 K. Street, M513-71 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Sacramento, Ca 95812-3044 Sacramento, Ca 95814 I I r i I i } )am Free Printina AVERY0 _ ___www,averyecom Marilynne Mellanden Darlene Smith Ryan Webb 7010 Monte Verde Road 4861 Appian Way 5849 Robinhood Drive El Sobrante, CA El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94503 Van Brant Brian Wilson Robert E. Miller 247 Iris Road 6013 Monte Verde 727 Bayview Court Hercules, CA 94547 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Alberto Ramon Virginia Handley Harry Mitchell 512 Lisa Court 857 N. Rancho Road 811 Marin Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 EI Sobrante, CA 94803 Irene Thompson Karen Del Arroz Don Bushee 80 Bonnie Drive 921 Juanita Drive 9 Charlotte Court San Pablo, CA 94806 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Julie Koslov Karl Arana Thomas Ross No Address 5161 Hilltop Drive 19 Crystal Circle EI Sobrante, CA 94803 Hercules, CA 94547 Paul B. Nichols Robert Hayton John Patrick 19 Crystal Circle 414 4t" Street 5870 Hunters Lane Hercules, CA 94547 Rodeo, CA 94572 EI Sobrante, CA 94803 Hazel Dixon Ruby Molinari Jim Mellander 985 St. Andrews Drive 2730 May Road 7010 Monte Verde El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 EI Sobrante, CA 94803 Jean Stewart Shirley Perry Doris Davis 727 Bayview Court 1206 Parkway Drive 560 Rincon Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 Richmond, CA El Sobrante, CA 94803 Steve Benson Kent Brandenbrug Cody Dixon 6050 Oak Knoll Road 4905 Appian Way 807 Marin Road EI Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Robert Dixon John Conry Corlett Barnett Lyall 807 Marin Road 907 Juanita Drive 926 Kelvin Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 EI Sobrante, CA 94803 Joan 0 Brian Keith Wagner Virginia Handley 923 Kelvin Road 8002 California Avenue 857 N. Rancho Road EI Sobrante, CA 94803 Fair Oaks, CA 95827 El Sobrante, CA 94803 H:Darwin Myers/Labels—Garrity Creek Jean Acedo Doi` Alsing Earl Alexander 733 Renfi-ew Road 838 Mn Road 4750 Appian Way El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, a 94803 El Sobrante,Ca 94803 Rodelfo Ambion Bonnie Anderson Charles Anderson 304 Ponderosa Court 1031 St. Andrews Drive 4213 Fariss Lane El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 - El Sobrante, Ca 94803 C. Anderson Bruce Andersen Laurie Apodaca 630 Renfrew Road 954 Loma Linda Avenue 843 Allview Avenue El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante,Ca 94803 Geraldine&Charles Bachmna Michael Baefsky Ed Baer 7532 Renfrew Road 5765 Robin Hood Drive 3934 La Colina Road El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Susan&David.Baylis David &Renee Been Ranchelle &Janell Beeson 952 Lama Linda Avenue 858 Solano Court 769 Rincon Road El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Betsy Bell Ringer Charlotte&John Bernardin .Bruce Bjugstad 2645 Grant Avenue 16 Greenbrae Court 9 Marvin Court Richmond,Ca 94806 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Lorraine Blewers Jaynes Bressen Robert Brown 1154 Kelvin Road 688 Renfrew Road 950 Dewing Avenue El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Lafayette, Ca 94549 Rae Bryant Randy Geri Bums Billy Burrough 1625 lavellier Street 1091 M Road 1098 Manor Road El Cerrito,Ca 94530 El Sobrante, C 4803 El Sobrante,Ca 94803 Charles Burton Lion Bushee D. Mitchell &Jody Bussell 726 El Centro Road 155 Allview Avenue 721 R.incon Road El Sobrante Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Bill &Ella Callow Dennis Cannan Kristiane&Stormy Cannon 763 Renfrew Road 5052 San Pablo Dam Road 2812 Sheldon Drive El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Richmond, Ca 94806 Marie Carayanis Bob Carpenter Donald&Patty Castle 4464 Fieldcrest Road 564 Pebble Drive 1090 Kelvin Road El Sobrante, Ca 94843 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Lia Chandler V. Cendinas 2621 Andrade Avenue. Magdaline Chavez e 3634 San Pablo Dam Road Richmond2170 Pyramid Drive , e veno El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Natalie Christou Id Chu David Clark 3075 Estates Avenue 9 Charl e Court 4730 Canyon Road Pinole, Ca 94564 El Sobrante, a 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Patricia Clary Judy Clements Shirley Coate 1134 Mitchell Way 5293 San Pablo Dam Road 712 Rincon Road El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Aurora Cobos John. Coffelt Roland Collins , 1451 Wallace Court 281 Scotts Valley Road Pinole Ca 94565 525 El Centro Road Hercules Ca 94547 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 ' T.C. Corbin Joe Cooper 374 Cinch DJacqueline Cort-Seidel Drive 5195 Carriage Drive San PabloCa rive 1137 Kelvin Road , El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Jeff Coult Catherine Crane Maria Cranshaw 1099 Manor Road 110 Renfrew Court 830 Allview Avenue El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94843 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Del Cruz Daren Dale Patti D'Angelo 4150 San Pablo loam Road, #7 660 Renfrew Road 3958 El Monte Road El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Rita Davidson Irene Davidson Robert Davis 584 Rincon Road 2167 Pyramid.Drive 4689 Upland Drive El Sobrante Ca 94803 Richmond, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 +George& Doris Davis Jackie &Bill Davis Beth DeGuee 560 Rincon Road 622 El Centro Road 4230 San Pablo Darn Road El Sebrante,Ca 94863 El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 ch Cannelita Del Rosario Don Delcollo Steven d street 4174 Garden Road 4095 Lambert Road 780 o d, � street El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Richmond, Ca 94806 Bunny Diamond Yvonne Dibble 3058 Stephens Drive Hazel &Floyd Dixon p 5030 San Pablo Dam Road# 2 985 St. Andrews Court El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Riclunond, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Christine Drouillard James Ebright Bob Awards 2751 Jo Ann Drive 3948 El Monte 904 Sol Court El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, 94803 Nicole Elliott Peter Elwood Cyndi Enzenauer 3433 Stewarton Drive 5849 Nottingham Drive 631 Rincon Road Richmond,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Jessica Esquivel Heather&Francisco Estebez Cynthia&Matt Ferrari 941 Kelvin Road 630 El Cerro Drive 4349 Nelson Drive El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Phyllis Finta Karen &James Fitzgerald Deanna Flores2604— 17c" Street 770 El Patio 694 Renfrew Road San Pablo, Ca 94806 El Sobrante,'Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Ray Floyd Welton&Phyllis Flynn Jim Flynn 4021 Lambert Road 1212 Fascination Circle 1070 John Avenue El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 San Pablo, Ca 94806 Kathleen Fowler Virginia Frederick Harry Freeman 3094 Flannery Road 3740 Hidden Springs 4630 Appian Way#406 San Pablo,Ca 94806 El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Lorraine Frisbie Fred Gaberial Jinn &Edie Gachis 6320 Bonita Court 3803 San Pablo Dam Road 5518 San Pablo Darn Road Richmond,',Ca 94806 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Don Garcia Lawrence Gebelein Paul Gebhart 3939 Hillcrest 11 Soft Shadow Court 27 Charlotte Court El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Richmond, Ca 94806 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Debbie Cent Don Gerletti Steve Ginsberg 1200 Alberdan Court 625 Renfrew Road 5443 Cabillo Sur Pinole, Ca 94564 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Judy Glover Addie Goepfort Jesse Golden Blvd Bl 4203 Carden Lane San Pablo2050 Alfred d vd 613 Pebble Drive , El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Ruth Gomez Lla Good Alex Gordilov P.O. Box 2397 1724 Brentz Lane 1111 Salida Way Daly City, Ca 94017 San Pablo, Ca 94806 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Walt Gordon June Graham Cassie Greenebaum 799 El Centro Road 4170 Garden Lane 317 Shirley Vista. El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Lisa Gruen Eddy Guerra Marie Guggemos 679 Rinoon Road 750 Renfrew Road 2801 Clinton Avenue El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Mick Guiste Linda Gurule Margrit Haaf 2050 Alfreda Drive 875 Parkside Drive 1078 Mitchell Way El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Brian Hagen Debra Hayworth 2790 Simas Avenue Charles &Jean Harper 2181 La Orinda Place Pinole Ca 94564 663 Renfrew Road Concord Ca 94548 ' El Sobrante, Ca 94803 ' Steve Hazarabedian Yolanda Hernandez Marcia Higgins 4234 San Pablo Darn Road#B28 492 La Paloma 739 Boyd Avenue El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Richmond, Ca 94805 en Hill Judith Hill Andrea Hoffinann 873 M Road 5918 Cobblestone Court 690 R.incon Road El Sobrante, 4803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante,Ca 94803 Carroll Holthaus Michael Horowitz House Resident 3927 La Colina Road 5855 Marion Court 931 .Loma Linda.Avenue El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante,Ca 94803 Rosemary Hulen Timothy Hulen ans 3177 Rollingwood Drive 3169 Rollingwood Drive Jean Hy San Pablo, Ca 94806 San Pablo, Ca 94806 911 Mitchelll Way El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Katie Jacks Timothy Jackson Mercedes Jaime 1814 Neomi Drive 4612 San Pablo Darn Road 2241 Greenwich road Concord, Ca 94519 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 San Pablo, Ca 94806 ria Jalbert Nancie Jann Mark&Kerry Jenkins 5049 lltop Drive 5599 Woodview Drive 927 Mitchell Way El Sobrant Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Pete Jenkins Dakota Jobe James Johnson 1517 Solitude Lane 557 Rincon Road 783 Renfrew Road El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante,Ca 94803 Ronna Johnson Susan Johnson-Kleine Arlene Jones 3844 La Celina Road 3739 Nottingham Drive 3731 Ramsey Court El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante,Ca 94803 Larry Jones Joyce Michael Kent 6317 Monte Cresta 921 Lo Linda 5931 Golden Gate Avenue Richmond, Ca 94806 El Sobrante, 94803 San Pablo, Ca 94806 Monica Kersten Maggie Messinger 4750 Westwood Court 664 A Ventura Street Mark Kesslet Richmond, Ca 94803 Richmond, Ca 94806 381 Joan lista El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Cheryl'Kinley Rich Kral Carmen&Frank Kruger 3031 Simas Avenue 3058 Hilltop Drive 4949 Hilltop Drive Pinole, Ca 94564 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Janet Lamun Michael Lancaster 2518 Clare Street 3055 May Road Tony Landers 700 Renfrew Road San Pablo, Ca 94806 Richmond, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Roger Lawton 818-316`Street Shawn Leamy Lee Resident Richmond, Ca Street 588 Rincon Road 749 Rincon Road El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Lethridge Resident Lewis Resident Barbara Lida 783 Renfrew Road 15 Charlotte Court 3940 La Cima Road El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 June Liddicoat Tran Van Loc Kevin Locks 3884 Greenbrae Court 28 Highgate Road 5599 Woodview Drive El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Kensington, Ca 94707 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Ixia Lopez Lopez Resident Lopez 908 Mitchell Way 3464 Fleetwood Drive 762 Ren ew Road El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, 94803 Elizabeth Lopez Eleanor Loynd John Lozada 2037 Garvin Avenue 45+05 Fieldcrest Drive 3824 McBryde Avenue El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Bradley Lucero Bergliot Lustig Constance MacAdam 771 —28"'Street 740 Renfrew Road 2948 Stephen Drive El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Richmond, Ca 94806 Jean Maddox Michael Maragin William Marion 633 Renfrew Road 618 Lexington Avenue#2 78.5 Rincon Road El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Cerrito, Ca 94530 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Mazy Martinez Michael Marvin Karen Mason 1939 California 698 Renfrew Road 4605 Robert San Pablo, Ca 94806 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante,Ca 94803 Lydia.Matundan Jason McCarthy Kevin McCloy 1521 Solitude Lane 600 Rincon Road 3788 Ramsay Court El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Brenda McNalty Marilynne Mellander Rena.ldy Mendieta 5776 Robin hood Drive 7010 Monte Verde Road 941 Loma Linda Avenue El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 David Meredith Carlene Merey Sharon Miller 877 N. Rancho Road 5020 Santa Rita Road 4672 White Sands Court El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Lenita Miller K.H. Mills Fred &Jean bock 973 :Mitchell 4200 Santa Rita Road 6316 Monte Cresta El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Richmond, Ca 94806 Ruby Molinari Williw Moore Sue Moore-Mehrizi 2730 May Road 3767 Ramsey Court 5790 Sherwood Forest Drive El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Feana Moran Marina Munoz Greg Moran Raul Morton 834®4th Avenue 584 El Centro Drive 749 Renfrew Road Pinole, Ca 94803 El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Carole lading Gigi Nathan Ventura Negrete 622 R.incon Road 3179 Keith Drive 2882 Sheldon Drive El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Jeanine Felson Dottie Ngugebauer Audrey&Fred Nieman 700 Renfrew Road 774 R.incon road 615 Rincon Road El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94843 Hazel Norris G .a 'Kee fe Karen Olsen 2812 Rolling Drive 785 Ren w Road 802 Winslow Street San Pablo,Ca 94806 El Sobrante, 4$03 Crockett, Ca 94525 Gwy O Neill bert Ortiz Sharon&Pedro Ortiz 210 Tunnel enue,#3 1103 or Road 3071 Keith Drive El Sobrante, 4803 El Sobrante, 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 \\fs-cdlusers$ikpiona\PersonallDarwin Myers\Labels\Labels Afshar- frorn Gioias office-.dot Kelly Qualls Dario Rabak Ramona Radakovich 525 40t' Street 25 Marvin Court 1095 Mitchell Way Richmond,Ca 94805 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Mandy Ralls Tress Ramsey Nadine Rawner 1879 Larkspur Court 4730 Canyon Road 2091 California Street Concord, Ca 94519 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Berkeley, Ca 94710 Melissa Reece Danny Reel Michelle Ribaric 721 Renfrew Road 4815 Appian Way 2520 Rancho Road El Sobrante Ca 94803 E1 Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Daren Richards Judy Rickard Rebecca Rincon 110 Renfrew Court 4088 La Colina Road 712 Rincon Road El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Joyce Rios Robert Rivenbark Sheri Rivenbark 759 Rincon Road 19 Glenwood 5445 Morrow Drive El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Hercules, Ca 94547 5445 San Pablo, Ca 94805 Hector Rivera-Lopez Harold &Marcille Robinett Paula Rogers 3600 Black Feather 655 Renfrew Road 2738 Hermosa Street El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Pinole, Ca 94564 Mike &Renee Roland Doug Ross Susan Rozul-Ambion 461 Corte Arango,# 1 3740 Hidden Springs 304 Ponderosa Court El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Richmond, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Palema Ludy JaiJo Saelien Nancy Samuel 5260 A Sunset Drive 3114 Parker Road 4184 Foster Lane EL Sobrante, Ca 94803 Richmond, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94843 Geri Sanchez J. Santistevan Michelle Schell 2440 Glenlock Street 720 Renfrew Road 5169 La Honda Road San Pablo, Ca 94806 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Herk Schusteff Shirley Sharp Peter Simcich 4812 San Pablo Darn Road# 1 5562 Amend Road 3841 Linden Lane El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Robert& Wanda Smith W.L. &Evelyn Slessinger Patsy Smith 5152 Hilltop Drive 767 Rincon Road 4740 Appian Way El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Linda.Smith Howard Sodja Robert&Bambi Spencer 5019 San Pablo Dam Road#B-8 4317 Santa Rita Road 3015 Deserest Drive El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Grant& Esther Squires Deborah Stein Ryan&.b Bobbie Stiles 598 Rincon Road 1520 Manor hive 640 Renfrew Road El Sobrante, Ca 94803 San Pablo, Ca 94806 El Sobrante,Ca 94803 Kenneth Stimel Susan Stone Ginny Stuller 576 Rincon Road 3415 Maywood Drive 990 Mitchell Way El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 David Sutherland Mark Takahashi Marge Taylor 4836 Hilltop Drive 1634 Michael Drove 627 Kern Drive El Sobrante,Ca 94803 Pinole, Ca 94564 Richmond,Ca 94805 Seet Thang Anita Thomas Irene Thompson 4612 Meadowbrook Drive 2522 May Road 80 Bonnie Drive Richmond, Ca 94805 El Sobrante,Ca 94803 San Pablo, Ca 94806 Kevin Toney Michael &Maeve Travis Madeleine Trouerbach 4313 Nelson Drive 691 Rincon Road 601 Pebble Drive Richmond, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Kay TurnerL1 V'iani Christine Vigil 1087 Mitchell Way 1250 Addiso Street# 107 5460 Victoria Lane El Sobrante,Ca 94803 Berkeley, Ca 4702 Richmond,Ca 94803 Paul Welehes Jason Wert Dorothy Westgard 2907 Centerbury Drive 1040 St. Andrews Drive 790 Rincon Road Richmond,Ca 94806 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Jack Westlie Idell Weydemeyer Mark Whiting 5622. Circle Drive 877 N. Rancho Road 611 Donna Mae Court El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Valerie Wilgus Kate Williams Mark Willis 2912 Cindy Court 119 E. 16`i` Street 4164 A San Pablo Dain Road Richmond,Ca 94803 Oakland, Ca 94606 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Amber Wing Cindy Wojtowicz Albert Wong 4230 San Pablo Dam Road#€A21 444 Corte Arango#3 20 Marvin Court El Sobrante, Ca. 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Jane Bean Wood June Woodward Brandy&Courtney Word 5584 Amend Road 611 Renfrew Road 2867 Buckskin Road El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Pinole, Ca 94564 Carina Zaragola 3033 May Road El Sobrante Ca 94803 Elizabeth O'Shea Ana Sofia Pacheco Dawn Pacheco 4050 Wesley Way 21 Greenbrae Court 4900 Hilltop Drive El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Kathy Palmer William Payne Gideon Pence 5470 Shasta#6 555 Rincon Road 1427 25;' Street San Pablo,Ca 94806 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Richmond, Ca 94806 Ron Pendergrass Roy&Barbara Pendergrass Kelly Perrin 739 Renfrew Road 745 Renfrew Road 10 Red Arrow Court El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante,Ca 94803 Richmond, Ca 94803 Do `s Peterson Judith Peterson find hillips 8:28 aria Road 162 Bolduc Court 860 M ` Road El Sobran Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, a 94803 Angel Pirnentel Massiel Pirtle Sue Powell 4821 San Pablo Darn Road 710 1"Street#G 3340 Hillcrest Road El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Rodeo, Ca 94572 San Pablo, Ca 94806 Linda Qualls 1104 Lindell Drive El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante Elementary School Chelsea Marion James Huppert 4 Grade 785 Rincon Road 3951 Charles Avenue 1060 Manor Road El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Selya E. Gomez-Suiter Bryan Scott Creamer Juanita Greengard 5085 Hilltop Drive 35 Aspen Court 4087 Lambert Road El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Thomas A. & Susan Wright Claire W. Bleset Bennie Saville 4081 Lambert Road 4080 Lambert Road 4090 Lambert Road El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Joan&Robert Bracken Shelly Maz & Julius Baker, Jr. Vi &Robert Bressem 4061 Lambert Road. 45 A en Court 770 El Centro Road El Sobrante, Ca 94843 El Sobrante, A 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Mike Pelton&Jain Hutzell-Felton Marten Fisle J t Laughlin 772 El Centro Road 4077 Lambert Road 836 `n Road El Sobrante,'Ca 948013 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, 94803 William &Evelyn Slessinger Ann M. Hershey Carol Osmer-Newhouse 767 Rincon Road 4084 Lambert Road 4084 Lambert Road El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Jo C.(Barker Marilyn M. Thompson Mrs. Kathleen Braun 1485 or Road 5150 Hilltop Drive 761 El Centro Road El Sobrante, Ca 4803-1335 El Sobrante, Ca 94803-1310 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Baroo Ahmadi Diane Carter English, European&Japanese Car Tami Davidson 13194 Fierce Road Services 4263 Hilltop Drive Saratoga, Ca 95070 4267 Hilltop Drive#A El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 David A. Sutton Ron Frank Kimberly Chars Bethel Christian Academy 645 Stanley Lane 3310 Clearfield Avenue 431 Rincon Lane El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante Ca 94803 Araceli'Munoz Steven D. Benson Kathy Dunham 6235 Baywood Drive 6450 Oak Knoll Road 942 Kelvin Road El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Matthew L. Rei Ur. Rent Brandenburg President Stephen& 'nda Everett Bethel Baptist Church Kister, Savin &Rei, Inc 15 Aspen urt 3095 Richmond parkway, Ste 214 1 Sun dill Circle El Sobrante, Ca 4803 Richmond, Ca 94806 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Claudia Crandall Miguel A. Edna Hernandez Do ' B. Alsing 1106 Kelvin Road 894 Read 838 'n Road El Sobrante,Ca 94803 El Sobrante, 94803 El Sobrant Ca 94803 Ballou Saundra England Nancy Mariner 1099 or Road 5116 Hilltop Drive 699 Kelvin Read El Sobrant, a 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Katherine Perez Wi ' ed Tong P. &Gloria Alejandre Northern Valley 4824 Hi op Drive 167 Baldwin.Avenue Yokut/4hlone/Miwuk El Sobrante 94803 Crockett, Ca 94525 1234 Luna Lane Stockton, Ca 95206 '1 Cavell Kim Dixon TrTaylor 4778 f op Drive 807 Marin Road 815 M Road El Sobrante, 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, 94803 Martell Erik Wheaton 4800 Hi Drive 755 Renfrew Road El Sobrante,Ca 4803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Claudia Crandall Miguel &Ed aerandez Ed B 1.106 Kelvin Road 894 M oad 1099 7Qor Riad El Sobrante CA 94803 El sante CA 94803 El Sote CA 94803 Saundra England Winifred Mr. and Piedrid Alejandre 5116 Hilltop give 48 `lltop give 1.67 Bal in El Sobrante CA 94803 Sobrante CA 94803 Croc CA 94525 Katherine Perez Phil veil Mike Mart 1234 Luna Lane 4778 ltop Drive 4800 Iii op Drive Stockton CA 95206 El Soba e CA 94803 El So ante CA 94803 Erik Wheaton Lisa Owens ani Virginia IandIv 755 Renfrew Road Clo Urb reefs File The Fund� A,ni�nals,Inc. EI Sobrante CA 94803 1250 A icon Street Fort M n Center Berle ey CA 94702 San F cisco CA 94123 Richmond Davidson City of Richmond Public Services Dpt. 1401 Farina Way South Richmond CA 94804 Vi and Robert Bressem Mike Pelton&Jain Hutzell-Pelton Martin Fisk 770 El Centro Road772 El Centro Road. 4077 Lambert Road El Sobrante CA 94803 El Sobrante CA 94803 El Sobrante CA 94803 Jane aughlin Bret&Wanda Smith Carol Dsmer-Newhouse 836 M `n Road 5152 Hilltop Drive 4084 Lambert Road El Sobran CA 94803 El Sobrante CA 94803 El Sobrante CA 94803 V.L.Bressem 776 El Centro road El Sobrante CA 94803 ......... ....... .............. ......... ._....... _...... .. _. ... . __ . ....... ........ ................. . ... _........ ......... _. . ...... ................_._........._........ El Sobrante Elementary School 0 Grade,Room 15' 1060 Manor Road El Sobrante, CA_ 94803 Juanita Greengard Thomas A. &Susan Wright a Claire W. Bleset 4087 Lambert Rd 408.1 Lambert Rd 4080 Lambert Rd El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Shelly Mazer Resident Joan &Ronald Bracken c% Child We rare 4090 Lambert Rd 4061 Lambert Rd Dpt. of Children cot Family Srvs El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 401 Broadway Oakland, Ca 94603 Julium .Baker, Jr. Chelsea Marion 'James.Ruppert Barkers Martial Arts 785 Rincon Rd 3931 Charles Ave 4226 Park Blvd El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Oakland, Ca 94603 Selya Gomez-Suiter Thomas Putt c Victoria Douse Mabel raxton 5065 Hi op Dr El Sobran , Ca 94803 Annie Hershey chi Carol Osmer- •.Bryan Cott Creamer Joan Barker Newhouse 35 Aspe Ct 1085 nor Rd 4084 Lambert Rd El Sobran Ca 94803 El Sobra e, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Marylin M. Thompson > Kathleen.Braun . Diane Carter 5150 Hilltop Dr 761 El Centro Rd 13194 Pierce Rd El Sobrante, Ca 94803 El Sobrante, Ca 94803 Saratoga, Ca 95070 • Baroo Ahmadi Z'ami Davidson c%English, Eurp, &Japanese Car Ericka c an Applin 4263 Hilltop Dr 4267 Hilltop Drive #A El Sobrante, Ca 94803 EI Sobrante, Ca 94803 David Sutton `Ron Frank Kathy Dunham c%Bethel Christian Academy 645 Stanley Lane 942 Kelvin Road 431 Rincon Lane El Sobrante CA 94803 El Sobrante CA 94803 El Sobrante CA 94803 Mathew L. Rei ' Dent Brandenburg Lister, Savio &Rei, .Inc. 'Stephen Linda Everett Kister, Savio&Rei, Inc. 15 Aspen urt 309.5 Richmond Parkway, Suite 214 3095 Richmond Parkway, Suite 214 Richmond CA 94806 El Sobrante 84803 Richmond CA 94806 Claudia Centoa, l Miguel& a Hernandez • Ed B lou 1146 Ield 894 M Road 1099 or Road El Sob me CA 94803 El S sante CA 94803 El Sobr to CA 94803 Saundra 5faland ' Winifred ong . Mr. and Mrs. Pedrid Alejandra 5116 ' top Drive 4824 ltop IJrive 167 Baldwin El S sante CA 94803 El S rants CA 94803 Crockett CA 94525 K.athe ` e Perez • Phil veli Mike artell 123 una Lane 4778 ` It Drive 4840 Hi top Drive St kton CA 95206 El Sobr e CA 94803 El Sobran CA 94803 •Erik Wh on • Lisa Owens Viani Virginia.Handley 755 R frew Road C/o Urban Creeks File The Fund for Animals, Inc. El S rante CA 94803 1250 Addison Street Fort Mason Center Berkeley CA 94702 San Francisco CA 94123 Ric/ondCA on Cit Pubpt. 140South Ric804 Me 596OTM Use,Avery`,TEMPLATE 5960""' 1-800-GO-AVERY ,.1 Ms. Jean Acedo Ms.D -is Aesing ivy. Earl Alexander '733 Renfrew Road 838 M Raod 4750.Appian Way El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobran CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Mr. Rodelf©Ambion Mr. Bonnie Anderson Mr. Charles Anderson 304 Ponderosa Court 1031 St. Andrews Drive 4213 Fariss Jane El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 C. Anderson Mr. Bruce Anderson Ms. Laurie Apodaca 630 Renfrew Road 954 Loma Linda Avenue 843 Allview Avenue El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Ms. Geraldine Bachman Mr. Charles Bachman Mr. Michael Baefsky 753 Renfrew Road 753 Renfrew Road 5765 Robin Mood Drive El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 E1 Sobrante,CA 94803 Mr. Ed Baer Ms. Susan Baylis Mr. David Baylis 3934 La Colina Road 952 Loma Linda Avenue 952 Loma Linda Avenue El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Mr. David Been Ms. Renee Been Ms. Rachelle Beeson 858 Solano Court 858 Solano Court 769 Rincon Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Ms. Janell Beeson Ms.Betsy Bell Ringer Mr. Steven D. Benson 769 Rincon Read 2645 Grant Avenue 6054 Oakl Knoll Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 Richmond, CA 94806 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Ms. Charlotte Bern.ardin Mr.John Bernardin Mr. Bruce Bjugstad 16 Greenbrae Court 16 Greenbrae Court , 9 Marvin Court El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 j 1� El Sobrante, CA 94803 � I Ms. Lorraine Blewers Dr.Kent Brandenburg Mr. James Bressen 1154 Kelvin Road1000 Sun Hill Circle 688 Renfrew Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Mr.Robert Brown Ms.Rae Bryant Mr. R dy Burns 950 Dewing Avenue 1625 Navellier Street 1091 or Road Lafayette, CA 94549 El Cerrito, CA 94530 El Sobra te,CA 94803 AH3AH-t -008-1 , ,■ m0965 3.LVIdW31 GAMAY esti vu0965 @AN wos AAaAe-,u mm 0 rWlld 98JI quer Jain rreePn n0 wway.dVt9IY.4v+Ti AVERYS 5960"m Use Avery's TEMPLATE 5960"1 1-800-Gd-AVERY Ms. Geri rns lvar.Bill Bttrrougl� Nr. Charles Burton 1091 ManRoad 1098 M r Road 726 El Centro Road El Sobrante, A 94803 El Sobrant CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Mr. Don Bushee Mr. D. Mitchell Bussell IVIS. Jody Bussell 955 Allview Avenue 729 Rincon Road 729 Rincon Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 ( El Sobrante, CA 94803 i Ms. Bill Callow Ms. Ella Callow Mr.Dennis Cannan 763 Renfrew Road 763 Renfrew Road 5052 San Pablo Dain Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Ms. Kristiane Cannon Stormy Cannon Ms. Marie Carayanis 2812 Sheldon Drive 2812 Sheldon Drive 4460 Fieldcrest Road Richmond, CA 94806 Richmond, CA 94806 El Sobrante, CA 94843 i Mr. Bob Carpenter Mr.Donald Castle Ms. Patty Castle 564 Pebble Drive 1090 Kelvin Road 1090 Kelvin Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94843 El Sobrante,CA 94803 V. Cendinas Ms. Kimberly Chan Ms. Lia Chandler 3634 San Pablo Dam Road 3310 Clearfield Avenue 2621 Andrade Avenue El Sobrante, CA 94.803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Richmond, CA 94804 i I � I Ms. Magdaline Chavez Ms.Natalie Christou Mr. Arnold Chu 2170 Pyramid Drive 3075 Estates Avenue 9 Charlotte Court El Sobrante, CA 94803 j Pinole,CA 94564 El Sobrante,CA 94803 Mr. David Clark Ms. Judy Clements r Ms. Shirley Coate 4730 Canyon Road 6293 San Pablo Danz Road 712 Rincon Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 W Aurora Cobos Mr. John Coffelt Mr. Roland Collins 1451 Wallace Court 625 El Centro Road 281 Scotta'Valley Road Pinole, CA 94564 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Hercules, CA 94547 Mr. Joe Cooper T.C. Corbin Ms. Jacqueline Cort-Seidel 5195 Carriage Drive 374 Linda Drive 1137 Kelvin Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 San Pablo, CA 94806 El Sobrante, CA 94843 AVMY-09-008-t wa0965 31V'7dN31 gL*AV esn wa096S OAMBAV Ita oa�taet�e•n 6URUIld 99JA we}° jam nee rrinung virvvw.averytum �f � AVERYS marm Use AveryTEMPLA76 5960'xm 1-$00-GO-AVERY Ms. Catherine Crane Mr. Del Cruz Ms. Karen Dale 110 Renfrew Court 4150 San Pablo Dam Road, #7 660 Renfrew Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 it I Ms. Patti D'Angelo Ms. Rita.Davidson Ms. Irene DAvidson 3958 El Monte Road 584 Rincon Road 2167 Pyramid Drive El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Richmond, CA 94803 Mr. Robert Davis Mr. George Davis Ms.Doris Davis 4689 Upland Drive 560 Rincon Road 560 Rincon Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Mr. Jackie Davis i Mr. Bill Davis Ms. Carmelita Del Rosario 622 El Centro Road 622 El Centro Road 4174 Garden Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Mr. Don Delcollo Mr. Steven DeLuch Ms. Bunny Diamond 4095 Lambert Road 780- 32nd Street 5030 San Pablo Darn Road, #2 El Sobrante, CA 94803 i Richmond, CA 94806 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Ms. Yvonne Dibble i Ms.Hazel Dixon Mr. Floyd Dixon j 3058 Stephen Drive i 985 St. Andrews Court 985 St. Andrews Court Richmond, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante,CA 94803 Ms. Christine Drouillard Mr. James Ebright Mr.Bob Edwards 2751 Jo Ann Drive 3948 El Monte 904 Solano Court El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Ms. Nicole Elliott Cyndi Enzenauer Jessica Esquivel 3433 Stewarton Drive 631 Rincon Road 941 Kelvin Road Richmond, CA 94893 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante,CA 94803 Heather Estebez Francisco EStebez Mr. & s Stephen&.Linda Everett 630 El Cerro Drive 630 El Cerro Drive 15 Aspen ourt El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrant CA 94803 Cynthia Ferrari Matt Ferrari Phyllis Finta 4349 Nelson Drive 4349 Nelson Drive 770 El Patio i El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante,CA 94803 A �1Q�J -l. wLONS 3110 td31eA est{ vuO969 OAHRAV uao7 fUan MMM 6ugulad mi user jam Free FnrMq WWW aVerY'eQI#I ` AVERYO 5960TN Use AveryO TEMPI ATE 5960 " "'" 1-800-60-AVERY {� Karen Fitzgerald James Fitzgerald .Deanna Flores 694 Renfrew Road694 Renfrew Road 2604 - 17th Street El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 San Pablo, CA 94806 Ray Floyd Welton Flynn Phyllis Flynn 4021 Lambert Road 1212 Fascination Circle 1212 Fascination Circle El Sobrante, CA 14803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Jim Flynn Kathleen Fowler Virginia Frederick 1070 John Avenue 3094 Flannery Road 3740 Hidden Springs San Pablo, CA 94806 San Pablo, CA 94806 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Harry Freeman Lorraine Frisbie Fred Gabriel 4630 Appian Way,#406 1 6320 Bonita Court 3803 San Pablo Darn Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 Richmond, CA 94806 El Sobrante, CA 94803 I Jim Gachis Edie Gachis Don Garcia 5518 San Pablo Dam Road 5518 San Pablo Ilam Road 3939 Hillcrest El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 i El Sobrante, CA 94803 Lawrence Gebelen j Paul Cebhart Debbie Bent 11 Soft Shadow Court 27 Charlotte Court ! 1200 Alberdan Court Richmond, CA 94806 El Sobrante,CA 94803 ; Pinole, CA 94564 Don Gerletti Steve Ginsberg Judy Clover 625 Renfrew Road 5443 Cabrillo Sur 4203 Carden Lane El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Addie Goepfort Jesse Golden Ila Good 2050 Alfred Blvd. 613 Pebble Drive 1724 Brentz Lane San Pablo, CA 94806 El Sobrante, CA 94803 San Pablo, CA 94806 i Alen Gordilov Walt Gordon June Graham 1111. Salida Way 799 El Centro Road 4170 Garden Lane E1 Sobrante,CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 j Cassie Greenebaum Lisa Gruen Eddy Guerra 317 Shirley Vista' 679 Rincon Road 750 Renfrew Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 { 1 �afw,t 65 3a ll ldw,L3965 OAHMf wU9AeMu GOM wBf _._. ......_.. .........._...1.11.1 . .. __ .......... ......_..................... ......... ..__._... _1.111._. ..__1.111 ..........._.._. .. . ........ ........._.............. ....._... ........1......_111 jam riA erTinxing AVIMRYW 59bt1'"' Use Avery TEMPLATE 596om 1-800-Cd-AVERY Mate Guggemos ..','Ick Guiste ..Vilianda Gurule -2801 Clinton Avenue 2050 Alfreda Drive 875 Parkside Drive El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Margrit Haaf Brian Hagen Charles Harper 1078 Mitchell Way 2790 Simas Avenue 663 Renfrew Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 Pinole, CA 94564 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Jean Harper Debra Hayworth Steve Hazarabedian 663 Renfrew Road 2181 La Orinda Place 4230 San Pablo Dam Road,#€B28 El Sobrante,CA 94803 Concord, CA 94548 El Sobrante,CA 94803 i Yolanda Hernandez Marcia Higgins Karr e Hill 492 La Paloma. 739 Boyd.Avenue 873 M 'n Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 Richmond, CA 94805 El Sobr te, CA 94803 jj I , Judith Hill Andrea.Hoffman Carroll Holthaus 5918 CobblestoneCourt 690 Rincon Road 3927 La Colina Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante,CA 94803 1 Michael Horowitz Jason House Valerie House 5855 Marion Court 931 Loma Linda Avenue 931 Loma Linda Avenue El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante,CA 94803 Lee House Michael House Rosemary Hulen 931 Loma Linda Avenue 931 Loma Linda Avenue 3177 Rollingwood Drive El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 San Pablo, CA 94806 Timothy Hulen Jean Hyans Katie Jacks 3169 Rollingwood Drive 911 Mitchell Way 1814 Neomi Drive San Pablo, CA 94806 ; El Sobrante, CA 94803 Concord, CA 94519 I Timothy Jackson,IV Mercedes Jaime Enure Jalbert j 4612 San Pablo DamRoad 2241 Greenwich Road � � 5049 ltop Drive El Sobrante, CA 94803 San Pablo, CA 94806 El Sobr e, CA 94803 Nancie Jann Pete Jenkins Dakota Jobe 5599 Woodview Drive 1517 Solitude Lane 557 Rincon Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante,CA 94803 MA`b-09-0094 d,®.,.. w10969 Uvmw3!OkSn1t a ft wi0965 VAUSAV wordsoAe nnmm 6uplid asm wer Use AveryO TEMPLATE'596OTm 1-880-GO—AVERY James Jo son donna Johnson Susan Johnson-Kleine 783 Renfre Road 3844 La Colina Road 3739 Nottingham Drive El Sobrante, A 94843 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Arlene Jones Larry Jones Bob Jce 3731 Ramsey Court 6317 Monte Cresta 921 Lo a Linda. El Sobrante, CA 94803 Richmond, CA 94806 El Sobr te, CA 94803 Michael Kent Monica Kersten Maggie Kessinger 5931 Golden Gate Avenue 4750 Westwood Court 664A Ventura Street San Pablo, CA 94806 Richmond, CA 94803 I Richmind, CA 94806 Mark Kessler Cheryl Kinley Rich Kral 381 Joan Vista 3031 Simas Avenue 3058 Hilltop Drive El Sobrante, CA 94803 Pinole, CA 94564 El Sobrante,CA 94803 Carm Kruger Frank ger Janet Larnun 4949 Hi op Drive 4949 Hil op Drive 2518 Clare Street El Sobrant CA 94803 El Sabrant CA 94803 San Pablo, CA 94806 Michael Lancaster Tony Landers Roger Lawton 3055 May Road 700 Renfrew Road 818 - 31st Street Richmond, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Richmond,CA 94804 Shawn Leamy Gary Lee Lori Lee 588 Rincon Road 749 Rincon Road. 749 Rincon Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Lori Lee Willie Lewis Lonee Lewis 749 Rincon Road15 Charlotte Court ( , i 15 Charlotte Court El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 i Barbara Lida June Liddicoat Tran Van Loc 3940 La Cima Road 3884 Greenbrae Court 28 Highgate Road El Sobrante, CA '94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Kensington, CA 94707 Kevin Locks bda Lopez Raul Lopez 5599 Woodview Drive 908 Mitchell Way 3464 Fleetwood Drive El Sobrante, CA '94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 E1 Sobrante, CA 94803 ANAVd O"094 nL0969 t l'1t'1r3 HI @Kn^b esn wm096S (DJD V wos/Gene•RnMM 6ulluk OWA wef Use Avery@ TEMPLATE 5960rm 1-800-GO-AVERY Anthony Lopez k.arla Lopez h u7 opez 3464 Fleetwood Drive 3464 Fleetwood Drive 762 R. Frew Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobr te, CA 94803 Elizabeth Lopez Eleanor Loynd John Lozada 2037 Garvin Avenue 4505 Fieldcrest Drive 3824 McBryde Avenue Richmond, CA 94801 El Sobrante, CA 94803 ! Richmond, CA 94805 ; Bradley Lucero Bergliot Lustig Constance MacAdam 771 -28th Street 740 Renfrew Road 2948 Stephen Drive Richmond, CA 94804 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Richmond, CA 94806 Jean Maddox Michael Marangin William Marion 633 Renfrew Road 618 Lexington Avenue, #2 i 785 Rincon Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Cerrito, CA 94530 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Mary Martinez Michael Marvin Karen Mason 1939 California 698 Renfrew Road 4605 Robert San Pablo, CA 94806 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Lydia Matundan Jason McCarthy Kevin McCloy 1521 Solitude Lane 600 R.incon Road 3788 Ramsay Court El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 EI Sobrante, CA 94803 i Marilynne Mellander Renaldy Mendieta David Meredith 7010 Monte Verde Road 941 Lama.Linda Avenue 877 N. Rancho Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 i El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante,CA 94803 Carlene Merey Sharon Miller Lenita Miller 5020 Santa Rita Road 4672 White Sands Court 973 Mitchell El Sobrante,CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 K. H. Mills Fred Mock Jean:Mock 4200 Santa Rita Road 6316 Monte Cresta 6316 Monte Cresta El Sobrante, CA 94803 Richmond, CA 94806 Richmond, CA 94806 Ruby Molinari Willie Moore Sue Moore-Mehrizi 2730 May Road 3767 Ramsey Court 5794 Sherwood Forest Drive El Sobrante, CA94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 MAV-09-006-L mog65 nvidwu a,kw esn vu096S sA2raAW � wo7.lGaAe•mmm r 6uAufad abad iuet __....._. _......_. _._... .._...._. __ .. ......._.__ .............. __....... ......... ......_.. ._... ..._ ._. .. .... ......... .....__.. _. _._...... ...._.... ......._. lam Free Printing r s www.av"sp.ccn1+ 1, 1 l VIftRYV 5960 Use AveryS TEMPLATE 5960xm 1.800-Gtr-AVERY Feana Moran Greg Moran Ai aceli Munoz 584 El Centro Drive 584 El Centro Drive 6235 Bayvood Drive El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 i Marina Munoz Carole Nadng Gigi Nathan 834- 4th Avenue 622 Rincon Road 3179 Keith Drive Pinole, C.A. 94564El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Ventura Negrete Jeanine Nelson Dottie Ngugebauer 2882 Sheldon Drive 700 Renfrew Road 774 Rincon Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Audrey Nieman Fred Nieman. Hazel Norris 615 Rincon Road 615 Rincon Road 2812 Rolling Drive El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 San Pablo, CA 94806 Gloria eefe Daren Olsen Gwynn.O Neill 785 Renfr Road 802 Winslow Street 210 Tunnel Avenue, 43 El Sobrante, A 94803 Crockett, CA 94525 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Robe {Ortiz Sharon Ortiz � Pedr Ortiz 1103M or Roan 3071 Keith Drive 3071 ith Drive El Sobrant CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobr te, CA 94803 I Elizabeth O'Shea Ana.Sofia Pacheco Da acheco 4050 Wesley Way 21 Greenbrae Court 4900 lltop Drive El Sobrante, CA '94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 EI Sobr te, CA 94803 Dawn checo Kathy Palmer William Payne 4900 Hillt Drive 5470 Shasta,#6 555 Rincon Road El Sobrante, A94803 San Pablo, CA 94806 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Gideon Pence Ron Pendergrass Barbara.Pendergrass 1427 -25th Street 739 Renfrew Road 745 Renfrew Road Richmond, CA 94806 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Roy Pendergrass Kelly Perrin Dori etersen 745 Renfrew Road 10 Red Arrow Court 828 M Read ! El Sobrante,CA' 94803 Richmond, CA 94803 El Sob e, CA 94803 XNAV-09.00$-1. .. wi0969 3XVIdWR 09AV Osn nLO96S VAUMV W021Mne-MMM 6uilulM 96JA w6f 18m free Priming Yv.vv�.��.�.��.��. l�liV�i�T�'"Oul- Use Avee TEMPLATE 59600 1-800-CO-AVERY Judith Petersen Linda hillips gel Pimentel 162 Bolduc Court 860 Ma 'n Road 4421 San Pablo Dam Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobs te, CA 94803 El Sobrante,CA 94403 Massiel Pirtle Sue Powell Linda Qualls 710 - 1 st Street,#G 3340 Hillerst Road 1104 Lindell Drive Rodeo, CA 94572 San Pablo, CA 94846 El Sobrante,CA 94803 Kelly Qualls Dario Rabak Ramona Radakovich 525 - 40th Street 25 Marvin Court 1095 Mitchell Way Riclunond, CA 94805 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Mandy Ralls Tress Ramsey Nadine Rawner 1879 Larkspur Court 4730 Canyon Road 2091 California Street Concord, CA 94519 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Berkeley,CA 94703 Melissa Reece Danny Reel Michelle Ribaric 721 Renfrew Road 4815 Appian Vijay i :i 2520 Rancho Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante,CA 94803 'i Daren Richards Judy Rickard Rebecca Rincon 110 Renfrew Court 1 14088 La Colina Road 712 Rincon Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante,CA 94803 El Sobrante,CA 94803 i I Joyce Rios i Robert Rivenbark Sheri Rivenbark 759 Rincon Road 19 Glenwood 5445 Morrow Drive El Sobrante, CA 94803 Hercules, CA 94547 San Pablo, CA 94806 � I i Hector Rivera-Lopez Harold Robinett Marcille Robinett 3600 Black Feather 655 Renfrew Road 655 Renfrew Road E1 Sobrante, CA '94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Paula Rogers Renee Roland Mike Roland 2738 Hermosa Street 461 Corte Arango,#1 461 Corte Arango, #1 I Pinole, CA 94564 El Sobrante, CA 94843 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Doug Ross Susan Rozul-Ambion Palenma Rudy 3740 Hidden Springs 304 Ponderosa Court 5260A Sunset Drive Richmond, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 I El Sobrante, CA 94803 w,:096S ®A 3A V 11107-AJOAMMM 6upulid 99.14 wet ..... ..... ................_..__. ......... ......................._.. .__....... . ......... ......... ......... . .. ........._...........__.... Use AveryP TEMPLATE 596OTm 1-800-GO-AVERY JaiJo Saelien icy Samuel ancy Samuel 3114 Parker Road 4184 Poster Lane 4184 Roster Lane Richmond, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Geri Sanchez J. Santistevan Michelle Schell 2440 Glenlock Street 720 Renfrew Road 5169 La Honda Road San Pablo, CA 94806 El Sobrante,CA 94803 El Sobrante,CA 94803 Herb Schusteff Shirley Sharp Peter Simcich 4812 San Pablo Dam Road,#1 5562 Amend Road 3841 Linden Lane El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 i W.L. Slessinger Evelyn Slessinger Patsy Smith 767 Rincon Road 767 Rincon Road ; 4740 Appian Way El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Vanda Smith Robert Smith Linda Smith 5152 Hilltop Drive 5152 Hilltop Drive 5019 San Pablo Ilam Road,#B-8 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante,CA 94803 i Howard Sodja Bambi Spencer Robert Spencer 4317 Santa.Rita Road 3015 Deseret Drive 3015 Deserest Drive El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Richmond, CA 94803 f Grant Squires Esther Squires Deborah Stein 598 Rincon Read 598 Rincon Road 1520 Manor Drive El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante,CA 94803 San Pablo,CA 94806 j ; Bobbie Stiles Ryan Stiles Kenneth Stimmel 640 Renfrew Road 640 Renfrew Road 576 Rincon Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 ! El Sobrante,CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 i Susan Stone Ginny Stoller Mark Takahashi 3415 Maywood Drive f 990 Mitchell Way 1634 Michael Drive El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante,CA 94803 Pinole, CA 94564 Marge Taylor Seet Thang Anita Thomas 627 Kern Street 4612 Meadowbrook Drive 2522 May Road Richmond, CA 94805 Richmond, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 c� "t/ AHgnV-09.009-t .�....�� amos gm7dwai. w asn wiOs s _ lem tree mrwng v WVV.dVft1Yx%nt1 AVrZRYQD 596OTM Use AveTEMPLATE 5969TM ""' 1-800-GO-AVERY Irene Thompson Kevin Toney lv aeve Travis 80 Bonnie Drive 4313 nelson Drive 691 Rincon Road San Pablo,CA 94806 Richmond,CA 94803 El Sobrante,CA 94803 Michael Travis Madeleine Trouerbach Kay Turner 691 Rincon Road 601 Pebble Drive 1087 Mitchell Way El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Lisa Vianni Christine Vigil Paul Welches 1250 Addison Street, #107 ! 5460 Victoria Lane i 2907 Centerbury Drive Berkeley,CA 94702 Richmond, CA 94803 # Richmond, CA 94806 Jean.Wert Jack Westlie Idell Weydemeyer 1040 St.Andrews Drive 5622 Circle Drive i 877 N. Rancho Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Marr Whiting Kate Williams Amber Wing 611 Donna Mae Court ! 119 E. 16th Street 4230 San Pablo Dam Road,##A21 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Oakland, CA 94606 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Cindy Wojtowicz Albert Wang Jane Bean Wood 444 Carte Arango,#3 120 Marvin Court 5584 Amend Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 June Woodward June Woodward Brandy Word 611 Renfrew Road 611 Renfrew Road 2867 Buckskin Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Pinole, CA 94564 i Courtney Ward Carina Zaragola i 2867 Buckskin Road 3033 May Road Pinole, CA 94564 j El Sobrante, CA 94803 i I i wiO96S OAMBAV XAJOA MM r ri:o9�s B as i d$a 3 W Resolution No. ??-2004 County Planning Commission BEFORE THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CONTRA.COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL Siavash Afshar(Applicant& Owner) El Sobrante Valley Planning &Zoning Advisory Committee; and the .10 Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association(Appellants) Request for Approval of a 40-lot Residential Subdivision with Variances El Sobrante Area Contra Costa County County File#SDO18533 On May 17,24011 th- '' subdivision with the Contra Cc h a 44-lot residential subdivis t on the northwest side of E w Road/ Hilltop Drive intersi n the El Sobrante area. The / dor retaining walls in the structure W11;1— _ Lots 11-14), and approval to rem( - On May 17, 20( ,were required before the a �� q I -�" 1 the staff issued a second reque, _ . On November 1, _ ttermined the application to be cc .- - For poses p of c QA)purposes staff conducted an Initia d result in a significant environm It in several significant impac, it and traffic. Staff also identifi 'Iss- than-significant level, ant ber 22, 2003, County staff postec n of Environmental Significant ination as required by law. _ On February 9, 2004: 1. On May 25, 2004, aft Commission held a public h staff presented the staff recc anti the Planning Commission accepted testimony from the-ppiwant and other members of the public. After receiving R-1 Resolution No. ??-2004 County Planning Commission testimony, the Planning Commission voted to continue the public hearing to its June 8, 2004 meeting. On June 8, 2004, the County Planning Commission continued to accept testimony from all persons who wished to speak on the application, including a rebuttal from the representatives of the applicant. Following the rebuttal from the applicant, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. The County Planning Commission, having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all evince and testimony submitted on this matter. RESOLVED, for purposes of compliance with CEQA, the County Planning Commission FINDS that: • On the basis of the whole record before the Commission, including the Initial Study and the comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the project, with mitigation measures, will have a significant effect on the environment. • The Mitigated Negative Declaration determination reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis. • The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the County Planning Commission's decision is based may be found at the Community Development Department, 551 Pine Street, Martinez, CA, the custodian of the records. Further, the County Planning Commission ADOPTS the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for purposes of compliance with CEQA, and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Further, the County Planning Commission FINDS that all the Ordinance Code findings that are required for approval of a subdivision and for approval of the associated variances can be made. Further, the County Planning Commission GRANTS approval to the subdivision application for 40 lots, with modification to the Conditions of Approval. The decision to the County Planning Commission was given by motion of the County Planning Commission on June 8,2004 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners- Clark, Terrell, Wong and Snyder NOES: Commissioner Battaglia and Mehlman R-2 Resolution No. ??-2004 County Planning Commission ABSENT: Commissioner Gaddis ABSTAIN: Commissioner-None Further, on June 17, 2004, the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, and the Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association filed with the County an appeal of the County Planning Commission decision on this project. 0 LEN BATTAGLIA Chair of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California 1, Dennis M. Barry; Secretary of the County Planning Commission, certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on June 8, 2004. ATTEST: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Secretary of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California C`WINDOWS'',,Temporary Intemet Fi1es\Content.IE5\OPW 1 SNAPASDb 18533-resolution.wpd R-3 S ✓ l: NOTICE OF A PUB IC HEARI.N. , G You are hereby notified that on TUESDAY,,MAY 25 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 107, McBrien Administration Building, 651 Pie Street, Martinez, California, the County Planning Commission will consider a SUBDIVISION application as described as follows: SIAVASH AFSHAR (Applicant & Owner), County File'- #SDO18533: The applicant/owner requests vesting tentative map approval to divide 1<0.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requestedfor(A)construction of retaining walls taller thn three(3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and (B)combined retalning`wallffence structures in excess of six(6)feet in height(up to 131/2 feet in combined height)within therequired yards (structure setback areas); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70-foot widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. The property is addressed 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area (R-7) (ZA: H-6) (CT 3630.00) (Parcels 426-210-0307; 426-182-001 & -017; and 426-192-005 & -008) For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no Environmental Impact Report required) has been issued for this project. If you challenge 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. Forfurther details, contact the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, California, or Darwin Myersat925-335-1210 or 925-370-9330. Dennis M. Barry, AICD Community Development Director CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PREHEARING FORM Pr��t,�es�rtl�tl�sn: iMV ¢i �. r I�yt� r y1� { x 1N ` w. I C .. -'L^ i i�� i ; ' - YtE3j M,:AtI� 11s7 ff'L7LJVr• } ; Apl � '� 1mpst � i+ l �! 1 ) t lns � ri , s n$t r � ri�flrrtllpr a l +�lpr i i�aedmbtne .: r�eltnrfguii�fi3eu�i in a�cecf €11 F� ghita,7fAil , ii 3J wlth��fi' e� ` �r ' N 1� rtu ;j�.y�' f V•e l --y :##,yjg�y ff�� i- J tr�i ryy �g fi W ''!�}y INI, .i�L iI ,•. �.' 1 bdl � � 1,.©I +ukY .za LI.1 ,:�1 f1 ,'S njom srp prix . f as. 1 �� : Y F z • � ': . . District: I Applicant: Sicvash Afshar Owner: Some Appellants: El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass, Friends of Garrity Creek & Hilltop Neighborhood Association County File: SI)018533 Board of Supervisors Hearing Data and Time: July 13, 2004 @ 2:30 pm Briefing Meeting Date and Time: July 13, 2004 @ 1:30 pm Briefing Meeting Location: Room 108 cc: Dennis Barry, Director Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director Heather Ballenger, Deputy Director,PW Project Planner: Darwin Myers(370-9330) Secretary: Barbara Melton (5-1203) Maureen Parkes NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on,JULY 13, 2004 2.30 p.m., in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Comer of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tentative map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots. Variances are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three (3) feet in height(up to 10 feet in height proposed), and(B) combined retaining wall/fence structures in excess of six(6) feet in height(up to 13 r/z feet in combined height)within the required yards (structure setback area); and for variances to the minimum average lot width standard for four of the lots (Lots 11-14) (proposed widths as small as 56 feet; minimum 70 foot-widths required), and approval to remove two protected trees (Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.17 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Renfrew Road/Hilltop Drive intersection, and it fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road. County File#SDO18533, Siavash Afshar(Applicant &Owner). 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 Community Development Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (Parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; and 426-192-005 &008). If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described 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, July 13, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 108 of the 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 Darwin Myers at the Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1210 or(925) 370-9330 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date: June 25, 2004 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator B Danielle Felly, Deputy Clerk SSVID Isminq UZ VC906 VO 'ZBNIINVW 133SIS 3NId M go woos 'asvoa do ms3lo A1Nno3 visoo VNINOO FIRST CLASS MAIL ........................ ................. .......................... ...... 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 West County Times, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published at 2540 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 August 29, 1978. Case Number 188884. 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 fallowing dates, to-wit: July 1 all in the year of 2004 1 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed a. Walnut Creek, California. ' On this 1 day of July.y 2004 �...v.._ Signature West County'Times PO Box 100 . Pinole, CA 9464 (510) 262-2740 Proof of Publication of: (attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that published) NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARUW BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS EL SOBRANTE AREA NOTICE Is herebyy ggiven that on,WLY 13,2004 2:3b pp m.,in the County Admin- Istratton Bulldlng,652 Pine Street,(Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Marti- nez,California the Contra Costa Count)(Aoard of Su- pervisors will hold a pub- IC hearing to consider the following matter: Hearing on the appeal by the Ef 5obrante Valleyy Planning and Zoning Advi- sory Committee, Barbara Pendergrass Friends of Garrity Creek and Hilltop Neighborhood Association of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a vesting tenta- tive map to divide 10.09 acres into 40 lots.Varian- ces are requested for(A) construction of retaining walls taller than three(3) feet In height (up to 10 feet In height proposed), and (B) combined retain- Ing wail/fence structures n excess of six(6)feet In height(u to 13'h feet in combined height) within the required yards(struc- ture setback area); and for variances to the minl- mum average lot width lotsstand(Lotsor11-14)ur of ro posed widths as small as 56 feet;minimum 70 foot- widths required),and ap- frovai to remove two pro- ected trees(Lots 18 and 38). The property fronts for 100.11 feet on the northwest side of Hilltop Drive, approximately 100 feet southwest of the Ren- frew Road/Hilltop Drive in- tersectlon, and It fronts on the western terminus of Marin Road.County Flle #SD018533 Slavash Af- shar(Applicant&Owner). The location of the subject property is within the unln- corporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of Califor- nia, generally Identified below(a more precise de. sertptlon may be exam- ined In the Community De- velopment Department, County Administration Building, Martinez, Cali- fornia): The subject site address is 4823 Hilltop Drive,in the EI Sobrante area.(Parcels 426-210-007,426.182-001& 017• and 426-192-005 & 004 If you challenge this mat- ter In Court,you may be limited to raising only those Issues you or some- one else raised at the pub- ilc hearing described in this notice or In written correspdni?ence delivered to the County at,or prior to,the public hearing. Prior to the hearing,Com- munity Development De- partment staff will be available on Tuesday,July 13, 2004 at 1530 p.m. In Room 108 of the Adminis- tration Building,651 Rine Street, Martinez, to meet with any Interested par- ties in order to(1)answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarlfv the Issues being consld eyed by the Board;and(4) provlde an opportunity to identify resolve, or nar- row any differences which remain In dispute. If you wish to attend this meet- ing with staff,please call Darwin Myers at the Com- munity Development De- artment at (925) 335- 210 or{j25)370-9330 by 3:00 p.m.on Monday,July 12, 2004 to confirm your participation. Date:June 25,2004 John Sweeten,Clerk of the County Aof dmin€tratorand By Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk Legal WC7 2687 Publish July 1,2004 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... __ _.._.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............ ._....... ......... ......... ......... . ....... ... ............ ........ .... . ._..._. ...._... _. _...... ...... ... ....... .. ......... _. .... . _.... ....._... ....... .. ......... ._._.__... ........_.. ..._.............._._..... ...._.... ............. .......... ............ ........ ......... ......... .............__..... ...................... ............ ......._. _.. .. . ... _......_. .. .__.._....... ...... _._.. _.. _.._.. _. .. __. _._ _. ....... ............ . ._. . _..._..........._..... ............ ........................_..._..._.._.................. ........._. ........ ........ ......... .......... ............ ........ ......... ........ .... ._......... .............. ....._._. _._._.. .. .._... ... _. .._. ....._. . . _ _. .. _. _. ........ ............ ..._... __. ....__ ............. .......... ... ......... ......_...._._...._..... ._........ .........._.. ......._. ........... ......... ......._.. .......... ........... ............ .._........ ....... __........................ ...... ..._... .. _._. ._.. .._._. __._.. _......__. .__. .__. . _. _ .. __. ....... ...... ....._...... _._.... ............ ...._...... ......_._........._....... _....._.....__......__.._.....__ ......... ............. ......._. ...._...._.. ......_.... ............ ............ .......... ........... ..........._ ....._....... .__._.... ._._.._.. ._....... _........ ._. ._.. . ....... _. ... _..... _.._. . _._.. _. .. _. ._. _. .. . ......... ............ .....__. _....... ......_....._.._.....___....._................__.... ._..._......._._........ ._._..............___. .............. .......... ......... ............ ............._._........... .....__........... _. _._. ........._........._.. . ......... . ..._.. .. .__.. ...__. _._......._. _. _. _. _.. _.. . _. __. _ _......_. _....... _. _. __. _. _._._.. ._ . . _ ...... ._........ ......... .......... _._. . . . _. __....... __.. ... _..... ........._.._. _..._._. _... ... _. _.. ...... _.. _. .._. .. ...... . ......_.. .............__......._..._........... ........... ..........._......_.... _................_..._.... ._......... ............ ............. ....... .......... ........ .......... _. ... ......_........._..._..... . ......... ....._...... ........1 _. ......_....._.1......_..... ....... _._..... .. ... .. _. . _ .. _. _.. ..__. ... _... _.. ........... _...._._. ......... ...._.._.. ..._..... .._..._.. ......... ......... .__......._........__. .._....._.. .......... ............. ....... .......... ................... ... ... ..........._.............. .............. ......... . .._...... ......._.. ..._. .... _....._. ._.._. . _..._... __.. ._. ... . .. _. .. .. ..... ._.._.... ......... ._........ ........._. ._......._.. .._._._.... .............. ........._. .......... ............ .......... ...._.................... ............ _ _. ............ ..._.._..... ......_...... .......I .__..._.... .-..... .._....__.._.__... .. ._. . _.... ._. _ _ _ _. __.. _._.__. .... _.... .._..._.. ._.....__ ._...........__....._. ._...._.................. ............... ............ ...._......_.........._. ......... ......... .......... .......... ........ ......... .._ ... ..........__..._..... ......._. .......... _..... ... ............_....._._... .... _.... ..... . .. _... ..... _ _... _.. __. _.._..._. ..__.... _........ .._.._... ........................... .........._. ........... .......... ............ ._........ ......... .......... ............ ._......... ........ .......... .._ .. ........... ......_....... ............ ............. ..... _... _.. .__ . ._...... ._... . _. .._. .. _._. . . ... .. _.._. ._. _. _.. . ..._.... _. ._._.._. ...._...... _...._... . ._........... ._...__......_._......_.............__..._......__..._..__.. ............. ........... ... .__... ...._..... ............ ........ .......... .......... . ........... ............... . ._....... .._..I............__ ............. _,.,.._._..._.. . . _. _. _.__ .. ... _.. ... _. _._. ........_..._........_...__..... ._._ ........ _. ... _.... .._.. _... .... _.. . __.. . _. _.. .. _.. . ...... ._....... ........_ _........ ._......._........__._. .........._.._..._........._........_.. .__.._._. ......_.._................ ..................._._.... ................_..._.... ............_... .. ..._........ ..............._.......... ..._.._.. ._....._. ...1....._. ._.._.... .....__._...I....,. . ..._...._. _.. ......_._.. _. .__ _. _. _... __ _. ..... _. ._._....__. . . ........__.... .._.._.... .._._........ .__...._. ....._..._.. _.._........__.......... ............. ......... .......... ........... ....... ......... ...._.... .......__. ....._..........._..._. ............. ............ ............ ......_... _...._ ._.._.... ......_I. ..._ ._,....,..__....._. _._.... _. _. _.... _. __. _..__. ... . .. . ...... ......._ ...._......._........_.._........_.. ............. _...._..__...................__...._..._...._... ............. ......... .......... ........._.........._... ........._.. ........... ......... ..._.__......._...................__... .._........ ......... .,._..,._. ..I...... _...._.....___. ...._..... _. _.... _.. ...... _. _. _. __. _._.. .. ...... .......... ........... ...-_..... ._........ .............__..........._. ...........__._.......... ......_.. ............. ........ ........... _.._..._... ......... ........ ......... I,.,..,.''.,.... ................................................................_. ..... _... .. _...._ _........ _.. ...... _....... .._...... __...__.. _. . ..._.... . . _. _.... .. ....._....... ..__... ._...._.... _.... _...._. _........ ._. ...... ....... ._ ...._..__ _..._.__. _..... . ... . . __.. _._. ......_ ............. ........ _. . ..._........ ........... .._.......... ..._..__. ...__..... ..._.._.. _.... __.._. .. _. _. . __ _. .... ... _......................._.. .._._._.. ............ ... .... ......_.. .._.......... .._........__._....... ......._.....__._........ _........... _......... ....._... _...... _. .............. ........ _..... ......._. ........... ......... .__.._._. .. ....._.__..... _. ._. ..... . _. . _......... ....._..... ....._... .. .. . � a� � ic � - ementad � a jr ................... .............. ........ ........................................................................................ .....I..,....... ..................... .�...........................................I..........I............................................... ....I.....1.11..........................................I........................ . . .... .. ................................... .................................................................................I............I.....I....... ....I..,....... � ............................... ............................................................................................................... ... ..................................... .......................... -- - - ------------ -- . ...... r .::.:i ��;�� .`f•�Nv y Y. < ' 1 ff E.` a t -.:i 55 _ ';':iii2ii.+rri '�.�W :.>F•_. ti .p�.'a,.i . 1. �` � � x ................ ........ ..............I.-........I....I. .................. ........ ..... .........1.11.1.......11................. ......................................I.-........ I............. ........................... ..................................... ................................................ ................... ............................................. ............................. ................ .......... ................................ �` � .......................................I.......... .............. " .... .............................................................. ....................................................................................... .... .......8 2: ... Table of Contents Siavash Afshar (Applicant & Owner) 4823 Hilltop Drive 10.09 Acres in El Sobrante Supplemental Materials for Subdivision # 018533 County Planning Commission Contra Costa County Tuesday,June 8, 2004 Tab Descri tion 1 RWQCB Letter Stating Project Will Not Violate State Water Quality Standards 2 CDFG Letter A rovin Streambed Alteration 3 USCCIE Letter Authorizing Fill of Jurisdictional Wetlands 4 Aerial Photo ra hof Project Slope Crass-sections 1 i Pictures of Pra'ect Site& Illustrating Seasonal Nature of Garri Creek 7 Drains a Swales Fi res 8 Drainage and Detention Basin Calculations Traffic Im .act Anal sis for Project 10 Gra hic illustrations of Domes Proposed for Pra'ect 11 14 Selected Letters of Su ort for Project * California regional Water Quality Control Board Sari Francisco Bay Region Winston H.Hickox Internet Address: http://www.swrcb.6a.gov/rwgcb2 Gray Davis Secretary for :515 Clay Street,Suite 1400,Oakland,California 94612 Governor Environmental Phone(510)622.2300.FAX(510)622-2460 Protection October 29, 2003 File No.: 2118.03 (TJL) Site No.: 02-07�C0581 Mr. Sid Afshar Architectural Design &Development 114 Camino Pablo Orinda, CA 94563 SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION FOR THE HILLVIEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, EL SOBRANTE, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Dear Mr. Afshar: Regional Board staff has reviewed your application for a Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification that the proposed Hillview Residential Development, in the City of El Sobrante, Contra Costa County, will not violate State water quality standards. The project proposes to construct 41 single-family homes on a 10.09-acre site located south of Manor Road and west and north of Hilltop Road. Regional Board staff deemed the application complete on January 14, 2003. However, staff has not received a copy of valid CEQA documentation. Although CEQA documentation is not required for a complete application, the Regional Board must receive a final copy of valid CEQA documentation before taking a certification action. Per Section 401(a) of the Clean Nater Act, the State has no longer than one year, after receipt of a valid request for water quality certification, to act on such request. In order for the Regional Board to take a certification by January 14, 2004, staff must receive a final copy of valid CEQA documentation no later than December 15,2003. If CEQA documentation is not received by this elate, the Regional Board will deny your application for water quality certification without prejudice. If you have any questions,please contact Tina Low of my staff at 510-622-5582, or e-mail TJL@,rb2.swrcb.ca.gov. Sincerely, William B. Hurley Section Leader, North Bay Watershed California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper H.1401 Cer1W-07-C0.581_cega deadline-doe 0 , Mr. Sid Afshar 2 Hillview Residential Development Cc: Ms. Phelicia Comes, DACE, SF District Warden Nicole Kozicki, CDFG, Yountville California.Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper H.1401Cer t-07-C0581_cegadeadline.doc Y i DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND CAME CENTRAL COAST REGION (707) 944-5520 a> Mailing address: POST OFFICE BOX 47 YOUNTV#LLE, CALIFORNIA 94599 Street address: 7329 SILVERADO TRAIL NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94558 November 14, 2002 Sid Afshar AD&D 114 Camino Pablo Orinda, California 94563 Re: Application#R3-2001-0982 Dear Applicant: This is a draft agreement that must be signed before we can issue a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, Please 1. Initial all pages of the attached project conditions and sign and date the signature sheet. Your conditions have 6 pages. Make sure that the person indicated at the top of page I is the one who signs the signature sheet. 2. Mail all pages of the project description and conditions to: Department of Fish and Game Central Coast Region P.O. Box 47 Yountville, California 94599 Attn: Greg Martinelli You may expedite the process by a few days if you fax the project descriptions and conditions to us at (707) 944 - 5595, and then send the signed originals by mail. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU MAY NOT BEGIN YOUR PROJECT UNTIL 1) THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVES YOUR SIGNED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS, AND 2) YOU RECEIVE AN AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE DEPARTMENT y S'T'ATE_flF CAT FQRNIA-THE R$SOUR ES AGEb7CY GUN PA—VIS, GoCfEr•nn DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME MaitingAddress: P.O. BOX 47 YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599 707-944-5500 - StreetAddress: CENTRAL COAST REGION, REGION 3 7329 SILVERADO TRAIL NAPA, CA 94558 Notification Number: R.3-2001-0982 Hillview Project (SD 8533), Contra Costa County Field review by: Warden Nicole Kozicki, 11/19/01 Sid Afshar AD&D 114 Camino Pablo Orinda, California 94563 PROJECT DESCRIPTION and PROJECT CONDITIONS Description As part of the development of 10.09 acres into 41 residential lots, the operator proposes to impact Garrity Creek.(along the southern border) and a tributary to Garrity Creek(along the western border) located north of Hilltop Drive and southwest of Manor and Marin(toads in El Sobrante, Contra Costa County. Mahnaz Drive will cross over Garrity Creek approximately 504 feet west of the start of the creek. The crossing will be an arch approximately 8 feet above the bed of the creek and the abutments will a minimum of 6 feet away from the low flow channel on either side. Approximately 45 linear feet of the creek bed and banks will be shaded and filled. The wetland(220 square foot freshwater marsh)will not be filled, only shaded. A vertical keystone headwall and endwall will be constructed to minimize impacts to the creek. The Naz Lane/fire trail will be constructed along the western bank of the tributary for approximately 161 linear feet, utilizing a 5 foot high retaining wall. For approximately 26 linear feet of the 161 feet, the retaining wall will be installed in the bed of the creek. The road will be approximately 12 feet wide. The existing culvert crossing will remain as the fire trail crossing. Opposite the retaining wall,the eastern bank will be regraded and planted to mitigate for the impacts to the creek bed and banks. Surface run off water from the development(lots, roof gutters, streets and sidewalks)will be discharged through grassy swales that will be constructed along the creek side of the fence along the rear of the lots. These swales will discharge into 10 foot long rock overflows which will allow the water to flow towards the creeks over vegetated reinforced banks. One rock overflow will discharge into Garrity Creek approximately 200 feet downstream from Mahnaz Drive and the other will discharge into the tributary approximately 5 feet downstream from the EVA fire road. Page 1 of 6 Notification #2001-0982 Date prepared: 1.116102 Operator's initials �a Approximately.18 acres(7701 square feet) of riparian habitat will be impacted by the development. The areas of impact include the Mahnaz Drive crossing, the seep area, the ENTA road area and the area adjacent to lots 39, 40, and 41. Conditions 1. All work shall be done according to the project description stated above and discussed in the field with Warden Nicole Kozicki, as well as the plans submitted to the Department by both Michael K. Wood dated July 5,2002, and Klemetson Engineering dated July 10, 2002, updated by Sid Afshar November 2002, that are not in conflict with the above stated project description. The operator shall notify the Department of any modifications made to the plans submitted to the Department, which pertain to impacts to the creek or the riparian corridor. 2. The time limit for completing the work subject to this agreement shall be confined to the period of April 15 to October 1 of any year, except as otherwise stipulated in this Agreement. Any exception to this time restriction shall be handled on an individual site-specific basis and shall only extend the work period of the general time window from October 1 to October 15 of any year. This request shall be in written form and submitted at least 10 days in advance of proposed time extension period. The Operator will notify Warden Nicole Kozicki(925-376-1274) of the date of commencement of operations and the date of completion of operations. 3. The project site may be potentially inhabited by Ca red-legged frog a federally threatened species. This agreement does not allow for the take, or incidental take of any State or Federal listed threatened or endangered species. Therefore,the Department requires that 48-hour pre-construction surveys be conducted by a competent biologist,and that the Department is provided a written copy of the survey results prior to the commencement of the project. Liability for any take or incidental take of such listed species remains the responsibility of the Operator for the duration of the project. Any unauthorized take of such listed species may result in prosecution and nullify this agreement. 4. If red-legged frog are found in the proposed work area, or is in a location,which could be impacted by the work proposed, the Operator shall immediately consult with the Department and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure this species is protected. If the work requires that the species be removed disturbed or otherwise impacted, the Operator shall obtain the appropriate State and Federal endangered species permits. 5. If any wildlife is encountered during the course of construction said wildlife shall be allowed to leave the construction area unharmed. Aquatic life(except threatened or endangered) stranded within any dewatered work area shall be relocated to an appropriate upstream or downstream location,upon completion of the diversion and prior to start of work. 6. The Operator shall not remove vegetation from the site between February 15 and August 15 to avoid impacts to nesting birds. If construction, grading, or other project-related improvements are scheduled during the nesting season of protected raptors and migratory birds(February 15 to August 15), a focused survey for active nest of such birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist(as determined by a ,Page 2 of 6 Notification#k2001-0982 .hate prepared: 1116102 Operator's initials combination of academic training and professional experience in biological sciences and related resource management activities)within 15 days prior to the beginning to project-related activities. The results of the survey shall be faxed to(707)944-5595. Refer to Notification Number R.3-2001-0982 when submitting the survey to the Department. If active nest are found, the Operator shall consult with the Department and the United Mates Fish & Wildlife Service(USF&WS) regarding appropriate action to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the Fish&Game Code of California. If a lapse in project-related work of 15 days or longer occurs, another focused survey and if required,consultation with the Department and USF&WS, will be required before project work can be reinitiated. 7. The disturbance or removal of vegetation will not exceed the minimum necessary to complete operations. Precautions will be taken to avoid other damage to vegetation by people or equipment. Branches and/or limbs overhanging the project site that may be impacted shall be properly pruned prior to mobilization of equipment. 8. A restricted development area will be established along the north and south side of Garrity Creek and the east side of the tributary including the seep, spring and riparian scrub areas. Approximately 35 feet from the top of each bank will be protected in a deed restriction for each lot. This area will further be protected with the construction of a wood post and wire fence along the back of all the lots abutting the creeks and seep/spring area. A wildlife conservation/scenic easement or deed restriction shall be recorded over the areas identified on the plans as mitigation areas and restricted development areas, along both Garrity Creek and the tributary, to protect existing fish and/or wildlife resources in perpetuity. The easement and/or restriction shall prohibit development or any use of this area to protect existing and future fish and/or wildlife resources in perpetuity. This document shall be submitted to the Department for review and approval and shall be recorded before initiation of construction activities. 9. The Operator shall use temporary construction fencing to identify the upstream and downstream limits of disturbance within the stream corridor and around the seep and spring riparian scrub area. The Contractor shall limit entry to the minimum number of approaches necessary to complete operations. No temporary culvert crossings are authorized. The contractor may utilize the existing culvert crossing off of Manor Road or may install a rail flat car over the creek in the location of the Mahnaz Drive arch culvert. 10. Erosion control measures shall be utilized throughout all phases of operation in areas where soil, silt, dirt and/or sediment from project activities threatens to enter waters of the State. At no time shall any of these materials be allowed to enter the stream or be placed where it may enter the stream. 11. Silty/turbid water from the excavation and/or project activities shall not be discharged into the stream or into storm drains. Such water shall be pumped into a holding facility or into a.settling pond located in flat stable areas outside of the stream channel, sprayed over a large area outside the stream channel to allow for natural filtration of sediments. At no time shall turbid water from settling ponds be allowed to enter back into the stream channel until water is clear of silt. 12. A silt filter barrier shall be constructed immediately downstream of the work area prior to the beginning of any work. The barrier shall consist of either haybales or clean river rock(less then 15%fines). .Wage 3 o,f'6 Notification#2001-0982 Date prepared.- 1116102 Operator's initials 13. In ephemeral streams, all construction will be done while the work site is dry. Vehicles will not be driven or equipment operated in water covered portions of the stream, or where wetland vegetation, riparian vegetation, or aquatic organisms may be destroyed, except as otherwise provided for in the agreement. If the stream is flowing at the time work is to be done, the Contractor shall implement a water diversion plan which allows stream flaws to gravity flow around or through the work site using temporary culverts. In lieu of a gravity flow diversion system, stream flow may be pumped around the work site using pumps and hoses. Cofferdams shall be constructed no more than 20 feet up or downstream from the project area. .plows shall be diverted only when construction of the diversion is completed. Cofferdams constructed shall only be built from materials such as clean gravel, sandbags or sheetpiling,which will cause little or no siltation. Cofferdams shall be installed both upstream and downstream of the work site. Cofferdam construction shall be adequate to prevent seepage into or from the work area. The entire work area shall be dewatered. Sandbags shall be filled with clean sand. Cofferdams shall be placed and removed by hand. The cofferdam dewatering system shall remain in place until all creek work is complete. Normal flows will be restored to the affected stream immediately upon completion of work at that location by removing the dewatering system. 14. No other diversion method shall be used without authorization of the Department. If another diversion method is preferred, the Operator must submit a plan detailing the desired diversion method. Authorization of any other diversion method shall be at the discretion of the Department. 15. When any darn or ether artificial obstruction is being constructed, maintained, or placed in operation, sufficient water shall at all times be allowed to pass downstream to maintain aquatic life below the dam. 16. Staging and storage areas for equipment, materials, fuels, lubricants and solvents, will be located outside of the stream channel and banks. Stationary equipment such as motors,pumps, generators, compressors and welders, located within or adjacent to the stream will be positioned over drip pans. Any equipment or vehicles driven anchor operated within or adjacent to the stream will be checked and maintained daily, to prevent leaks of materials that if introduced to water could be deleterious to aquatic life. Vehicles will be moved away from the stream prior to refueling and lubrication. 17. Raw cement/concrete or washings thereof, asphalt,paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances which could be hazardous to aquatic life,wildlife, or riparian habitat resulting from the project related activities shall be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering the waters of the State. Any of these materials placed, within or where they may enter a stream or lake, by the Operator or any party working under contract may be subject to a citation. 18. Poured concrete shall be excluded from the wetted channel for a period of 30 days after it is poured. During that time the poured concrete shall be kept moist, and runoff form the concrete shall not be allowed to enter a live stream. Commercial sealants (e.g. Beep Seal, Elasto-Deck BT Reservoir Grade) may be applied to the poured concrete surface where difficulty in excluding water flow for a long period may occur. if sealant is used, water shall be excluded from the site until the sealant is dry. 19. The Contractor shall not dump any litter or construction debris within the riparian/strearn zone. All such debris and waste shall be picked up daily and properly disposed of at an appropriate site. Page 4 of 6 Notification #2001-0982 bate prepared: 11/6/02 Operator's initials 20. Restoration shall include the revegetation of stripped or exposed areas with vegetation native to the area. The top 12 inches of soil containing the native grasses shall be salvaged, saved and spread out over graded areas outside of the homes influence, To protect and maintain riparian wetland systems and to ensure a"No Net Loss" in wildlife value or acreage or wetlands and/or riparian habitat, the Operator shall implement the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Hillview Residential subdivision,dated July 5, 2002,by Michael Wood Biological Consulting and updated November 2002. This includes but not limited to the planting of.43 acres (18,895)of riparian habitat, 30 oak and cottonwood trees. Species include coast live oak, buckeye, cottonwood, and willow for trees, and elderberry,blackberry, toyon, and coyote brush for shrubs. 21. All disturbed slopes around and on the banks shall be seeded and mulched with the submitted seed mix for the"grassy swale"and the"riparian habitat" as identified in the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Hillview Residential subdivision. Seeding shall be completed between October 1 and October 31 of the year construction begins. 22. All planting shall be done between October 15 and February 1 immediately following the impacts. Failure to implement the mitigation(planting or creation) during the required time period will result in additional mitigation for the temporal loss of habitat. The additional mitigation will be equal to that already agreed to. 23. To ensure a successful revegetation effort, all plants shall be monitored and maintained as necessary for a minimum of five years with a minimum of two consecutive years(2 growing seasons)of monitoring after the removal of irrigation. All planting shall have a minimum of 80% survival at the end of the minimum monitoring period and shall attain 70% cover after three years and 75%coverage after 5 years. If the survival and/or cover requirements are not meeting these goals, the Operator is responsible for replacement planting, additional watering,weeding,invasive exotic eradication,or any ether practice,to achieve these requirements. Replacement plants shall be monitored with the same survival and growth requirements for five years after planting. An annual status report on the mitigation shall be provided to the Department of Fish and Game each year by December 31. This report shall include the survival, percent cover,and height of both tree and shrub species. The number by species of plants replaced, an overview of the revegetation effort, and the method used to assess these parameters shall also be included. Photos from designated photo stations shall be included. 24. A copy of this Agreement must be provided to all contractors and subcontractors and the Operator's project supervisors. Copies of this Agreement shall be available at the project site during all periods of active work and must be presented to Department personnel upon demand. Department personnel shall be allowed onto the work site at any time during and after construction of the project for the purposes of establishing compliance with this Agreement. Page 5 of d Notification#2001-1982 Date prepared. 1116102 Operator's initials 25. The Operator is liable for compliance with the terms of this Agreement,including violations committed by the contractors and/or subcontractors. The Department reserves the right to suspend and/or revoke and /or amend this agreement if the Department determines any of the following has occurred. A). Failure to comply with any of the conditions of this Agreement. B). The information provided by the Operator is incomplete or inaccurate. Q.New information becomes available that was not known when preparing this agreement(i.e. the presence of a sensitive species). D). The project as described above has changed. Any violation of the terms of this Agreement may result in the project being stopped, a citation being issued, or charges being filed with the District Attorney. Contractors and subcontractors may also be liable for violating the conditions of this agreement. Amendments and Renewals The Operator shall notify the Department before any modifications are made in the project plans submitted to the Department. Project modifications may require an amendment or a new notification. This agreement is transferable to subsequent owners of the project property by requesting an amendment. To renew the agreement beyond the expiration date, a written request for a renewal must be submitted to the Department (1600 Program, Post office box 47, Yountville, CA 94599) for consideration at least 30 days before the agreement expiration date. A renewal requires a fee. The fee schedule can be obtained at www. dfg. ca . gov/1600 or by phone at (707) 9445520. Renewals of the original agreement are issued at the discretion of the Department. To modify the project, a written request for an amendment must be submitted to the Department(1600 Program, Post office box 47, Yountville, CA 94599). The fee for an amendment is half(1/2)the original fee. Amendments to the original agreement are issued at the discretion of the Department. Please note that you may not proceed with construction until your proposed project has undergone CEQA review and the Department signs the Agreement. I, the undersigned, state that the above is the final description of the project I am submitting to the Department for CEQA review, leading to an agreement, and agree to implement the conditions above required by the Department as part of that project. I will not proceed with this project until the Department signs the agreement. I also understand that the CEQA review may result in the addition of measures to the project to avoid,minimize, or compensate for significant environmental impacts: Operator's Name(Print): Operator's Signature: Signed the day of . 20 Page 6 of 6 Notification#2001-0982 Date prepared: 1116102 Operator's initials The project must be in compliance with the General Conditions cited in Enclosure 2 for this Nationwide Permit authorization to remain valid. Upon completion of the project and all associated mitigation requirements,you shall sign and return the Certification of Compliance,Enclosure 3, verifying that you have complied with the terms and conditions of the permit. Non-compliance with any condition could result in the revocation, suspension or modification of the authorization for your project, thereby requiring you to obtain an individual permit from the Corps. This Nationwide Permit authorization does not obviate the need to obtain other State or local approvals required by law. This authorization will remain valid for two years from the date of this letter unless the Nationwide Permit is modified, suspended or revoked. if you have commenced work or are under contract to commence work prior to the suspension, or revocation of the Nationwide Permit and the project would not comply with the resulting Nationwide Permit authorization,you have twelve (12) months from that date to complete the project under the present terms and conditions of the Nationwide Permit. This authorization will not be effective until you have obtained Section 401 water quality certification or a waiver of certification from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If the RWQCB fails to act on a valid request for certification within two (2) months after receipt, the Corps can presume a waiver of water quality certification has been obtained. You shall submit a copy of the certification to or request a waiver from the Corps prior to the commencement of work. To ensure compliance with the Nationwide Permit,the following special conditions shall be implemented: 1. The permittee shall implement the mitigation plan dated July 5, 2002 as proposed. Reports shall be submitted by December 31 of each year of monitoring. 2. All temporary fills used for diversions and dewatering shall be completely removed from the creek as soon as possible. 3. The permittee shall notify the Corps in writing of the anticipated start and stop dates of construction,at least 10 days prior to the initiation of construction. You may refer all questions to Phelicia Gomes of our Regulatory Branch at 415-977- 8452. All correspondence should reference the file number 268055. Sincerely, Edward A. Wylie Chief- South Section Enclosures Copy furnished(w/o enclosures): Ms. Tina Low, CA RWQCB, Oakland, CA Mr. Michael Wood, Walnut Creek, CA Enclosure I Nationwide Permit #7 & #33 7 . Outfall Structures and Maintenance. Activities related to: (i) Construction of outfall structures and associated intake structures where the effluent from the outfall is authorized, conditionally authorized, or specifically exempted, or are otherwise in compliance with regulations issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (Section 402 of the CWA) , and (ii) Maintenance excavation, including dredging, to remove accumulated sediments blocking or restricting outfall and intake structures, accumulated sediments from small impoundments associated with outfall and intake structures, and accumulated sediments from canals associated with outfall and intake structures, provided that the activity meets all of the following criteria : a . The permittee notifies the District Engineer in accordance with General Condition 13; b. The amount of, excavated or dredged material must be the minimum necessary to restore the outfalls, intakes, small impoundments, and canals to original design capacities and design configurations (i . e. , depth and width) ; C. The excavated or dredged material is deposited and retained at an upland site, unless otherwise approved by the District Engineer under separate authorization; and. d. Proper soil erosion and sediment control measures are used to minimize reentry of sediments into waters of the U. S . The construction of intake structures is not authorized by this NWP, unless they are directly associated with an authorized outfall structure. For maintenance excavation and dredging to remove accumulated sediments, the notification must include information regarding the original design capacities and configurations of the facility and the presence of special aquatic sites (e.g. , vegetated shallows) in the vicinity of the proposed work. (Sections 10 and 404) 33 . Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering. Temporary structures, work and discharges, including cofferdams, necessary for construction activities or access fills or dewatering of construction sites; provided that the associated primary activity is authorized by the Corps of Engineers or the USCG, or for other construction activities not subject to the Corps or USCG regulations. Appropriate measures must be taken to maintain near normal downstream Mows and to minimize flooding. Fill must be of materials, and placed in a manner, that will not be eroded by expected high lows . The use of dredged material may be allowed if it is determined by the District Engineer that it will not cause more than minimal adverse effects on aquatic resources . Temporary fill must be entirely removed to upland areas, or dredged material returned to its original location, following completion of the construction activity, and the affected areas must be restored to the pre-project conditions . Cofferdams cannot be used to dewater wetlands or other aquatic areas to change their use. Structures left in place after cofferdams are removed require a Section 10 permit if located in navigable waters of the U. S. (See 33 Cpl part 322 . ) The permittee must notify the District Engineer in accordance with the "Notification" General Condition. The notification must also include a restoration plan of reasonable measures to avoid and minimize adverse effects to aquatic resources . The District Engineer will add Special Conditions, where necessary, to ensure environmental adverse effects is minimal . Such conditions may include: limiting the temporary work to the minimum necessary; requiring seasonal restrictions; modifying the restoration plan; and requiring alternative construction methods (e. g. construction mats in wetlands where practicable) . (Sections 10 and 404 ) f Administrative Appeal Process for Approved Jurisdictional Determinations District Issues approved 10, Jurisdictional Determination(JD) to applicant/landowner with NAP. Approved JD valid Does applicant/landowner for 5 years. Yes 4` accept approved JD? No Max.60 1: days District makes new approved JD. Applicant/landowner Yes provides new information? No F decides to appeal approved JD, submits RFA to division engineer days of date of NAP. Corps reviews RFA and notifies Max.30 appellant within 30 days of receipt. days To continue with appeal process,appellant must revise RFA. 7NO fIs RFA acceptable? See Appendix D. Yes Optional JD Appeals Meeting andfor 10 site investigation. RO reviews record and the division engineer Max.90 (or designee)renders a decision on the merits days of the appeal within 90 days of receipt of an acceptable RFA. Division engineer or designee remands decision to district, with specific Instructions,for Does the appeal have merit? reconsideration;appeal Yes process completed. No Districts decision is upheld; appeal process compteted. Appendix C _ A lic nt: ;d hck r 3 t u t i n File Number: p S Date: 10-Dec-02 Attached is: See Section below INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of ermission) A FINAL PROFFERED PERMIT(Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission) B PERMIT DENIAL C APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Kermit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the DISTRICT Engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission(LOP),you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety,and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions,and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • OBJECT: If you object to the initial proffered permit(Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein,you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this Notice and return the Notice to the DISTRICT Engineer. Your objections must be received by the DIS'T'RICT Engineer within 60 days of the date of this Notice,or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your Notice;the DISTRICT Engineer will evaluate your objections and may:(a)modify the permit to address all of your concerns,(b)modify the permit to address some of your objections,or(c)not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections,the DISTRICT Engineer will send you a final proffered permit for your reconsideration,as indicated in Section B below. B: FINAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or decline/appeal the permit. • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the DISTRICT Engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission(LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety,and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions,and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. APPEAL: If you choose to decline the final proffered permit(Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this Notice and sending the form to the DIVISION(not District)Engineer(address on reverse). This Notice must be received by the DIVISION(not District)Engineer within 60 days of the date of this Notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this Notice and sending the Notice to the DIVISION(not District)Engineer(address on reverse). This Notice must be received by the DIVISION(not District)Engineer within 60 days of the date of this Notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this Notice means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety,and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. • APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD,you may appeal the approved ID under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this Notice and sending the Notice to the DIVISION(not District)Engineer (address on reverse). This Notice must be received by the DIVISION Engineer within 60 days of the date of this Notice. JD appeals based on NEW information must be submitted to the DISTRICT Engineer within 60 days of the date of this Notice. E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD. The preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish,you may request an approved JD(which may be appealed),by contacting the Corps District for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. � r Enclosure 3 Permittee: Archetectural Design & Development File No.: 26805S Certification of Compliance for Nationwide Permit `"I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced file number and all required mitigation have been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit." (permittee) (date) Return to: Phelicia Gomes Department of the Army U.S. Army Engineer.District, San Francisco 333 Market Street, CESPN-OR-R San Francisco, CA 94105-2197 + rY. `Y rtaN`~MLy * � { _ �""''S�k'�:{1.�d t rt4 �+2�, x•.;. a �r+ ", is i` �,?':il h�. .:A x l "yY �:... 4 d" x it. ,• �. "" V 9-iN yti•' ��f• � q�,�'k',.': , , �.�.. , � .M �, � .., d xW' 1 4•s•f�`�� ',' ��Ci Tib 1 y yam+ t �, fit' xt.i ( :.'�. 1 F �• Y,i�'`�' �. �` •. i f S £ 'i ,. �> KL St .:�'� s .� JR4, r1 d f R, t :i W. r r k� s .may ✓ ,} s 7 t; .,,ia,--' 4� E.r � y �' r 'n ..W''� ,, �f, �� fix. Y"�t � t.;}' �tl. �� $ ,.�, x Y •i4V,y '�37"Mq`' cif��"�' � t� � § x' '�' !.3 4 h �k�4 <.., i. M,t��'g�. jtk, '��•'+n� � �; .. 1 q ;tea s > ro ky.. :,}ecd'«a Ory 3;4n r t�4y r `• ,� :i` i c � i - qc3�EJ �7 �r kx�1> �F'S'!w r,�•4 a:`Wc'�,«.��,`'' T.. txr• � l� ,^- .• ,. !} t',. :�,� M � ,fin+ .. A >R e � y .k 3 f t: t: F: E E F: t: 2: 'r a 1 1 , MAR1N ROAD o J � S cil r") A C7. 3 w , 1 1 1 t „ 200' CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS lEEIIP!!liE•EEE•��u!!1llEfEEEIEEEEEEEEEE� l1+EEE�E•lllEE•if�EEEEEEEEEEEEEEwwwEEElI�ErEEE•EEEEAEi�Et/!��/ /��saEEEEs�EESE/EEEEE�aIEw�IESE_�lirElwnliw!/��aEEEEEIEEEEE•E4wwil�!!�_EEEs�EEEErEaE��cEw /EF4►l/rEl/EFEE•wEEtEES[iE•E�//i!�■Eiww/EaE:st•EEliE1�/EEEEE/SEE/E�1l�EI�E•rEE•ESEIww/eSEaE•E■■Eft! EEEEZ!*i'#iiE�iiiEEEEEEEEtE�� i�E•�EEE�#EE��E�'� EEiEt�EiE�iEEEE�EEEEEEwE�E•EEEEEEEEAE ��ii#<:iE�E EEEFifiiiEEEEEEEEEt��i'I�iIEEEEEEEI�iEFEEEEEEIiE��EEEEEEEE�/iEbii'� i�fiiiE�iiEEEEt� E<iiEEEEEEEEsiiEt:iE�"!EI��E�i'RIMf�+Ei4�t'i EEEEiEFEEtEEEEf �rEtiE� �ii �E�iEFN�iwww��EE��rI�EF'�►� EEEF'f�iii�iiiiEEf�iEEtisiiE�EEtEe�EEEEEIEE�I�.'"EEE�EtEEEfNliEE2�Fi EEEEE'�4#EEEE�iEEEtEEEEEi� EEEEEEEE•�E�'��ta'��E�EEwE��*�*��EEEEEEEEE�EEEEE�EF74Ew i?FIiEEEiiii�iiE!'�1.7��Et�Ef�iEF�!.�""�s•�EEE�Et�iE♦Ei?i� EiEl�iiEEEt�[E�iE♦EFAMIF•EEiEEiEE��,�`�"'� iiiiEEEEti EF?l� Eifif/E�EEEEE�ii#�EEIEEEEEE�i�E/�E�EE�ESEItE�EEE!!'"�if•I�eS�/�E�iEiF=� i�IiEEEFEEEEkEEE�iEEEEEITs�E�E�E!EEEtiEE•EEEEaEtEEI�!'C"".niEEEEEEtEERiEEi��iiFi#� EEl�1�iEEESiE�iiRSEEEifn�iEEfEEEE�IEEZE�Et��_�if�iFEEESE�E��E�i#i�! �+f EEtES�EYEi�EEEEt+EI�EEEE�'"�.�'ei11�iI�.Ff7iE�iEt�EE�iE:i�i£i ��EE�IEIEEEEEt��tEt:El��rEt�iiE♦iEE�tiE•� E�t�f�r� EEEtiiiiSECTION I i[ �E�EEEEii�EEEEEEEEEEE[iE�EIESE[�E�TEtiE!•E IEiEiii� �Rl�i��E�EiiEEEEEEEEIEE��i��_�Ei�EtiEEE�Et�®[i�R119 IMPM E ii ii ii tE�Ei iEF9 xw"A Et�kli�EEEEE[�E[�iiEEEESE�E�Ei�I�[i�iE[iSiE[i��1iEEl.'*+REEIii'rt1! EEEFiklif•iEEEEEEEi/�E�EEZ�ZZZZZZZEZlE�E<iEEiFFFiFiIEE�i�Eiww��a�."wi�i#ii%!� Et�d:�# f� �E�<Ellil�iiiE��Et�1i�i!►'/�iEE} Ei�'¥# i�EEEE�iE�E�iiElliEE�iEIt�EE��,..�.aiEEEEEtI•iE�*! i�EE��iI�EEEEEEEEIiiiEE��it��iii�E(ZZSEifExFi l• ii��iEEEEE�iF�i_EEEEEEEI�;"iE#�EtE[iF�iES!�fiiEeE��it� �"�l�f�EEEEEEE•E[�iE�E�iEE�[Is��--i�iEE[i�E�i�Et�fil;lw Ei�FFIf�EEEEEEEE#iE�EEf�EEEI��IEE/EEEEEF��EEEEfEEEIiiE��ft�E�Etll�i t�EfFFts �F.t�Et�iE�" 2'!�IEfE�i�t�t!"�11E�i�i��E� Et��t��i�►! iEEtSEtEESE#irt�i►.titiEE[t<SEE�iEEE�E•iEEE�iEEE•Et�iiii E[E1 iSECTION 2 Eiii�EE/iEE��E�t��iEE�ii�i��iT.'i� !(E� EEEESEZIti� i�EEEiiZEEEAEISEEEEiiEiZEtEEEESE[> mw#i'iE��i�iEt�E�E�Er�E�E�EE��it�EfEc� Etl!MM�1t�ii�E�iliE�EIE�t�iE�il��l►.ut.`�iEtllEEii[#1'!• EEIEfFA�E�EE��EEtEE��i��E��E�tE�E�E�vi•��'1EiEA�IttiE£�� i��iilEEZ�El�Z�E�Z�EEISEiiEs�E�iEt��EEFEEF(REEZ�E[!�t>aE�'I&F+l EI�Et�E�iEft�EI�i�Et�EEEE�iI� ElI�Ei� ��iE EEEEf�is�iE�E��EEEEEEEFtE�E[�iE[��iE��E�EtEF�tEEEE��i riF�EE�#i�i�t+� i�fiEE��EEE��EE®Et��,� ��•• !�'"�wiiE�iE{�►! Ei24°iE��FEEEFEEIIiEt�E�E�iE�E�i�iiEE�iiEE�i[{�� EEiJ4![Z�E�EEEEEEEiiiiE♦iEiEEs ilii iEEEfR"""a.:ii.S3EGESE�t�iECt4 Edi'iiAl�f(Z�Et�t>t#.:.iEt�iEF�t��:""'"„�iEE�iEEEEEEEEEEEE�ftiE�E�lEli�f i►� EEEi��Et�'1lf��t�E�E�;:��It�i�EE�iEE�iE•EFE�iEtsiEF�+li tifi�/E�Et�EEII�Ef�wEE�EEE��:�E�EEi�EEEEEI•EEEEEEEE/iEEEEEE�I�i�EEEEIIriEF.'££E� Eli'fi1'/E•iii■'�""*#13E��EEEI��!��E�iS�iS�EEEEi#E�EEEEaiEEEE�ESElE1�El�Ebi+ll Eti��il�iE�.��E�E�iESEEstIEZZ�iEEEEEEEtaEtiEE�EEEE�i iE�Ei+fi� Etiii�ES�E•EEE♦E�E�w�EIE(/wS�EEa■EE:EfllllElES��EIEEEtwI�/ES�EE�I�./S��E�/EEEEEEw�Eiiii! EEi2Z�EZ+i�2+SIIIEI> I�IE�y[rs@`.• mom++i'>A=F=mw • SSE!!<iEf1E/SEiAIs EEEEEEEE/(EE♦lE�ZEZZ�E�EZZ�i��EEEEEEiZEEE#�EEEtSEZEEElFE�E�Ett�EiilSEE9#i! E�lFf�E�EEE�iiE�EE�E�EEFEEE�iiE�Ellll�it�E��i�� EZZZEilGZlt��EEEE[EEE!ii��E[iiilllittt�iEEE�E�E�iE�E�!fE/t:Ek#�llA ' Et(E#�iiEEi�itt�E�tt�i�E[tlt�E�iiiEEi�I:E[tA}.`!REEEE�EFii# iitE�t��ii�I�itt�i�E��i�EiliEf��E(#��i!�"'_R Ef:�kE(• Eii+�E[t�FEEEEEEEI�i((t�E��[El��i�Et�itii><�EE��tEi��+�”��iEti�Eii*� tEii4lEEZZE�EEttE�i�EEEEEEiiE[itt#i[�Et�iE�iE�t!��EtaEl��Etit�E�EFi!'� EEE�iiEiiiii�EEi�iitttt�iEEEiiiEE�EEii�iri wwws�E•�Eit[SES►_'iEEEEEEEEEiiEE^?+S EEEEf�1�iiEErEEI.1>ZZZ�i�IEEEEsiEEEEtI�i�E�EiittiiEE�l•��:.�ii EZt�i�E�ki� EEEEE'Z4:iEtE>�E�ti•E�E�iE#�I�IZ�E�EI��I�i�!�<t�[ti•i�i»EG�+-i Etl<i4#tEEtil•i[ZE•[Z�iEEEE�EIi E[t�iE[t�/i EEiII�!��ZEtittttt�E�t�iE�E�i4EEia E(t�A E�i EEEEEEEE•F��E�i i E�i<i!��i»��titA Eit�EFti�EEE E�(�Ei�Ei?i ZEii IEEZi� EEEi stlis/EEIIS�iIi �EEit(t�r�E* SiNi�„ E.iLJisilittllEZEZZ & EEEEEFF/ESSEE�EIIElFtt•StlSSEEiiEEi�E(t(SE[iISiE�EEt�I estIS�ZEZ�S�ESltt�l#IZllilt�i�rsN si►ls/rsf•//iEEIiEZEilt/EE�ISIwElrlriillEElaEiaEEi�',�/E�St•SwSi•lrEa�l■lSfeiEES�EFi lilt mk%fi ! EiEEiEII SIEESIIE S�iiE ii E�si•EStiS�EslSiil EFiill f�!ltSltIEsii�" EEtiwflft»i=Ztt�fifEsl11EEaEEFtw_■��1Elrlw�lSlliEit(111111EZEIESIEi/EEE�EESE!■wtlS�llEii:fE1/EEEi1lEEallss,il• MOWS „ilra'fi •_ „itsf•ZSZAEZitESIiEiEEiitttttEiE�Ei townt��"_.rM!#EEEiii•iEt�iS�iE�Ei�it�iiitiEFi+� ��E�EEE�S��ESE��EE[ZfEEFI�EF�S�EEStiE�Eiiiil• Ed:�T(�'��+]!��':+�iI:�L$iL:�i�iF[+�L:�•"ems:*�'��i+�'.��:rte::iEF�1�P[>�iT+Eta • �iE�EEEE��EI�EiE�Ii�EE��E� EREE��EEEEEE•EEEEEEEI� EEEEEEEfEI�IP� E�#Eili�liE�li•tE!!!i•�E�EEE�E�E �EEEIiE•EEEEE��EEE�EIF�� EEEEiEEEEE ��EEEEEEEEttEiEEEEi��Erfl �.wIw'�ERI�EETEE�F�►� EEEEEE/�EEiff�EE�E�EE��EEEEEEEiEEEEEEEEi�EE�EEE w�,w`�►�l7EI�ESE�Ei+�� l�t�#� EEEEEEAEE� EEEEE�EEE�EEEE�E�E��EE��Ef�!'w�tf EEEEE/Eiw`:.'IEEEEff�!i4+� EEEi}Fi�EEEE�t�l�EE�l�� ERE�EEEEE�EE�EEEE��EEEEEEti_E—!��"-"'�'��iE%il:� EtiihlEEEE•�EEEEE�EEEEEEMEi•�� >EPEE•EEEEEE•iE�ii��iE�.��RFiI iii'iEE�EE�EEEEEEEtEEE��E��E'��EEEEEEME�! Ew�.�;e� ��#'+� Ei��E�EE�EE•EEEEE�E��"�R"er""".."■"�"' _�.r+��EEEEififEfl EE�E�EERE�EEEEE�E�E�EEEEIEEE�E��fIEE�"':�al�EE� IiEEEEEli EiEEEIErE��IEE�If�EI:EE�E�EEEEE11EE��A ��"��EE�t��EEr�Ef�Li4� Ei�iIEE•��liE•EE��E/r7EEEEEEE��El�"�EEEEf EEEEEEEIE•EEEEEEEFE�E•EEE�ii�s� �?#!!7E•�l�E7EEEE/E�EEE�'��`tEE��i��EEEE�EE�EER�E�i?ti �r*��E�/.�E•EEIf�Rlsl�"..:��E�tIEE�EEEIEEEEEEE•EER��i�i7i EEEiill�EEEEEEAEE�EE�EEiffEEEEff�t��Efif�EEEf�w�EEififEfEA�EEE�EE�EEE� �E�IEffEfEE�FiR EEi�if*iiEE�E� EEE�EE�'�►EE�EE� �EEEEE�� E�EEE•E�EEE��t�EEEEEIwFir� EEE%?f�l:�EEs�k�?EsiEEEEiEEE�t==�E:��EE:iEs�tEEEEEE/EEEEEEiEEs�EEEEE��E�rl� ief#��EIEEEEE�IIE�E��'""'"—��r�EEE�EEIEEEE��EEE�� E��£+i Ei£iiE�R�REEEifEtiE��7�R7��5iFs�RfE�EEEEEE�EE��;�� Er�Eii EEEEi��EEEiEEE�EEEEEEEtEsEEEE�EEEEEEA�tEEEEEEEFE��EEEEEEE��EEiEEE�EE�ibi�i E��EEEEEEEI�EEEE�EEEE=EEEEEEEEEE)� �E�EE�EElEls�—EI:EE•��iiii • EEEPIIrIE�E��EEEEEEEI�EIEREEE�jEEEEEEEE�E�EEEEEEEtEEEEi��R'��EE��l1�i EE/!Ff E�E�EifEEEEIEEEEE�iEE�EiEi�E�EEEE�EiEEififfEfA�EE��E�EEEEIE•E��E��i lEEEEE�EEl:�EEEERE/EEEiEEEEEE•l�EEEEEE�E�EE�t�l�l�EEEEEEEtEEEEEEEIEEE�EEE�EiElEAEEEEEE!!e EEEi'fi��EEEEEEEtREEE�EE�E�E!'��EEEEESEfifififififif/EEEE��EEEEElf EEEiEEs�EE�s1EEEEEE/EEE�1EEiEEss�l EEi+►TEEEEEEAE�E�EE•I�EE�E•EfEiEE�EiEE��I�EEE�E/►�fr��EEEt�EAE ��#� EEEFiff�EEE� E�EfEEAEE•�E�E� E�EEEEEEEtEEEEEEE�/�•��EEE�EEM�' �E EEEEEE/EI��EiEEEEE�EE��EEl�EEEE��Ess��EE�EI�wuw'ewi�Jw4EEEEi EEEEEEEtii4! E�EE�E�E��EEE�EE�E�i�—�E�EEEEEEEtC�'��E�'�IfEE��Fi'+� EfEEk�Ei�Ei•Ef•EEEEiEEE�EEEE�E�EEEREEEwE�EE�7��EEEEE�E�IEEEEER:'-r�iiEEEEE��f�+i iifEE�iEE�EEsiEEEEEiEEt�lM040 Moms EEiE ! ...�^`.:"rws�iiEEEEEE•�f � Esi�lRR�EE�E��E��EEEEEEf�E�.;...►sw7i/®!"ice!�E�15.11ET/#E�#E�E�Fi4� mpffEEEFY?lEE�EElEfE� EEEEEEEtEEEEEE/EEE�EEEEEEEIEEEEEilEEEE�iEEEE�lEE�#� iEEEEFEEEEEEE)EEE�EEEEEi�EEEEE�ffF� Eii}�� Ei��EEEEE�EEEE•EEEEEEiII#E�It4#Ll11IIIII!.�E�EE��EEEE� EE��EEEEEiiil� EiF�iEEE�EEi� EEE��EEEEEEEIEEEE•E�/R��.:��EEEEEE•EE��EE��E�EEEEE��F,# EEE +(iEEEEEE•EEEEEE•E�EEEEEEECEEE�EE��aitll!!.r��E�� E��E�EE�E♦�ii'i M' Ei�EE•E�E��E�#R"..�#�"""=��E�EiEEEEIEEEE�EEEE�IiEE•E•E•E�EE��FiFi ii+}!lEtiEEEEEEEIEtiEEEEEEEEEE�"�,e��'�E�EE��EEEEEEEIEEEEEEE�� fw's"e'""'t! F fS�EiREiEEEEE!>E• EEEEEEIEEE�EiE�EiE �i2i EBF.!!E•E�iEEEREEFi.� EEEEE•�E•�iE�E�EEEE�a•EE��fE�EEEEs��i+� SECTION 6 iii'i��E7EEi�E�E•�EEEEE�EEEE�E•EEE�E� >Ef�iEEEEEEfiEEEEEiE•�ii�i EiSii��E�EEEEEEEEEEEESEEEE•IEEEE��#�E��EEEEEA�EEEEEE� EE�Ef�E•#iii IEEEEEEEEE��E��EEE��EEEEEE•��I�E�EEEEEEIE�� !1!� �F'i� EEEEEiE�EEIEE�EEEEEIE�EE�E:EEE��EEE�EEEEEEEI�EEE�I�E� Eclf� EEEriF�E7E��EiEEEEEEE�EIf�E�EEEE�ifEEEEERREiE�E�EEiEEEfiffElREE�E��1�4�! EE!li�lE��E�EEEEEEE� E7EEEtEEEEEEtEEEEEEA��EE�Er�EE�iEE�EEEEEE!!�^�1#f� �EEEEEEEiEEE�EE�lEEl��E�EEEEEEEiEEE+��EEEEREEETEEEEEE•EEEEEi�E�EEE��w��"'�E�! iw�E��EE�Ei��Eil�E��E�EifEEEi��tEw►'�>�E�i4FEr EEE[i+lEEEEE=lE�EEEEEEIEEEE�EEEEEEEtElE•EE�EEEEE�EEEEEEEi �E��EEEEEEEfE�EE�EEEEEElEE�E��='�� Eii+iEE EEEREE/EE�EEEEEEEE IE !_ti�#►�Tr�. �.Ef got EEi��#��EEE�EEEER•�EEEEEwE�w�'�� EEE��E�#Ei��:er��.�.��i# SECTION i4+k#E�EiEE�>�EEE��EE♦EEEEE•/'�i►�r�w41E�E�l�� '" '��_!E'i�f EEEfi4lEl�EEEEEEEiEEEEEEAEERE�EEEESEE� "®•sem�sr�rri�Ef�E#�"":�aIEEEESE♦�Eltf lf€t�ii�! EEEia#�EEEEEE•EEEEEE/EEEEEElEEEi1��1EEEEEE/EEEEEEER Es�E�'�""��E�EEEEEEaEE�El�EEEEEE/EEEREi�EEEEE�Ef�# EE�i##EEEEE�EEE��.�►tf��EREEE�EEEEEEEi E#1�+"'"5.�iEE�EiRSsil�E�Eli��IE�EE�EEEEE�EEIEE•;•�i EEifi�FfEE�ElE•REE��.wt�E�E�a�!"'...srlEEEEEEEi�EEE•Efiff�EfEfEfEER Ali lEifE• iie EREFi�EEEEEEEiEEEEi•EEEi#E�1EEE�E!�/EfEffE/'.I°�EEIEIE•E��EfifififfEEE1EEEEE��E• E�;Ff'�(iE�EEE�EE�;�""�+1/EEEEE•EE!>EEEEEEIEE��E�E�E�E�E�EEE�t�E�;�iFf� EEEi+d�Et=''*�"=�t�t��It�EI��EEEEEEr�EififfiEfifE�EEEEEE�EEE�I:�EEfEERER��I��i4� E�ifiiE�EEEEE�EEE��[S�]��iEEE�ERE�EifEff�fEE�EIE�i�EfEEEfEAifEEEEi��E�T� EEEiiii��EEEEEEEiEEEEEEE2EEEEE�EE�EEEEE�EEEiEEE��EEEE��E�E�� E!•Eii EEEEE!EEs�EES EEi E�EEEEEEi EEEEEEEt EEEEEEEI EEEEElEE f E�Ei��lE�� EEi�s l�E�11 E EEEEEEE2EEE EEl:EEEf EEEEiEEEEiEEEEEEREEEEEEEiEEEEEEEiEEEEEEEIEEEEEE!EEEEE!!EEEEEEE#EEEE: E�E� W4iW �IE�Ew��EEEEfifif/EERE�EEEfifif��E�EEE�EfEfiff��E/�E�EEEfifif�E�!N�� E�i�EEEE�EEEEE!>E�EEEEEEEE EREr EEEEEE/�E�E��EEEE�E!:!t`'�EEEEEEi� �'� EEE~a+IEfEEEEEEEfEEEE/EE��EEEEfrf�!'EE�E�EEEE�EEErE�EEiEE�fEfEEEE/p`T"'�"`1E•E�E�E++! �/EE#�EE�EE+EE�EREEE�E�E�EESE�EEE�IE�EE�EEs�EEEEaEE��I�EEEE��"'�"""'Ef}9# EEi�!#EiE�EtiE#fE�E�EEEA�EI�EEEiEEE�EiE:�IE��aw;�,.:..ir�EE�i�#� EE�EEEE��EEE�ER�EESE�E�EEEESE�E+EEE��Es�E�EEsi; '✓r/��EEi•Eii+t MPU*4EEE•E�EE�Et IEE E!'EEs EEE RETE•EEs�EEEEE��i«�".�„ir��ErEE�EEEEiEt Eitxi�EEEEr�EE�Efs�EE�E#EfE��I�EEE��"^'" .��wEEEEREIEEEf�a �EEE S•EES Esq�EES E�E!E�iE�1:.�.i�Ei E�E�EEE/ F�)�EEsi�EES Epi A'� Ef EEEr EEE EEEEi E��EEE '":n�!Ei!•E��EEEs��E�E�E�EEi�i i'+ ii!!EEE EEEEEEEE EEE Ei E�EEE##��"�i��Ei•Esq EEEE�EEi IEEE E♦E�EES E F?t! EEE�16lES�E�E�E�E�#"",•u111Ets�REiE�R�EEEEE:E�t��ff��EEREE�� i.iff EEEEEEEI EEEEEE/EES�EEEEEEs EEEEEEE)!E•EEEEEi EEEEEE!!�EEEEEE/��EEEE�E•��EEEt�EEEE�i EiEFi hi i E�t�EEE i�E�E ESEE�E:Es�E�E:E�EEEEi E�EES EEEE��EEE•Estes�i NE! Ei�l+l�E�E�EEEEE•�EES t#�Esq E�E!�EES�EEss�EEEEEEw�E�EiE•EES i?t� Ei F►!EEE EEi R�Esq EEEE�EEE �E#E+�i�/�EEi�E�#�E7EEEEi Eta E� E��ETy �F+lEE�EElElEE��IEEEEE#fEEEE��RiERiEEE4EEE��lfEEEE/� EiiEEi�EEEEEE�E�EE�E�fi+ �wE�EE��REEE�tsiE�EE#E�Et�REEEE#EEs:EEi�EEEEEEEIEE�EE�EEEEE-EEEE�EEEiEE�iii;� �+��EEEEE�E��E�E!'EE:#i♦E�E�E��EEEs��EE•EEsiidi� Vii:�bi�21%�I[�ti�Li�f��ii=;�.•�:�i��i•r�'.r�>+��[:+�iI>�T: ! ��ww�■[t�[�ai�i��i��t��twiritt[t[ter[tMwwtt[t[[�tt��t�tii�awtit[[[it�w��ie�i t[�tt�iti+ttrw��tttiai�r[[�.�i�ttii�t�tiwtttt�ai�w��titA[�itito�t[itttt[[��[[[t[[�t► e �r�+�tri■��t�witttttt�[t�t�i��iiuttn[[t[t�ttttniinstttttt[�iw�t�tt�ii��t[t�ttr�^�t[[tnii�t��[[[[t[�� iiii�t�wt��t�ttt[[�[i[Rtttttititt�t�iastt[[[t��tirt�iiwE :�if��iittt�tri�,�,� w�+r�tt�i>•�i�tt�.�t[�[t[��tt��i�t�it[ttitw®t�ttwit��c•tt�tw��ti■�[ t[ttttt[tt��itttttt�wt�rttti�t�■it[ttttnttt�ww tt[iswitttttt�iwiu[t[tt�i,..,�r�t�w�itt�i[r i�in�tist[iw�iit.tt��ttitttt[ttt��i +�,tit,�t[i�e�iit[[�w�iEttni�[ft®i�t■. -.,,t�[t�+�t� tMsa.�t[ti�t�t[i�tt�iit[�w�t�it[t[i[t�t�i ,rte.,rn�t■n[t[t�t[�tt�t■��iE�--.nit�i�s�:a.� t[[r��tr•i�iwt•ittt�r�f•itni[tiEtt.;�.�.�wtE�t�ri�t[[[[t�trf�t�±�--•�o��ui�w4�iwt�+�t wis�at[t[tti��itt[tt[�[[mitt[[i�i�trt[[ni�ntttittt�t�t[[��ttt�t�r•---�-_�...ii�rt■�■ittt�wtt�i[ttt�ws�i ��ri�t�t�i��Ett[t[��i�attttitt��irt■[■.••••� ;.��ttt[[�r[rt�t+��,Fyztit�t��tsr rtt[it�na�■Ett[t[teat■tEt[tttt��trit�tn�a�[�.•��,�u[[i�[�ittt[[[�t�it��tt[�it� tssrttt�itatntirttaititttttttiaait�t�-.�w�ttattttlttiittttt[itaetttttt�tttttt��■t�t�t[trtitttttiai�ttr•�� ts.�atiat.ttattt�[rtt�tttttt>ta[atint�t[+•"—,�t[t[t�ttt[atit€�t�ttt�attaww[ttttttttttiitri�att.tywais[tti. tiettti[rrsat ��nat�ttiit�ttatttt�tatttatttttt�tttaat�t[t[t[�ttttt�..�tattiti.awiitt�aaiatrit[ntwa■tittria,�ttii�tw�:�t ttttttt•tt[tsaaittttt�ti�tt�tttttittttt�ttt.t�tt�titttnt�tt�tittttttt�tttit�itt�nt�t t�itFaMt■ i�+��aa�tt[t[t[ta[itaitttttt�atwurt[tttt[�t[t[witta■■atwrit[t[t[it[i.t�tit_tttt[r�t�ttaittttttitc.�wt i��tt[ttt�ai■ttt[t[�atttanw�ttw�itti.ttttirtttt�stttntiwtttttit��ttni��atatt�t�itttttt�tyit�ttttt�tti rts��ttwitttattatisn�tatttttt�tatit�t[t[tta�ttttitttttttttti■ittn�ttwitttttit�[[tiattnirt��ttiutta�ttr�ra tttr�at�t�ittt[t�tittiwitiuta�i�tttttt�ttttt[t�tiwt�aittt[t[tttztttitttattttit■nir,[ntiitttttit[t[t[aa�atttittt�tr tt[twattttta�tttitt[tttttaw�it��wtttntttattt�[ttttt� I-tt�ttta�tttatawwistitt��tt�itttitittrtrgars ■ri�x47atF�MEiz:<lirbiiilafa[Ei)tiFz.�ttE;•7t:;>•t[.;ii�irr•SiRi :7t[tttc;�it��»a=i[.�iFzaiil�.w SECTION 9 ttttr"ttttttttta■ittttttt�ti�ttt,itt�awaw�tttttat�t■tt�t��t[ttt[t■ttia[�aw�attt�tttt�ttttt�a�tttttt�ttfw�tttttttta�rFt�e tttt�fat�t��t�tttiat�iattt�ti>lt �t�t��ttttittttiiaatt�awirr•Fsa�t �Rl�t��t�ttia�#t��tttif�t�t-il�ta�ttttii��Pf! ttt[r+�.ai�at�ttnit�ttttaiwttiRti�ttuw�tt[ti�ttt�t�ttitt�ta�tttttatttwii�et�iattaatttittttit�«+w >�+M%lttt��t>iw�li>♦t�[��i�it�lif��ti�t�i�tttiiii i�Gtlt�taaat�tit[a■ittt�tstttttt��l�tt��■atittttttt�aa�itttirtttiuttil�is�c� tts�+a�ttiit�iwi■ittt�tiiatttt�iati�.tw®tittttttittt�twit� tt[tianitttttt��tir•� t�i�Ff t�t��1itE�i��»�tai��t��ttt>•taitF?*� nowt lt�titR>�t[tit �tttiitl ttift�i tt�t � t �tF� s�iiiawt�wtittti■Eiiw�et,tit.itti■.��atet[teaiiattwitttttt�a�.i�it.i�irt►�+�tt ��■��ai�ia�it[�itt�tte��t.■t�ttti�titttttaaewr�tttt�rttttawi>•�ttit�ttirttaatt�tttis�.,tat �'��ttttttt■ttti>�t��t�t��tl.��►�'��ti�ttttiti�ttti��ihi +mmf-i[iataai■[�tiatiittitistt �tiittttitt t�tiittttt�tt[ .tt�r�ttw�tttiaaaa�[tttti[�t��tiiriwa tstat�ti�ttwt[ttit�ttti�tttt�ttttitttn.awte-[a�nitai[tea•u,..,i..trotttttts[i��.attnttttitnt�ttt�itr ►ww iiFl tiiF tit ittait i t�lltw.'+••■•�r Ma ==Mmwu Ji i 1+F�l�itlt��t�tati��llt�i�� c="'�es�t•tttt_it[i tt[xiit•��tEd+�� iSi�t�t��t�titttttiatttttiwttittttiaaaa��v�iawi7� ■tar• ttaatwtiafttttit�t�tt�twatti�it��a■�tttttt�i■�r•nnttttttttt�tttitttt�a�ta�t�ftttttttwiaaf"m tatwati�ttittttttai�a■t!•t111aitttttliti�alUalli��fitttttatlt�aia�fwtii��®�f�iit�y� iI I»fI1�EC+iF{+iDa:'�ii�:+i1<+i�•tit�•sit'.�it?.ii•iSb:+iYiiE!+i[!.iL:fli�i:«i> SECTION • trEF[�tt��ai>•ttfsiat�tatttt��aw��ra�tw■�arwtt�a�atwt�titti�ttr.tttt�i�a■is•iattt�a�titttt[��t �tttFai■tetitstirEa�iiAstti�ttttiinttt ti[�t�ttittis�tEtttttwitai.ttttttaa�tttttirntntti W#Fm [ttt�t�itttiti�tatttt[t�a�aitt��wi�atiitttaa��i[��itia[[tttttnnnattttttwitt�»wi��sttite,�ata taa�cait�tiaatatu�ta>•irwtttittttsa�ttitttttitaaitttti[�t�t�aR[w■iiiittiii�tttttt�a�aittc�a� ttE ttittttwititt.■tit[�[ttr►,►� Wit[apt•wtwatttiatnatti[ttttiatttiat �tttiiaattt�n�i�nwtwita*44M t�»�twiait�■ntitatiir�►��t�twiantti�attiii�w�t�ti�tiiia�t[att�iar�tiir�attitaatt�s}:,i i{*� tttitatia�/tome.:1�iittiiigw�ia•[at��t�wtl�aiaa�ai�ttr��tati5444M ��.— +�taEsii�tt�.ws�iistttitttitaiattttr� '7� tattirttti ttti�*Ww ttfi•Ffttttitttttitttlr•— ..ttt.�t�auwts[iwta�iai■a�at��ttqtr-� swtititttt��attis•twstFa aiw"1'tltiftt�� i:��,E"'...._n�ltt��o�l� �w+w..��ti!•�tt�it�[tt[i��ts.?t� it� �tttti��SSJt:tit�#�ii.:._"��®ieR�'*,.! MIFWAtttttttalit� � � t�tllMsi "�11�1 t•r 1�1• aitt!`�A•tt i> tfi* filAtti[ttt��ti��t�t��i#�r.'"al��la"t• e"_,. �i1EtFN� i�;+�tatttiatttt�tttttiiaa[itattwr�atttiii�tt��w[stistttita�tttt�to[tn■■�es:t•ftt�w,�.ttittaitFr�a i� t�tti��i��ia�titttattAnttitwiitf�•tttit1tf11�ttttattilt.;itw�•tt ":��ttttttgtlf�tF ! ts+«ftttitttiii�ttt�attttaa�tiat# .twit.taiii�ntii�t�t[ti[t�iit�tt�itc�.�tatti�itttttits �ta i+iittti�ti��■wii'tti�wni�tttttttttr,ntii�sirtttnta■tietttttt�lattittt�t�tiatttisaatat�tc�r�tt ��st�t�tawaatntitttwitwiauisaatt�i��tnttit�tntttit��ii�nta�rn�[at�t�tt[i�ri�tis�tt•tc�tt MWW4 i1.!!i[i�iEa FZ•i[:+i?=.+�=•�':�t�'-+1��<fit{�it•+�., • tttitttt�t�ttttt�aaa�iittwt� �tt�t�t�>��t�tilt��t�t!*Pi ttt�st�tantittitatitwttttrjtit�n�t�titattia�ttt�t�tittt��ttiattttitetttitaaiiititta�ia•t��et+itt �f�4ti�lt�t�ttttitt�»a��t�t��t�t�1�t��t�t�l��Y+ t �ttifllt #tttti�� tt� �tttii>et�tatttt�t�fa+! ��t��tt�tt��tilt��t��t�t�tt�ti�� tii!FttiEti>tttt[itt�ti#l�� ti>t �t �la� i ts4*4uiittttwat�i#[atwt��.tt�t�aa�ti�tti�at�at[wrta�iti�ttrtta�t�ttw.i��tattatttttt�tRwiw>.aatia�+it ttt�,�>.tit�t�attt�[�tii[artitt�tt��ttt•ttraift�i�tti�tntt.�tttitaitai��u[twtit[t�wwtttttt�ts�+�.t tttiii�itttitttitttt�tl� s;.��'��It�t�tifti�l>♦e,.Ai'�tlt•tilwttl�ti�ttt>ifi4! attar atttanaittiaRti�tti�ti�it[omm ..rr�t�itA��R�ittttttt�a■a�tttttttltts-tttt[ta>•tttttt�ltiar�tl IMP l tttt t� tit t t i.�" ::�tA��1•# i>lt� ttil�ititEf +i �"tt�ttti��t�titit�t�t�t�siiA�""!"�*+,�'"q�t�A71!:.�a��"SiifFii iii#�iNtt�t�tttnatfraattwttta�tt ti■Rtaitrt�ittti�!L5e1#�4..'*'�i>!"�:*a�t ��" ti�tFif# tl i 7f*�ti*t��i1!tii t�t tii�s�1�i!��11►'+l��!�t+�l w.+"^�r�t�tie? � �(ititit tt tails [tti tt taxiOttaa1fiit tii! lF � > �� tiii ft�aiwi>lEiist�[ i�ltti>i�> ttt>itGii� i[+�TiEI"iii.�k!�>i-+ii%.lam'➢ititts'.+tom SECTION �+�rrrwl�� rwrr r#�r�rrl�rrr�r�r�r�lwrr� sr�rrrlr� l�llnim ■■er r�r�rs �rrs rrw�rWMM rn�n�w�rlww�rrtr�rlrrrrrr#ir�l�nr��r.�rrrlw. lr��rr�al�llr�arrr��r�!■rr�r�srrlwrr r c�a�■rl�w■r rlr�r�rrrw�r�rwl lrr�l�wrrt�rr�wmmm evavm W4 r ��l r�lrl�rs#rwlr-�l�l lrrawr�l lail�rwrlr� rslit� rlr�lNlwrl�■r��r��l�rr�rlwv*9m l �l�r#rr��r�rri�►.�#!�^��r�lrwrsr�rrrl�rlr alrrr�wwr�r�lri�rrra�+�r! �rr�lwrrE�Mwr-��r�r rs1MraltiA�iw.sis>w #» 1��'1� trrr•Illi i i# rs +�lrwrl>wr ""Mon ri�r�r�r�r�t�+?`lF�r�rrr�NI1��Rl1iw*"MINEl�i�i 1�[w�11r��lrr��r�r�i#+1! �,,,��rr1r1ls1�l1lsslr�rrrrr>Err�rlrrrr�r�ls#��11�� :7si�."'"4!:,"�1�Ar �lltif,��tr"".�nll�r�iii�R #r1��11iw1��ul�l�rrwlr�lr�lMrr11�1r1lir!lwrr�rrnl�rrrr111srr�rlll.,,,1�.._e"■r.�11�!_�..�rrrrrlrrrllll�racs i�t�r�r ��rr��r1>rr>l�� rrr>>tr�if'�rrrnwsrr.rrlwll�lra� I�FTi�il�ri:iit 'I+. �,i��:w ate:>» .��€�4»�'�La*"iFtrLI+�i(1!I�I Ie�X:•>!� 1.c.+:�tr1s #lsr nlrrrr�11�1r1�#rrr1l�..t�.+ ■ � r ■lrrrr lrl�rml l�r�lrrrrrrwrr�wls,rr®s+wdm r�i�#rwllurllllslrr"::!1111��SMI 1�rArl� ilM# i�.'�# �I�I� �ri �.K� �M"--_`"""�i'�'r'i�'.r/�#��INI�r �►�►•w!r:�r��r�l�f7+1� r»1 ��rrr> 1P�«"�111 # r M11•I�yrilrr I= MOM*i2�Esrrrlr3"Lt iriyi�.�w�r�►=rslrN1» fi4 #irrlrl�rrr�!lrr�r�rrrrrrrl�rrlrr>t.wrrrrla#� i��e�...^w�r�# r»#�t��rr�i2i"# lr� �� rrN>I�r»��vta�.�l#1r1r��1111rr�rr!#wrrrrrrrrrrrwrr�f�ls r� Ar�rllri�lll11alr�!!■1lirrrl�r�11lrrrlrrrOSKCI�Ii*iM�liew��i�rrrrrl�rrnw�.:lrtlrrs�rrl 1rrr+1lrrurlrrllr.l�lrl�rr�Erl�lrrwr�lrlr�rr�lrlr�rl■lr�lrrrllli11111lr!!l1�rr�t.-«r+.�„^"�1.i��r��:"wll� iil� r1sr�rl�rer�rl�rrririrrrrlrrrlr�rl�1lrrrrrrl �1r#!r�lr�rir��w1�11l1r�llr■tlnrl�rlrrrrrirrrr!lrwrl#s iiii l> r r r r i» N i-Amw A rrrllEi T+,�k$�1'L"i1�t��l�I+�•+�{��''i ��'.1>>��+�A'�+I�� .�[i+1>�Fti�iR[i�4�il l>>!Ir[. '� !#n�!liwil�nlr�lr�lrr�!!lrsrrrrlllr.rl�lt�rEll�r�1�!lrrwrw�rlmwlar111�r�111rlrrranw�r�rrlslrl�rr�rrr� r»llr�lwr�lrlwsrrlltlrrrrll!#rrlrrrrmrrrrr�wrl�#�>1�� r�#� {F�l11rr�l�r11lr�rlrll�!!!•1rw srlMONOr�rr#11rr�awr!!#�1Nlar11�1r�1Ear�l�urrrw!r»■1rrlrrllrrr�r #1 a Irl r�elfij� r1 r r s W464M '!'±t3rr��wr�►rwll�AAwlr�rl�sr�llr�l�r�Mllrr�rww�r'rrr•1�rr1•llrr#rw ! ar;Fal��wl�lr�r..:•�1!!al�lrrl�llrr.� rrr W++!m »N^!N #�r��Mar,..M"u111r1��rlRl�l��m � r �� t� 1�H � �rl # #�� +rrr1!lE1l lss�rrwr�rlrwl�rrrx.4.�11�..� E�!■re1�r,1.r�11rn111�r�1rr11rr�urs• lrr� rsrr rluillwrl�rs +lr tlAia4lA1r�1r1�#1llw� ralll�rwlle.wrlirrlll /!#11�1sr�1#w�lrl #lAr�w11r1r1rl1�si4w rira+�rrlrrrr.rrrin�l�lrrr�rnrrrr!l11111r111■� �r1ls•r1r.lrrlrlrl��ll�r•rlltllwiwwlr�r��lr�lrs•rrlrlr�lrlrrrr■rs« wra�sl.w�1�11�1111■1r111�1ir1wwr�rarwwl�rrlw.:,.�wr■��.:..:�"�*++.#1�1r1�rrrllr�r111i#r�rlr#1r11■r1r�1sl1r�r11s�+�r1 rwrrrrrwrrrrr,�rr�Mr■1rr�M!lrlwrr�lrllrr�l�rr�r�rl1:..��**1yl�w�rri.:=.�""�rrrlr�wwl�rr�rr�ll+lrwrlll�r#s ls�sr1r�11Mlallrs �!3llrsrl�M11#ws�..rlal�rll�r�lrrrl�i �11�n!>,11w•1�,.:-"��"'s•"�'"-"�! WMWf4jj�A1r� l�R �l�rrllrAl� laN�l srlll» r'o��Iw r �lA»R lr1rr11� � wF #w�r1�!■rr�rrslMrNlrlrlrrl�rrrlr.rlrrrr�r�rr�lr�slrr�sr•wrlrel.R*rrllw•r�lwr+rrrlrl�r�l�rrrl�rriw �r�rlrrsl�rlr�t�lrlrlrl�r�lrw■rrsal�lrlrr��rrwrlel�r�rr1ll►—alrr!#�1l �rrl�trllrl�r •r�rr +w -+-��rwl�llirrlllrr!lllrlrri�r�rrlr�lreaurllr�rr��lwrr�l�r■rr�rui■�1r�mwr�r�luull�rrl1.^"��1w11rr�:aril�ls-�rlrl�rsr«�s �r..rles.lllrlr��lrl�tr�r�#1�r1rr�1�r1a11l1�1r111�11rr�all�rl�1�#�lrulr�a.�1■1r1►-�s�^..�rllrrE�l�rlfa++w rlr11lw111r�r�rlrr�rlrrMll�lrr+��1rw��rrrtlw�rrrrrl�r>.1r1w#r!ll�rl�lr#llwrlr'11:�r��1�lilrruAwr�ar� rrs�-+r11�trlrrrrrrr�rult�r��/�rR/1r�rll�rMl�r1��l�rArl�e �N��w1si11�■lf�ifi� l:S�ttI+7��'C*�Ft+»I:�•'�^.: `"]��•+�'.r :t' �r��t11�#'�i�i#�I4+ I I.�+I':1 SECTION �r1ilnlrrrr�r>,rrrEr�ltnll - ��1r�r��rrrlilrrl�wralu!l��1ln�1wr1�1rrwtrlrrrr�lrrrr!lrrruN r11l11�rrrrrl111lrrllrrr#lsrrrrr>.rr>,#rrtrl��ll�rrlrlw�lrrlsrr�rr�#rlrrllrrrrrt#111rslrlwrirrrrrwr!lr�lrrrrlri rlr-�ilrr�rlrrr�lr>R.r��rrrM�l!".�"'�1I111� rr�rr�l�� r��N�r>r�i�� UWIW* l lei. 11 ww�w�ww..1rY1 r ILII r1 ) � r#/%J� 1 l�w.�ww�lri r #1f M."�r >rr i rr mm=*4 r�fS+FM mw*fRr�1111�MINrr1l� a11�11�1M1#cr6'^+�rrl�lll�ww:... �,willri�11 �»� #1 � r> �11r1�1tMlFv i7�rlr ��l�M��r�t�11�4��r»��.."*�1��1�.�':'�'""°31�r#�M1�1�r�!•a•Itr�+#� #� r� r��r�#1>��M�ri."'��lUtas°nliltr�rrlrlri ��t�"#Il�i� i^�A �F14llA��r��r �•'"�'+«��ewi+�1�11�II�IIN1l�Irr�M�:#1A :#f?4iM �e�r»rrrrrn�l�rrr,111rrr�111lrrn!lrrrrrlrrrrril� r>��.*�ulrli�""*wMMr>��frrY:.i1�i'!lRr��'x't��#H+I� IArt�lf�)•II�rl�rrrlA�rrrrlfrrl�rrrrrrMl�r�1 � �.+1,L�1�is'""�M�i.'"tr>t".IrlCx�ll��lf�iii+lf rrr�rrrrnlrrrrrrrrr>1rr11!l1�lwrrrrrr�IMI!!1rl1l�r1�r�lrrrrll!®rr!lrrrrrrrrrrr>lwa�lr�1�'"«.'-*:1�•9�=f��lr�i•ri! rrrr!lrrwi!l�1Nllrrilr.rrrrw�rrr�lrrwll!lr�rrrlr■rrrrrir!!rl�t�rrrrrrlrrrrurrrrr>f1r11��fifallt lrrrrrll1.luMlrrrlwllal■trr!lrerrr�lls�r»r1�1� r�r��r��t��A rs�rlr�lrlll�lrrr�rrwrrr#rr■11��1wrr�l�rr�1r11rlrl11�1111>trrr�rl�lr!lrrrrrrirrrr#r�1l�1lrrrr!l�r1rl�arrrir'1�1 ISS[.+ E��Pz�C'.)�=t %RI�;+�'t�»>�%* ':1�i�1�•.��t':+�Fi+�LI�[:<I�Y:�Ii•1� SECTION 16 �sww�rta�w�w ��Ew�rE��FErM��E��wEa�E�■��ut■�rF�Fuw�ww��r��F�n�r�s��sr+E� �e,�sarw�Fs�s+�r�E�wruuf•�r��wie��r��E��■r��E�rrt�wwE�wN� ��Fr�riF�NeeF�4+�e :'Now wa�FE�r��EEw►.�� ar�wa� F �Fwr�! �F�w=�tE�r� ��e�■�F�w.�*�E�w��r��,r..��e�wr�wir��E�sMME��E�r�EF�r��a�r��ew�wEE��'iF EFrISE�F: E��■F�rrt•�E�: ��w�r��rLw� ��r�E�Fti.r��+� ��rE�� ■� :. ,�a�wwrE�wiw�E�r��r_�E�wr�rr��earFrrr�w��F�an�w +� �F+ar�R��E■iw�rE�E��FrF��—air.�E��►�►��w�r��aww�ar..��E��F�s•�iF.F� > �RwN�NF��F■rsw, �,►ar��;�r��wa .�w.:�r►�r.�r�F�� Frr■rr�s��FiwEs i��11.lINf•�fA wfffffi��r.r+we..��+r;--...e�.._�SiKi{fiff��.i��ti��s�R�� ii�� E�F�t��r�■��r�tE�E��r�E�rs�t�Es��r rw�r-:*w�rF�r�F��a■�F��Er�r��E�wr��ns�s�+#�r 1f��+�f;•IFS•wlillwf•sall�wH��lf•Ew�lw1�#��N��#Nf�IE. *�+.'�*�EM�IS�a�I��>�#5•�1�#I�iff�E1#Fa�!�/� s��r•r�r�w�w�e�r��FF��ar��r�F��rr�r��srF►^�+��we�rR�E�E��r.sEw�,>rw��s{+�w s _s�E�E�s��tar��tEtwM�FF�wE��E��er��s��reaux+rFwie ::**�r�F�rr.:e�s�ESE�rx+r'�-�s�,a�€ fifififfffffff ff ? I"MmAm I1umTI* ?«+lff SECTION 17 W�Vvmw 11�� [1i 1r. i.:. Mffffffff �Ml#� #S I� �Il�ff�lf i� �Sl#FW i!ii ff xmmI i„"+�� SwF �t {r�' i lfif� ff� !#F"# f�S{� i ��f �� .1""",*Rt � if�#ItiI1MEl�f�•►��if��i�+^� MM�M1��uwl�ummm i�ll��S ��R!iit��'ffff�Rrw_''�*��F►�Sf�f�� 4+� ussm Aifff """" "� "iW�iIFSi2+F iii?� �1� �� 111�/I��I�iw'....,.'•'"'�E�4#W4l�ilSff�piW4� i<XmC;=�Ii< Fi. 2s= • i4Ff:rf /.Ifffff��`='m� fiff�fifAfffffl �f# ��Sfff�llwi„W'^'"�SIFS�F�I+ II��4�Ilffffff��*I�I��tiHIF� 1+lffl�Il�lff 1�11l11�M'•111Af NW. =' aMffff�fl� r f � �"#4 ��i■�,■+��#IFFseii.'!�5�� Sfff� Sfif��it ! � f ■��;f~fff��f�ffiRaiw�!A��+wwli•f�f�f�;��#Filff��lf•lii�+� Ms� ��S��Mt�i.'�+.^++"� �iffff� �Tl< Ii, T-Amit ow t um cImw=« + :t -.ice-Wit OWWANNIft WAPW* SffffffY� if�S�i•�� f��Sf��f4�erA '�F+#�if�11�..!��r►'.�Flfii �r��Sffffff� S��t�i��tiffff�R#�� i !■i{An.ryes+ sii #fffFrn1► #f � wl4fm �e^# �� < L"��+^.�<"'�'�,+�.,°■n�a ��1�.#�"4 ��IM�ff��fE;f�fff�lk�# iTFi� �fffffifM��iffffff�� Ikr.�Ffffff��:,"-3..�..+/ �ffff�ff��fff� iff �if�iffffffff��; �� ff��`+�i�:Mi�S4:<' SfffiN�IiFd4'+� vmwfl �VmwE IIf• s Sfff E fffff Fi+LTi+moi+ fF.+ •+ 1 '* .- '> Vii':+SFE+ C'. Id> FhSf2:+�f • # ��lE��igEE�ifEE�EisEE��E�sl�E�iEEEEE�E�EE�E�E:E�E�E�!!1! E��i�EEEEEiEE��E��E��E�EEEiEEE��EESES�Es�EE�iEyFE� arilEE�E�EtlEEEi�EEaR�■��E�EE��EE��EEEEi�EEEEwE� �£flE��f+�E�Iir,''l��EE•��EEE��E�E■�E�E��E� ��r�rw„'araEl�E�■��.+.w,�sl��ul�El�E�w��E�E.�E�Ewlw�:t■�IRw�Ei� E�4xlE�EESEiprw'!E�E��'FI�EEEERE��E� �EEE��EEE��EEE#EEEE�Ef$# EEFfFi�EEE��EEEZ�EEEEEle�RZ��EE��EE��!+►`��E��E_F4FlEt !�ll��E�E��IEruw"7!AE�EEE�AIE�EA!��wF�'�„��EEEI�EEEE�l� EE1'1'iEEEE��EEE��['S1tt��e•11�I1�1�s�,:..,:�A...^�"'��11E��E�'.sE�e�twEEilE•E�E�E'�EEt �+lEEE��E�E�E��EEEEEI�"�""'��L'•i�C�' ��EEEE��EEEEI�#�i EEFe4°iE��EEE�E�E�EEEE��E��w,""'�'��El�""a�I��Et•�EE��EEE�/�fi �EEEEAE�EEEEEt#IE��E��EEEE�EEEEf�#nw.�'.:�-.�E��1Fn��f EEE EEEt EEE EEEEEi E��EE_��EEEEEI�EEEEEI EES EE►."'*�EES:�("-�Edi!f£r� ��E�E�EEEEEI�EEE��E��E��EE��'�"*��DC•!�!:i�[��# ii+IE�EE��EEEEw�EE�EEEEIEE��E��E��IP:"��lE�i31�EE! �'��EE��EEEEEi�EE��E#!•E�E�EEE��►EEEEEE�i�E! EEiii#EEE��E�EEE��EEE��E��EE��EE�EEEEEIE�EE�E�i#t9EEi EiFfiEE��E�Es E�EEEE��EEE��sEE��EE�EEEiE��EE�EE�EEEEiEEEEEiiFf ' �EEEEEiEEEEEi�EEEEEiE�E��EEEEE��E��EEEE#�E�E�EEEEElEE�E�ii• E�I1��(LCL:•ibi*iib5�a��•E�`.;!�^a�.�:%�°��<i��!iiS btiL*�II•�L��d;•E� SECTION �!�EEEEEi EEEEEi EEEEEi E#Z�EEEEEi E�EEE E�EEEE��E•EEERA i��E� +lEssssIEEEEEi�E�EEEiEE�EEEEE?tRiE��lEEEEi EEE EE�EEi�E�EEEiirE�E�R"iM� EETi�i�EE�EEaw.�ri��1�IfiEt•'��f��EEE��r C+i°�# EEFfi�lE��EEEEEiEE�EE�EEEEEiE�E?1�iu.�.'"41��EtE��E�EEEEEtE��EE��EE�<F�%F EEE E R I��Mmffi E�ii iF#IE�EEE��EE•E��■��>�EE�E•=""'*�11��EE•EEER:+I�E•E�li+! sEr��—e.itE��ii��r�EE�■��l�l��l�lii�iriiE�E> �iwl��w;,:.*+,�wilwE�r:r��sE■l�rs�w i#FEE��E�E��E��E��i �EE��I�►.i� �ii11i/�EEEiE�EEE#EEEEE��EE�E�E� �EEEEiEEEEEIEEEEEiEEss�EEEEEt�E�EEEEiE�rAi EEifI Tirl•I�EL�ii•'�2'.+�+fii•°•��:��ealEElE��a�r:�IE�=�lEllfwlz•�I•ai�iitS•�T s�arszalw SECTION !!11# ��EE�e��EEEEER�E�E��EEEEEI��l�l1E� tE1Fl►! ESE#E�E�E�EEEE�EEEEiEEEEEtEEEEA�EE��EEEEiEEEE#EEE��E#Ei�� E��EE��E��EE�E#EEEiEEE#i�EEEEEiRIr#'� ��E�EEEEEIEEEEEiE�EEEEi�EEEE�EESEEI E��EE��1FtrEEb EEFF �EEEi�EEE�E��E�EEEESE�EEE��EEEE�EEEEEiE�EEssEi�E�E4iEa ' �!•�E�EEE��E��EE��E:��E�E�lF� EES EEEE /�.,sir E E�EEEEEi E�E EEEEEt EEi EES Es# �iE�EEEEEi�EEEiE�EEEw'�'�'��EE�ESE#EEEE�E��EEiE�E�E�EEE#E SECTION 23 WN EEEEE:EEEE��REEEilE�EEE�IEE�EE��EE��EEEEEiESEs��EEEEEiE i YFi�EEEEEI�EE��At�'w��rE�EEE��E�E�E�EEE��EEEEAElEs/�E2+i� �EE�E�I��!r��••� .,.ses��1�IR1w�ElEEE•�E��E��EEE�Ed4 E�6lEEti=�iR:.�➢x�E�kA�.r�>.��.,��;�.._!.�..�E�_•�[ Edi t•E�L:�E�[;•�fd•E�iiIEE� ��!��EES EEE♦��EES EES EES�i�Eisi�E•EEEEEw�t�� E�E EES EEIE#EES EEE �EES E � EES�EES EEEi E��EEEEEI E��t EEEf Pf E�E��EEEEEZI E��EEE E��EESEEi��EEEi�EEEs#E�EEE ESEE��E�E�r� E�EEEEEbESEEE�E�E�EEE#EEs�EEEEE#EEEEEZE�E�E��EEEiEE#�EEEEi�EEE�EEEE�Eti� Ei£i FA��E�EEEssi E!!EES EES�EES�EEEEEiE EEE EEEEEi EEEE#EEEi EEEEE!EEEEE�EESEE Eifi# E��EES EEEEEi�EEEEsa E��EES EEs��E�EEEE#EE �EEEEEi�EES f�?! E�#F#�E�EES EES EEE:E�EEPi�E>R`�EES�E♦EEEEss EES EEEEEZE EE:EEE i EEEEi EEE E3 c# �E�EE�EE��EEE�EEi�t111EEEaEEE#E�E*�E�EEEE�EEEE��Et+� EEbi;#EEi�EE .—Mf®EEEE�EEEiEEEEEr�E�E �EE�1F r.�EEEEEZEEEEL`iEEEEE!EEss:I�EEEAEar,��s„��EE�E�EEEE�EE�EEEiEEi r•�IEEEEE#�EEEEEss;EE�EEEiEEEEEa�E�EE�EEEss��s�«� EiHEEE�EEE�EEEEEiIEE#�EE�EEEiEiS�LlEE#EEE#EssE�EEEE�!♦��EEEi EEiElEE�EE•�E�*fv EEb�#EESE��EEEE#E!�EEs�EES Esq�EEE EEEEEL EEEEi EES EEIEsi EES EES E�ESE EES E�!ati5"i Eid4!��EEEEE#�EEEEEi EEE �EEEEEI�EEEE#��EEEEEi�EEEEEI E�EE#�E�E�4'#A EE#EEEEaEEE�E��E��EE�EEE�E#EEssE1lEEEEIEEEEi�EEE��EE�i i E�E�EEE E�E�EES E!��EEss��E��E�ESEE�E�Ei•!! EEEi�EEE��EEE�EE�EE��EE�E�EEr�E�E�E�EEEEE#�EEE�EEEE�EFa ii�iE�EEEE�EEs�EEERrEEiEEEE:EEEE#EEEEE;�E��EE�E#�EE�EEEEi EE�EEEEE16rEEi EEiL IiC'EEEi2Z•�btifk t�•��,+�-"sem-�E��,tEE�'.�:.�:s�3's�bis�L'•�[:•�[d•IEE�{. • wzl 345 ON Sao 325 a MeM5 MT 3 ON too tfs 275 205 "D 2" too 950 lip I IDt SECTION 25 sas Sao Me SOS am 295 298 too 200 f SECTION 26 365 500 545 aas Me 555525 Me q too gas SECTION 27 SECTIONS 25 - 27 a 5 F , f s ' }.. i �•,y ff r r r r }: OIW-I—PIMI. ,'Y .. ��/f - • � d�'s�r oaf } %r/ :. .. it ::: x;'`0'•j. f �Xa,.� f K <r$} i2E y' � 0. rte?•3,,.� 'f�� .; ;� a.- ;k; _t � �;,. �'. WIN 0'<4, " ate }'` rox. � }. /rr a r,�r r�.." <�F A,9 r�'fk',• Y y ,N r} r f f f_ .. � .. � yf' ,ic„ 'M'0• `} r G .c• }�a �� f f�i. y:. SSS000�}c.� � :, ""`r '""` } f r• r}} f �^•fC:. ,,�r. :. f .:}xf .t 9 .}+ :-.f< ......... f�... � ,- y ,�" }f !F.f�f'r��r r�}J)}�,'rr 4 +¢r .ec t ,�•}f.(/ `•`' �`"• a '• :. .:4r 14.4.`{.?;. s ,. .. v•.. ?.•. c Y#} tic:;:�` '��'+. ....... '�+ a kt 44, r y w } \ �,�ry .: 3 t � 4' Fl ,rye °'•ot J F4 .:.: h _I 5frty:'4:y.:}'•i'< ..4": .:.�r v. :,.-y::'FF',�k:F::. .. I .... y b �Y} f: y. .. ' {•r�' Ii { x ra k J II • f y. .......} . i/ y h { i i l {f , { sk: :.. f. { » — " # wr t M ;iYr .�. ".{'av Y v:, - }i{ •: :.4.•}. l :}Ua �;}}r }l {}F` Win, ..;}::, '.4 :4• KIM? ,^ : .. .. .s.. tk :. ta� t 4f {,{- 'O•r• c- 4"ic:{ly}: },ei:::' •::{,,r.}..�♦ i Y ?�9:G::}.:'rr},•r�"C##•. ............... ............... .............. ............. ............. ............. ............... .. $$$Y:.,•F{{.v{`!Y.r < } } 45 .av+N i * .................................-.................. p$$Q yx ii:. ,{ {. i•'^::i: j h 4hS f y 4i: { 6 9r {w.'J•.i:i Y 4 Yrr# •4 f yam{ 4r 4c• .. .. M1vrV''•::r;j:t;:;:•�t •4.y .......... .............. .............. ................... ................... ............. . . ........... . .......... .. ............. ............ n:.r• 4 .......... ... ........ ..................... ............... .......... .......... .............. o ................. In 3 a } Y ,Er F t J4 Fk p{{ t-µS }. J } .F } }}y�'t { t 4. fx 3}}Y 4 J ,�i•�, S J�:,�{ k _: °` i?t�} ' •4 #�ti,-v5{Y^4 J '.'.�.'' _"r4 t // Jd�y -fy�.'Y f *t�fv?,r iY / {�r.%t'S* �+ - },a�,...:+��..;:.• .. :r•. •J �{ y4'S� / '�C } JF' {'g' t {-" -y {vf+ {{3•"rz ic xx {'7r rgc. nit :: : r .*w Y. g�{rS j• �.a.. .4 �qfN{� qq y I, tfN:I r �Y L� •.. }SN�,"4�H� y��.�^r�kw,y�" Si t y Sr: F Mr"'r ,/fire w tea, a �� t � ..•: - W f s .4c i � y 4'!f• t a{'�� Q a dW � 4 t .• " a„„r.h vca '� � '�•. A a � k fi ,r F 4;t� .{fir,'+Y b4 YQa. t { FH a t r} K h r Y:r rn Yr . 3 c .: �,:_ +� ., ., _ .H. ;:: • ,' � iii' �t N .$ S ..E�.r4r yrnx•.:{ A F Yf aa � r•, 'TC Az h 04 f 7.1 ............ F { w .:... '�S Jr 3 ` ' �7L-s tiv. h'L�- deo,,"' ?:r �f.-, �, '�•'<.. y ` ,,,wy.�..'�T� ,art,, ,q,xvt M '.y�,„•o '{T�"� t. ,� } ti .a "T C� . :;, � "R�oxm,,,to li�,°gft A tr � tr•.Ye iY,- dNf' } .{+ #E:L a � •�� )k y9t.'k'kW -*wc'�& �.� �•{ •`�'�� m,y' '�: iT ��:� ,� sem,.{ ,.,,�� '.. ,4�t•3y,3y N F. yy{, . str•^,aT K w Ply, n /x, ... iy'`{ $' �` - {fit .y ��•�, to {:eI°' ^ � e h ..Ee � �� og $ •r. aw.. ��+.1 ,.Y}eclCJ' fi { `JM�' J• { 4 s A 1 ,x• �J fi Y V 4 �' -J• .vt�J.. ri Aw !M1 YJ ^: �,A/..Y:� y�• '�J .. ?k•+,. � fifi Y {) 'N��y Y.��'y "'t `+mai• :, : w•� n dvyityt , t+'''' A��,c JJ :. R� � :; 5::- S� � » ,{ y a� w•Y- fir: ,. ,9. � � M aeon >,t��J: a`b}'".. s �{ n'n• ,, R �'� L ." r '•'tr.'s -," J ', ✓ Y' s�a ��'Y�`{•��{�� { *,T ,- • ..:: aye � At!.�' ytx 4� k A^ate h vk' a: 'vksv,t r I ? s. r. r J K• y , O n O {{�� - .. 9} i ar.. :�'+4�y\.{,� K 9 � �:.}a��r Z? !,} �$ f�- ?a°.I,� ��{{��'� J •, �, � g ,�#I% ,t.�`f� ��.,.5�, a j� '� °a .�, °i+�,��•fi g5 a�'"4 3 so y� �>j I '�#� ir�.� ^'✓?IYiS$ Y�' �/ l{ I ��. Yom, ._. {,. {,.x. ,s �""��.tc� ��. f E, ✓ x h a< d : "�� ".tf�;�..p ten. N ✓"� 4. s v f l f { dv W•+ '� f L v ✓ .� f f F� VJ w. 1 f r cfl//f. � V� )ice y ; :'+k•��p. - 4i " � �� '�' ':� p ✓t • s, ;BF «/ .:;x �•. � Mara F♦r � s w� /y,� ,. w. � � . � �� ,p.♦'': F"�& .(.�:.� ♦ F`f M� :.> .ra�5y o+ x70^' �F n. +� "� �� : rte.., ♦ �,.rk+ +'�6 � :� :io-� 9 ♦♦}'�7a�� } �"`Q..�� }�.. ♦;.93Y:. > ,0,i:.. r /fi. 'a ../`w°skm, tic. ',�dw. �♦ y�a. � �� •° � ...{$, } z I RM „yam a.r 7s p.' .. %� c�� AR". °�+tffi � 8�`'/ t1D � {, '+. .S'y� ".:.�c'{ ♦'S fcF Af :. ^'"`./ ° �+`e g �'��' } � t: ��,� ♦�}ted}f ��g Imp— S'f F.a \ ♦ ��x x ,� ♦ $ may.. .♦♦} f♦i f s$9�f$'$"" e.. FSc°} - }"9��♦ .Lc'ff �` -, :. f♦ � ] : ♦F�r f"'+/i 5. /'S)`f, �,�$♦: S�� yr f + � fi}♦ti :. .;.Es x ;'{9�`/ '�" � ,�,�,+ wrT}a t,','�,� ¢f .. 5' '''� s` ;�♦/ a r. ��i , :.:'gay : zx9 s '£".„ ,'�� '� j<��'�"' ♦ � ,: }r' � �♦ :<.� r ♦♦ r♦ ' ..:v ♦f h:`.'�,, � ,£ f°D ♦�+' ;♦x:::'"" :. 1'. x. fY'% -, f♦ . .. � r.. ♦� •�-''330`` F � VITO mAg 5• � ,Lo-' �, y q;; � ((. `e .y. .. a k F � ��. } MAKI ,it c,s`bk F v won Ij its f. SymQ. 910 'F s,�.sG � 4�,gyN," tpr � _ k'.lo"v/ „w•o: ' A F :` � T `^A "•N � � ✓ r: f+��: �rb"F '.f�, � vb�. A OVA 5�.. 4 J �•.rx r..�� y�b�5£$. } S �.. . a :,y t 9f•, t' {skx„ F¢• / s 'ti @ - ,-. - a „Nr..�d `"leeJo"�" wit t : F} f�, Y,: 4 eco., ✓ .. vfFfC rte' a° fi .rt �. bis 1 if Y r n- : F aj'yt�%1.0 NA } ''� � r lX�� S''iA.,+w,�..✓ ,.i•r 3 +l''f"'S."':' oaf'S ::�o f 'r. F o- ?6'',,��yyc�. h J )' iA " 91 am ............ :.m:X 4.wl � ..y��h of o- t ��4 >.t.• { .•S. }�:' <.' o ''£ � �y � i, f Y {'+"'k ^r ,K• 'F' fay. >�� \lam F �JA .i i% : fii ��' -> .r F.,�!( � M F' ,• F € i} L s � .. ,tc y J „ f J i r •9 � � ' ""�^t't .. 2;f,�'Of at �y: ;o .. L S g'k� . {yp cs ,a .i. � � C f t �} el d � � x�f� ♦�". �h R % Y f ! g f. l , M41T, ' R f{f � �• 'f f'. Y,YYC if % � � ��,.. � /yy�S N'/Y?vim � �'^ Si•y�- / x. of a J F .d'F8'�` < r r� z a�.� ` �A6 �`4S p)3' ,� _fry � • f 44, s� r` j f� f ff t I { n � I'v fi s r y. s P Y y. f BY �L,�,..• f )y yA w 4r . f i ' '• �! yr c 3 s < P 'R G � I meq}, ^y r ) s < 3' a �� lgs,�`� w z� � i E• kSa r rs t ' °S• ✓ 1 A f �� r V�� y f s � 'u!` fr � ,ds. �� j ✓:�°F" a��.4 � �.` . rP t .>.- ..�.., R ` �� fY,ed(L ur .�s oR ti �3'P�i'.: ,•.r d� .9'+Pi t� i . '! / #"�.� � q`�,r tir � °fix. .G� V..fy 'C 30►JF�s ✓ "y, .Yr',�(TY-.. ��:5.'op '5.. > dig •y r � �� f, �> g -..�,3o-�...iG � r '- ?# 'ri o�,o-$ :�f� .✓� ~r+�� '�'° � x fig` ��' :, ,�,� , � r 'UN-Oi-2004-MON 31 :09 A . UtIZ/t 1"1 0fo w� 0= 0Z D E'NTION BASIN "A" u�!r VQ LIME — 592 CUYT. c w 14' x 0' car Ld l CrZtr0w i o W<0 �� m> � I C7 � 9 h-^ z AtS SAAL w � a e e U7 z O >w w ONST€? CT Rte Qv LOW= o o<< o 0 1 - L.ONC , DISC GE 0 TO i �0 q a RE FOR VEGE TED BAN DET TION Ln<0 --A Z VOLU - CIJ, 0 `' I w ' z ?�, R d - $ z zw m f;iC� ! Z DRAINAGE SWALES 'UN--07-2004-MON 11 :00; AN F, UH/Ul'1 ADD BUSHES AS SHOWN BELOW CON ClUDRAINAGE SWALE WITH GRASSE& MAXIMUM OP 15' 10%. CREATE LOW SPOTS iN SWALE AND CONSTRUCT 2—FOOT DEEP FRENCH DRAIN TYPICAL VEGETATED W-LE CREEPING ELDERBERRY COYOT£ WftB RYE $RUSH TDYDN 0 ti WIDEN ALE WITH F ESTRIC'TIONS AND R£lVCH DRAIN ON BOTTOM a , PLANT VEGETATION AROUND t:✓ �y +y GRASSY SWALE }•r�` O „V OVERFLOW uP TYPICAL GRASSY SWALE PLANTING BURIED 10' X 16PER SO-•FOCTf STRETCH OF SWALE EROSION BLANKET GAADED GRAVEL KEYED INTO SWALE PLANTS GALLONS I TO 6" 21 NATIVE {-y BLACKBERRY CR£EPINC WILD RYE 1s 1 DEC POTS COYOTE BRUSH 9 1 !S WILLOW POLE 2 CO QNWOOD CUTTINGS 5- ON P MEXICAN ELDERBERRY 2 1 CREEK $�VK 7,r.,� Tpy4N Ei 1 TYPICAL SWALE DISCHARGE eC'QNSTRUCTION Y DRAINAGE SWAGES CONSTRUCTION Jun 07 04 12. 50p Stanley Klemetson Sof "756-7aGS p. 7 Table 3. Post-Development Detention Sasin Requinernents Subdivision 8533 4823 Hilltop Drive, El Sobrante,California Storm Prec Pre-Project Post-Project Required Estimated Infiltration Net Duration i Depth Runoff Runoff Rate Detention Area Volume Detention Frequency (in) (cfs) (cls) (Cf)5 (sf)z (of) ' (ct)4 3 hr-10 r 1.550 1.47 1.88 4428 1771 75 4353 6 hr-10 yr 2.200 0.98 1.23 5400 2160 184 5216 12 hr-10 r 3.000 0.60 0.72 5184 2074 353 4831 24 hr-10 yr 4.000 0.33 o.36 2592 1033 353 1 2239 3 hr- 100yr_ 2.250 2.22 2.89 7236 2894 123 7113 6 hr- 100 yr 3.050 1.44 1.84 8540 3455 294 8346 12 hr-100 r 4.200 0.92 1.15 5936 3974 676 9260 24 hr-1LOE 6.000 0,60 0.72 10368 4147 1410 8958 1. Requred:Detention=(Post Project-Pre-Project)~Storm Duration 2. Assuming Depth of 2.5 feet 3. Area"0.17 In/hr~hr 4. Required Detention-Infiltration Volume Table3b-post-Summary TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL'Y'SIS FOR SUBDIVISION 5533 Developer: Siavash Afshar 114 Camino Pablo Orinda, CA 94563 (325) 258-0886 Assessors Parcel Numbers 426-210-007 426-182-001 426-182-017 426-192-005 426-192-008 pFESS/p Prepared By: �p111�'k K.lemetson Engineering (OP " 1110 East 30 South vy No. 4008 Pleasant Grove,UT 84062 , Exp. (801) 796-'7889 p� C1v1�. FCAt Job No. K062 December 15, 2001 Revised.June 30, 2002 Addendum August 23, 2002 (subd8533-TS3.doc) Subdtvsion 8533 T'gfflc Impact Sturdy August 23, 2002 LEMETSON ENGINEERING 1110.East 30 South (801)796-7889 Pleasant Grove, UT 84062 e-mail: klernetCjps.net August 23, 2002 Darwin Myers Contra.Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 (925)335-1210 RE: Addendum to Traffic Report Subdivision 8533, 4823 Hilltop Drive, El Sobrante Area Dear Mr. Myers: I have prepared an addendum to the traffic report to address the additional information requested in your letter of August 5, 2002 letter. At the project entrance the LOS drops from B to C in 2010. 'Since the Approach Delay is only 15.7 seconds and a LOS of D is not achieved until the Approach Delay reaches 25 seconds I anticipate that the LOS will not deteriorate below C for many years. If the left turn pocket is constructed with storage for two vehicles the Approach Delay in 2010 is 12.3 seconds and the LOS is B. Please let me know if you need any additional analysis. Fours truly, St ey L. Klemetson 2 HILLTOP I RENFREW ? � t t{` `�- -8 (3) 1 27 0291 - 1 , v i �¢ (2 HILLTOP t PROJECT SITE ci vi j RENFREW .� {1120 2) � ru � � W PROJE 1 j �1�� _ ��HILLTOP t PEBBLE �. l EBpi m . 7 (2) 73 c83> I (0) 2 1 I # (5) 7 KEY: 00 EXISTING + PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC I <000) EXISTING + PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC f FIGURE 5 EXISTING + PROJECT AM AND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HILLTnP r RENFREW t*) i i 41 t � i i 1p5 (67) �a N i v HILLTOP r PROJECT SITE RENFREV I (32) 8 _ 1 j -- ► Ln (17) 9 i ¢ w PROJECT—/ 3 HILLTOP r PEBBLE SITE cu ` t---1O (2) i� 84 (98) (0) 44 41 ! (4) 2 m (7) 8 Ln D C w � ch KEY 00 EXISTING + PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC <000) EXISTING + PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FIGURE 7 ' 2010 CUMULATIVE + PRDJECT AM AND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES rr l C4 q. . . s . , . . r . fT r . r . . + . ' ' ' {w , r f r f r t , , r rn 4-4Cw- 0 44 . . . . . . . . C/ ooy�ryy" p0< r 1i A, aCIS C-itVI {.1 W$w ""4. U 4+ 4a 0 .. 4r W HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1b TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: Stanley Klemetson Intersection: Hilltop@Project-AM-Existing+Project (No Left Turn Pocket) Count slate: August 23, 2002 Time Period: 7 AM - 9 AM % Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ volume: 4 336 350 6 12 17 HFR: 5 395 412 7 14 20 PHF: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.65 PHV: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pedestrian volume Data: Movements: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: Mone # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound 0 # of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Y Y N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lana 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ------- -------------YNEJ ------ .. _ ---- -- YN N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: ---a-------•-------------------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Shared in volume, major th vehicles: 336 0 Shared in volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 t c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 t f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 t f 2.2 3.5 3.3 ----------------------------------------.._--------_---_-_.._----____-_w___--_---__---_-_-_____-- Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 --- Conflicting Flows .,____--____»__....__.. _ 415 Potential Capacity 537 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 637 Probability of Queue free St. 0.97 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 ---_------------------------------------------------. -_ -- Conflicting Flows 419 Potential Capacity 1140 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 1140 Probability of Queue free St. 2.00 Maj. L Shared in. Prob. Queue Free St. 0.99 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 ___,.___r__-......,__..-____...._..___ Conflicting .lows 529 Potential Capacity 045 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.55 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 Movement Capacity 343 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 _______e_.._____..________-__..__ fi fi fi.._____ ______I t ! I 1 1 1I i v(vph) 14' 20 Movement Capacity 340 637 Shared Lane Capacity 471 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 _..____.._____..-_____ . _ fi fi------ ------fi I ; fi f f ii I v(vph) 5 34 C m(vph) 1140 471 V/C 0.00 4.07 95% queue length Control Delay 8.2 13.2 LOS A H Approach Delay 13.2 Approach LOS B ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Rank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 T PojP 1.00 1.00 V it 33& 0 V i2 0 0 S it 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 P* 0j 0.99 1.00 D maj left 8.2 0.0 N number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank i mvmts 0.0 0.0 HCS: L`nsignalized intersections Release 3.1b TWO-CRAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS„- -- _ Analyst: Stanley Klemetson intersection: Hilltop@Project-AM-2010+Project (No Left Turn Pocket) Count Date: August 23, 2002 Time Period: 7 AM - .9 AM Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 +____ - __ _ Volume: 4359 494 6 12 17 HFR: 4 399 549 7 13 19 PHF: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHV: 0.02 0,02 0.02 0.02 0,02 0.02 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: ______________________________________________________________________________________________w Flow: Lane Width: walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound 0 # of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,20 approach: Lane I Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Y Y N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane I Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane I Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ---------__-..-_�- __Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: _------------------------------- - Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: .359 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1.700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 ----------------------------_--------------_-_---_--------_--_----_---------_--_---____----------- Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 t c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,lt 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 -----------------------------------------^-------------------------^----------------------------- t €,mase 2.2 3.5 3.3 t f1HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 t f 2.2 3.5 3.3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Sten 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows 552 Potential Capacity 533 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 533 Probability of Queue free St. 0.96 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows 556 Potential Capacity 1015 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 1015 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 Maj. L Shared In. Prob. Queue Free St. 0.99 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 --------------------------.._--____--_-____ _ Conflicting Mows 960 Potential Capacity 255 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.99 Mai, L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 Movement Capacity 264 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 -------------------------------------------- - } } 1------ ------} } } } } v(vph) 13 19 Movement Capacity 264 5.33 Shared Lane Capacity 391 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fvorksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ------------------------------------------ } } }------- ------! l I1 } }} } v(vph) 4 32 C m(vph) 1015. 391 vlc 0.00 0.08 95% queue length Control Delay 8.6 15.0 LOS A C Approach Delay 15.0 Approach LOS C ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Rank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 � _a�____..____ _ 1.00 1.00 V i1 359 0 V i2 0 0 S it 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 P* Oj 0.99 1.00 D Maj left 8.6 0.0 N number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.0 0.0 ACS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1b TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: Stanley Klemetson Intersection: Hilltop@Project-PM-Existing+Project (No Left Turn Pocket) count Date: August 23, 2002 Time Period: 4 PM - 6 PM Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 ------------------------------------------------- Volume: 16 233 124 15 8 9 HFR: 19 274 146 18 9 11 PHF: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 PHV: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: -----------------------------------_- F ----- Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound 0 # of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,20 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ------------------------------------------------ Y Y N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R --------------------------------------------------- N Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ------------------------------------------------------_----------- N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach; Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T H L T R _______ Y_ ___ _�v_ --=Y N N N N N N Channelized; N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles; ..__..__--_--____,._....______________ _ Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles; 233 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: . 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: I I Length of study period, hrs; 0.25 ___-__..__.._-_-______,.______________..____.._-..__..__..__..____-__-_________-------____-____-_-_-___- Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Cap Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c.hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 t c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t C I stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 Follow tap Time Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ t f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 t f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 t f 2.2 3.5 3.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows 155 Potential Capacity 691 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 891 Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Step 2; IT from Major St. 4 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows 164 Potential Capacity 1415 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 1415 Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 Maj. L Shared In. Prob. Queue Free St. 0.98 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 --------------------- __ _ -_ Conflicting Flows --__ _ 466 Potential Capacity 555 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp 'Factor. 0.99 Cap, Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 Movement Capacity 548 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 ----------------®_-----_----_--_-_. _ I 44------ ----_-f 1 11 f 1 It i v(vph) 9 11 Movement Capacity 548 991 Shared Lane capacity 688 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 __-__ -_ f I1------ ------€ { 1t v(vph) 19 20 C. m(vph) 1415 688 vIc 0.01 0.03 95W queue length Control Delay 7.6 10.4 LOS A B Approach Delay 10.4 Approach LOS B Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Rank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P of 0.99 1.00 V it 233 0 V i2 0 0 S it 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 P* 03 0.98 1.00 D maj left 7.6 0.0 N number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.1 0.0 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1b TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS_ Analyst: Stanley Klemetson Intersection: Hilltop@Project-PM-2010+Project (No Left Turn Pocket) Count Dates June 30, 2002 Time Period: 4 PM - 6 PM Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 Volume: ________ -- - 15 456 441 15 8 9 HFR: 18 507 490 17 9 10 PHF: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHV: 0.02 0.,02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flow: Lane width: walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound 0 # of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lana usage for movements 1,20 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ----------------------- - -- y Y N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,80 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: q.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R -------Y---------�--- N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: --------------------------------- - - Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 456 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1.700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Fallow--up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 t c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 t f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 t f 2.2 3.5 3.3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Conflicting Flows 498 Potential Capacity 572 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 572 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 _ _ - -- -- Conflicting Flows 507 Potential Capacity 1056 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 1058 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 Maj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. 0.98 Step 4s LT from Minor St. 7 10 W __--_.._________ _.. Conflicting Flows1041 Potential Capacity 255 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Mir. T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 Movement Capacity 250 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 8 Shared Lane .Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 _-__..___...._______-_4_________..__..___ _. # #!_v_-__ _..__-_# i 11 I v(vph) 9 10 Movement Capacity 250 572 Shared Lane Capacity 357 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 _______________.._-_ __ -.._-_ _ # # #______ _----_# I # # i v(vph) 18 19 C m(vph) 1058 357 vlc 0.02 0.05 95% queue length Control Delay 8.5 15.7 LOS A C Approach Delay 15.7 Approach LOS C ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Rank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P of 0.98 1.00 V it 455 0 V i2 0 0 S it 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 P* 0j 0.98 1.00 D maj left 8.5 0.0 N number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.2 0.0 HCS: Jnsignalized Intersections Release 3.1'0 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TKSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: Stanley K2emetson Intersection: Hxlitoc>@Froject-TM-�Rxistlnq+Fro'ect (With Left Turn Pocket) Count Date: Tune 30, 2002 Time Period: 7 RM - 9 AM intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 ------------------------------------ Volume: 4 336 350 6 12 17 HFR: 5 395 412 7 14 20 PHF: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.65 PHV: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flow: Lane width: 'Kalk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: Raised Curb # of vehicles: 2 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles. Northbound 0 # of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements l,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R -_------_-.-------------„-----..N_ - Y N N N N Y N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane l Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ------- 't-------------YN ------ ----- N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane l Lane 2 Lane 3 T R L T R L T R ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 20,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 T R L T R L T R -------Y_---_- -- VN ----- -- N N P3 N N Channelized: N Grade* 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: I Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 t crg 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0,00 t 3,lt 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 stage 0.00 1.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.11 6.4 6.2 2 stage 4.1 5.4 6.2 Follow Up Time Calculations; Movement 1 10 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 t f,HV M 0.9 0.9 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 t f 2.2 3.5 3.3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 --------------------------- - Flows 415 Potential Capacity 637 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 637 Probability of Queue free St. 0.97 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows 419 Potential Capacity 1140 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 1140 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 7a - Computation of the effect of Two-stage gap acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1- First Stage ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows 405 415 Potential Capacity 602 596 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 600 596 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 2- Second Stage ----------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows 419 405 Potential Capacity 594 602 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 594 600 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 3- Single Stage -----------------------------------------_---------------------------- Conflicting Flows 624 620 Potential Capacity 311 312 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvir•.nt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 309 311 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Result for 2 stage process: ---------------------------------- a 0.95 0.95 y 1.04 0.99 C t 474 476 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Worksheet 7b - Computation of the effect of Two-stage gap acceptance Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1- First Stage --------------------------------------_------------------------------------------ Conflicting Flows 405 415 Potential Capacity 678 666 Pedestrian. Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 675 666 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 2- second Stage - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows 425 405 Potential Capacity 664 674 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 1.00 Movement Capacity 643 671 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 3- Single Stage --------------------------------------------------------------N_------------ Conflicting Flows 830 620 Potential Capacity 343 345 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 1.00 Movement Capacity 331 344 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Result for 2 stage process: _--------------------------------------------------------------- a 0.95 0.95 y 1.12 0.99 C t 519 532 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 ---------------------------------------- 1 I------- ------1 ! f # v(vph) 14 20 Movement Capacity 532 637 Shared Lane Capacity 589 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 -------------- ! # {------ ------! v(vph) 5 34 C m(vph) 1140 589 v/c 0.00 0.06 95% queue length Control Delay 8.2 11.5 LOS A B Approach Delay 11.5 Approach LOS g HCS: Unsignalized intersections Release 3.1b TWO--W7 kY STOP CONTROL i TWSC) ANALYSIS_____,,__ Analyst: Stanley Klemetson Intersection: HilltatrH oject (With Left Turn Pocket) Count tate: .lune 30, 2002 Time Period: 7 AM -- 9 AM Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 T________.._�.. 359 454 __-- Y- ---- _ volume: 6 12 17 HFR: 4 399 549 7 13 19 PHF: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHV: 02.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pedestrian. Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk. speed: % Blockage: Median Type: Raised Curb # of vehicles: 2 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound 0 # of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R __---_. Y__-----__ o__-N N ______ _ Y N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R .._____________________ ______N_ _ N X v N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R _ __ N _ N- N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ______�____ _� �- P - Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: ---. --___---_-_--_.._-____-_ Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 t C,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,lt 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 stage 0.00 1.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 stage 4.1 5.4 6.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 t f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 t f 2.2 3.5 3.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 t Conflicting Flows 552 Potential Capacity 533 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 533 Probability of Queue free St. 0196 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flaws 556 Potential Capacity 1015 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 1015 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 7a - Computation of the effect of Two-stags gap acceptance Step 3. TR from Minor St. 8 1l Part 1- First Stage --------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plows 408 552 Potential Capacity 600 518 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 598 518 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 2- Second Stage - __________________»_________ _µ Conflicting Flows 556 408 Potential Capacity 516 600 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 516 598 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 3- Single Stage --------------------------------------------- - Conflicting flows 963 960 Potential Capacity 257 259 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 256 258 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Result for 2 stage process; --------------------------------------------------- a 0.95 0.95 y 1.34 0.77 C t 427 430 Probability Of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 7b - Computation of the effect of Two-stage gap acceptance Step 4; LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1- First Stage i ___________________ Conflicting Flows 408 552 Potential Capacity 676 577 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 673 577 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Part 2- Second Stage ------------------------------------------ _ Conflicting Flows 562 408 , Potential Capacity 575 671 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 1.00 Movement Capacity 554 669 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 3- Single Stage - s - --__-__-- _ Conflicting Flow969 960 Potential Capacity 283 285 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 1.00 ~ - � � � Cap. Adj. factor due to zmpcuin« mnmnt 0.96 1.00 - movement Capacity 272 284 _____________________~________ _____________ _ _________________________ - neovzt for u stage process: ` _----__---_--_-___----_________-_-----_--___________-_________--_-- a 0.95 0.95 v z.*o 0.76 - C t 46* 478 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ` — wurkuueet y Shared Lane calculations ~- auaz*u Lane Calculations Movement 7 V m zo o 12 - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | {---- --'--| za �p v<r�x} -- ero sra s��p Capacity Shared Lane Capacity 509 _ _ _____________________________________________________________________ � worksheet 10 uezar,gueue length, and Loo Movement z * 7 u 9 zo 11 1e ------__-_-------------_---_-___-_-__--___---_-------__-_--__---_----__-_--__--_-----_-___--- | | |------ ------| | | | | -- v(vpu) 4 ac C m(vph) zozs 509 - - v/o 0.00 0.06 95% queue length _ Control Delay o.s zz's Loo o u _ upnz^mou uezmx 12.5 nspruaou Loa e ------_-_-----_-_---_____-------__-_----------__---------_-______--___--_---_-__-__----__-_-_ � ~ ^= . , - ~ ~ ^ � ` ^ ~- `~ ~~ - ^ -~ _- _ HCS: Jnsignalized intersections Release 3.1b TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: Stanley Klemetson Intersection: Hilltop@Project PM-Existing+Project (With Left Turn Pocket) Count Date: June 30, 2092 Time Period: 4 PM - 6 PM Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 ______ _ __ Volume16 233 1.24 15 8 9 HER: 19 274 146 18 9 11 PHF: 0.85 6.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 PHVV: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: Raised Curb # of vehicles: 2 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound 0 # of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,20 approach: Lane i Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Y N N N Y N N N N Channelized: N Grade. 0.09 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R -------------_.._____----___.._.,______a_,.__.._______-..-,.________.,_____.._..________.._..w_--__..___..,..._ N Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.90 Lane usage for movements 7,80 approach: Lana 1 mane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Dane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R _r_____Y_o____-_® __-. Y_o_ __..-_....___N N N N N Channelized: N Grade. 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: __-_______am..__.._______-w____....___m-_________________-____.._________-__ Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles. 0 0 Sat flaw rate, major th vehicles. 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles. 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 tµc,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 t cog 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,lt 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 stage 0.00 1.00 0.00 t C I stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 stage 4.1 5.4 6.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 t f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 t f 2.2 3.5 3.3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 -W µ _µ Conflicting Flows155 Potential Capacity 891 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 891 Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Floras 164 Potential Capacity 1415 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 1415 Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 7a - Computation of the effect of Two-stage gap acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1-First Stage _°----------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows 912 155 Potential Capacity 561 773 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1,00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 1.00 Movement Capacity 653 773 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Part 2- Second Stage _______________________.._ _ Conflicting Flows164 312 Potential Capacity 767 661 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 0.99 Movement Capacity 767 653 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 3- Single Stage --------------------------------------- - Conflicting Flows 475 466 Potential Capacity 491 497 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity 485 490 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Result for 2 stage process: -----------------------------_------_--------- a 0.95 0.95 y 0.64 1.74 C t 888 593 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 7b - Computation of the effect of Two-stage gap acceptance Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1- First Stage - ---- __------ ConflictingFlows 312 155 Potential Capacity 747 874 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 1.00 Movement Capacity 737 874 ----------------------------------------.._------------------------------------------------•----- Part 2- Second Stage - _®_-___-_ - Conflicting Flows 160 312 Potential. Capacity 874 742 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity 863 733 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 3- Single Stage ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows 472 456 Potential Capacity 554 555 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. 1a, Mir, T Impedance factor 0.99 0.99 Maj. I., Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.99 Movement Capacity 542 549 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Result for 2 stage process: _-------------------------------_-_--_ a 0.95 0.95 y 0.54 1.77 C t 662 666 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 ------------------..___.---___--_..___ i # #„--__- ..__--_ v(vph) 9 11 Movement Capacity 665 891 Shaved Lane Capacity 769 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 __--------,-------------..__--_----_---_-_--__ -_ # #-----_ __----# ! II # v(vph) 19 20 C m(vph) 1415 769 vlc 0.01 0.03 955 queue length Control relay 7.6 9.8 LOS A A Approach Delay 9.8 Approach LOS A HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1b TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC} ANALYSIS Analyst: Stanley Klemetson Intersection: Hilltop@Project-PM-2010+Project (With Left Turn Pocket) Count Date: June 30, 2002 Time Period: 4 PM - 6 PM Intersection Orientation: East-west Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12 Volume: _______16- _ 456 441 15 8 9 HFR: 18 507 490 17 9 10 PHS': 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHV: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pedestrian volume Data: Movements: ------------------------------------------------------- Flow: Lane width; Walk speed: Blockage: Median Type: Raised Curb # of vehicles: 2 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound 0 4 of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 T R L T R L T R ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Y N Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 4 critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t c,base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 t c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,lt 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 stage 0.00 1.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 stage 4.1 5.4 6.2 Fallow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 10 12 - t f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 _ _ _...._w__W_____ t f,SV 0.9 0.9 0.9 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 t f 2.2 3.5 3.3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 _ -_..___ _____________m____.._________-__-______-__-_______._________-__ Conflicting Flows_ 498 Potential Capacity 572 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 572 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major St: 4 1 _____ _ _________..__.._-_W________________,._____-_..___________..____ Conflicting Flows 507 Potential Capacity 1058 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Movement Capacity 1058 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 Worksheet 7a - Computation of the effect of Two-stage gap acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1- First Stage _ --__---r- ConflictingFlows542 498 Potential Capacity 523 547 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 1.00 Movement Capacity 515 547 Probability of Queue free 5t. 1.00 1.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 2- Second Stage ConflictingFlows507 542 Potential Capacity 543 523 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 0.98 Movement Capacity 543 515 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 3-- Single Stage ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows 1049 1041 Potential Capacity 229 232 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity 226 228 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Result for 2 stage process: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a 0.95 0.95 y 0.97 1.11 C t 400 407 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 7b - Computation of the effect of Two-stage gap acceptance Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1- First Stage ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flaws 542 498 Potential Capacity 587 610 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 1.00 Movement Capacity 577 610 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 2- Second Stage Conflicting Flows 503 542 Potential Capacity 611 583 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity 601 573 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 3- Single Stage ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows 1046 .1041 Potential Capacity 255 255 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 0.99 Cap. Adj, factor due to Zffipeding mvmnt 0,97 0.89 Movement Capacity 216 252 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Result for 2 stage process: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a 0.95 0.95 y 0.98 1.12 C t 445 453 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 8 Snared Lane Calculations Shared cane Calculations Movement 7 6 9 10 11 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I # i_-____ -_..__Y# # II # v(vph) 9 10 Movement Capacity 453 572 Shared Lane Capacity $09 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i i #--__H_- ______I v(vph) 18 19 C m(vph) 1056 509 V/c 0.02 0.04 95% queue length Control Delay 8.5 12.3 LOS A B Approach Delay 12.3 Approach LCIS H } w� J +sz. �-f > � f Ai• ? `!, w ppP a _r},4 yam`. r � ; ` fZ i tw x� •�\. �s r y �fA �"at .. '��g.{ s t � � t > r � .•`v Ltd{ . ,��,, � „ 1`� � .96Tv � 441.•� S Baa k C� �'��4 '�- y � t;" �•s Wit: '',Y.} }� C s. .,,, g, r �• ^ �� .. �itx-�r�" rs. r ,•t,� ,a_�g�p' r J ,. ��l, .`I_'. 1 3A J ••a > f1r - i } t 1 R WMWU " fit�5f R t ill /i-�a _ '•Cg� �.v_'� i$$ � ,fi,�,,. �..-«s+�d �_.� �2 �.'tip S � �1f G � .P'4tsF tdtq .5, s ��3� ,` t'.e-_e*► w �'.."" �,�. _��t,�E� y' � � i ky`ts t}l�;a p r$ # F¢ t 2SY �* ►� s ' t � a `��t t �� rJ�� i�rz }k a„t a g �t�E .• f �*'i��it y '�`' s, k};`"`` [��? �< 1' t } �^YtidP��}�.e� yg i�«:i; �:�, t s�ca'°®��:r� y �#'c �. •i 11��`f'ts�� 1� w - f ��ly��e�s!3d.�r�o' �.- J.._'��ie"A�' .��,e�$•,' +�i�'� . Ct A54 t7 Ff f ;��9911 i � A. °f!j��, fj�{ )� a;� r �t�t��,t �x's<,�k� f., tF„ �,..,..�1 �h'�;�i 1►�i,•. /�� yn, 4 �4t � �%e� j i f<1C1 sl a tt kt /rsi41{,4�` 49T 1 F� � �E i•. ate, ��, y t t f ti"a1A..kr�l 'Sw.�i ear� � A Stephen & Linda Everett 15 Aspen Court El Sobrante, CA 94803 January 23, 2004 Mr. Darwin Meyers Community Development Department Contra Costa County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4`s Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re. SDI-8533,Sid Afsher,Developer Our Property at 15 Aspen Court would be adjacent to the proposed development Dear Mr. Meyers: Up to this point we regretfully admit that we have been silent on the proposed 40 home development of the parcel behind our property, unable to attend meetings. We have received several unbelievable fliers for the preservation of Garrity Creek, and can only shake our heads at the efforts of those who call themselves "Friends of Garrity Creek". It's way past time to voice our own opinions, and be silent no longer! We have received copies of letters sent to you from those who oppose the proposed development. Letters we would like to use to address our comments to their"reasons"for not having an established development,adding our own concerns for having the proposed development go forward. First of all to give a background of where we as homeowners in this area are coming from. We built our home in 1988-1989 at 15 Aspen Court. We too encountered opposition inspite of taking all the necessary and legal actions to build. For example: (1) A neighbor who did not like the idea of our building our home adjacent to his property,decidedtore-route his water run-off piping directly on to our foundation during torrential end of December rains, causing great concern from our contractor as to whether we would loose the project. We needed to go to our property, re-route the neighbor's pipes off our foundation. It was strange to us that even though the neighbor told us of a back problem and wasn't able to help re-route his piping, was later found by another Aspen Court homeowner to have gone out and re-route once again his run-off pipes directly onto our foundation. We finally had to seek the advise of an attorney, who by his phone call convinced the ruthless neighbor to end his actions. (2) Another neighbor adjacent to our property prior to our purchase of 15 Aspen Court had used the land up the hill from our property for his own dumping, and tried to discourage our building by first agreeing to pay for a retaining wall required to retain his property dirt, only after $15,000 later to renege. Mr. Darwin Meyers Community Development Department Contra Costa County Re. SDI-5533, Sid Afsher,Developer Our Property at 15 Aspen Court would be adjacent to the proposed development January 23,2004 Page 2 Other causes encompass our concern for safety and negligence on the part of surrounding homeowners. (1) A few years ago, a fire was started by the carelessness of a homeowner on Marin Road throwing hot coals behind his home. During this very dry season, the fire spread all.down the hillside, burning trees, an old shed, which would be the parcels // and /2 f of the proposed development. It took several calls from a neighbor on Hilltop across from Aspen Court to the fire department to get the fire department here to put the fire out. The fire department had to use our property to get to the property where the fire was burning. Each year homeowners on Aspen Court have had to contact the fire department for assistance to request the Marin Road homeowner to cut the dry grasses to avoid another fire disaster. Because of years of dumping at the end of the Marin Road homeowner's property (adjacent to 15 and 15 Aspen Court property), there had been a compost area created, and for days following the above described fire,there was smoldering and fire out breaks. For homeowners concerned for the preservation of land and wildlife, I do not understand such carelessness. At the same time, our young teenage children, who were home alone at the time, acted upon their own instincts to water down our property and deck, all the while adult neighbors(Friends of Garrity Creek)stood on the knoll adjacent to our property jeering and laughing at them! (2) The Garrity Creek that everyone is concerned about has been a bed of trash since before we moved to our home. Before all the wild growth, one could easily see refrigerators and stoves in the dried up creek bed. As far down the area as we could see, the area had been used for a dumping ground! (3) Although I don't know first hand, I've been told that at the opposite end of the proposed development, have been found old mattresses, torn clothing, syringes in and among the wild undeveloped growth. Is this another case of preservation of Garrity Creek? What about the preservation and safety of our children and grandchildren? A letter attached as Exhibit A spoke of a concern for "elements of a healthy environment for all life". I agree with this plea. However, let's get real: Why is it more important to preserve the vegetation and animals of the wild than it is to create an environment of health for our neighborhood families? This concerned writer of Exhibit A seems to be more concerned that creating a healthy environment for people would be a "stressor for the neighborhood and this community causing an unhealthy local environment". ??? I must submit: For whom? For what?? This same letter also stated that the County Administration "should be looking out for the best interests of the homeowners and community members here". Again I respectfully submit that I cannot agree that leaving a wild area for the purposes of dumping, careless fires and hiding for promiscuity Mr.Darwin lVeyers Community Development Department Contra Costa County Re: SDI-8533,Sid Afsher,Developer Our Property at 15 Aspen Court would be adjacent to the proposed development January 23,2004 Page 3 and drugs cannot possibly be seen as looking out for the best interests of the community we live in and its families. There is gray too much negligence! (4) And a proposed park? For goodness sake!! With all that has been going on in the wilds of these parcels': What are people thinking! That having a park would draw the type of people that would bring wholesome activities. I'd rather doubt it! And besides, who would pay for the upkeep and security for this park. Who would be responsible to keep trash out of the park? (5) Giving reference to another homeowner letter (attached as Exhibit B) whose concern is the stabilization of the hillside throughout the development. If one would just review with the developer the careful plans (and the re-planning completed due to voiced concerns of the surrounding homeowners), one would clearly see the efforts this developer has taken to keep the hillside stabilized, and not to harm any existing homes. Our property would become more stabilized with good re- planting and bringing in additional dirt. Right now there is growth corning from fallen trees that have just enough life in them to spring up branches that look like they are rooted. This growth is in a 15' drop off just beyond and adjacent to our property. Many,many times we've had to warn young children not to cut cross lots behind our property line due to potential danger of falling and being trapped without anyone knowing. Also we've had to warn an adult not to ride her horse cutting cross lots at our property line for the same potential reason. (6) Which leads us to another concern we've had. The neighboring animal nuisance. One letter spoke of those who had horses (Exhibit C) and the effect the proposed development could have for those "that love the rural neighborhood character....Often new residents object to the odor and flies that they associate with horses and other livestock. Sometimes the new residents' desires over-rule those of the old residents". We must say that several of these neighbors I believe have come into the neighborhood with their livestock and horses since we've lived here. We have neighbors with turkeys, ostriches, sheep, goats, horses. We've not complained although we've experienced terrible dust from the riders on horses galloping around a small back yard area (small for horses). When it came to the goats feeding along the fence line of neighbors' property lines, and then not tending their goats who were left to come feeding up Aspen Court into our landscaped yards... we were more than perturbed! Where is the courtesy of keeping livestock penned in under the watchful eye of those who own them. (7) Concern for dust and noise pollution as stated in letters (Exhibit C & D).... I would think one would realize that this would be only a temporary situation. Unlike the constant dust from horses kicking up the dust in a non-grassy area. Also one can't imagine the noise of what sounds to us like gun shots during the night hours, keeping our family inside due to fear of what is happening out in the darkness. This shooting is happening throughout the month, if not once a week, although we aren't home every night so don't know how many nights a week it does happen. (S) Giving reference to Exhibits C & D (the letters seem to be duplicarted), regarding school over- crowding and traffic caused. In speaking with the developer ourselves, he has made provision for a Mr.Darwin Meyers Community Development Department Contra Costa County Re. SDI-8533,Sid Af'sher,Developer Our Property at 15 Aspen Court would be adjacent to the proposed development January 23,2004 Page 4 center lane to the proposed development over and above what is required of him. With 40 homes going,into the proposed development at an average of $580,000, the revenue brought into our community from property taxes should account for bringing in revenue for school improvement and traffic control. Why does one anticipate the worst, rather than look for how these homes could increase the valuation of all our properties, and greatly improve what we can offer our children in the community. I submit that perhaps homeowners need to take another evaluation of what we really want for our children and future generations. Tho we want a better El Sobrante or not? Are we really happy with what is currently going on in those parcels for this proposed 40 home development? We respectfully submit to you, Mr. Meyers, that we at 15 Aspen Court do want to see a better tomorrow, and do want to see a clean-up of Garrity Creek, and do want to see a safer community for our families, and we do want a better tomorrow for our future families! We have enjoyed watching the red tailed hawk family in the trees, and the hummingbirds in the wild growth. Perhaps there's a way to keep the good of some of this nature, and still have the development come in. But much of what is happening currently in the area of the proposed development, is NOT what we would wantto continue! Thank you for giving this proposal additional thought and we ask that for the safety,security and well being of our community you allow this development to go forward. Sincerely, Stere>phen 7. Eve tt Linda R.Everett 15 Aspen Court 15 Aspen Court Sil29/2004 15: 21 5102458148 BRANDEF413URG , PACE 01 January 27,2004 Dr. Dent Brandenburg Bethel Baptist Church Darwin Meyers 1000 Sun Hill Circle County Administration Building El Sobrante,CA 94303 651 fine Street,4"Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553-0015 Dear Mr, Meyers, I sapportthe development off Hilltop Drive,the Sid Afshar Development. I speak representing tl�e Bethel Baptist.Church at 4.905 Appian Way,El Sobrante and Bethel Christian Academy 431 Rincon Road,El Sobrante. Our church and school family numbers nearly a thousand. I have been pastor of the church and chairman of the board of the school for 15 years. Having been here that long,I Have become in tune with the issues of green space,marsh land,riparian vegetation,and animal corridors,etc. Sid has been a perfect gentleman with us,and respected any and every aspect in similarly developing a piece of acreage just above our own property. Out of curiosity, 1 did a walk through to look at the concerns on the present property. I stand to gain nothing by supporting him in this project. This is not how I operate. However,I also do not like what seems to me to be an intrusive and inequitable effort to stop this endeavor after tremendous effort has been put into it. . From what I see of this property off of Hilltop Drive in El Sobrante, Sid Afshar and his group are doing everything rewired and even above the call of duty. Since his group owns that property, it would seem tome that he should be able to develop it"'he wished within the law,and that people surrounding him,who live on formerly developed land,should not be able to step hire,based upon their otivn speculation, In my walk through.I saw how that neighbors and others are abusing that land, If these citizens were so concerned about the care of the property,.I think they should have already been involved in stepping the abuses occurring there.presently. They have not been engaged until someone stands to upgrade the property and make some money off of it. This smacks of class warfare. Mr. Afshar has had to haul'off loads of trash----old refrigerators,dozens of old tires, and broken furniture—much of which is illegal, and then needles,mattresses stained with bodily fluids, and drug paraphernalia. Where has the outery come from,, e neighbors while this has all been occurring" The friends of Garrity Creep have obviously not been friendly enough,or at least seem to have.a selective friendship. Some of the friends of this undeveloped area have enjoyed the cover it provides for their illicit operations. After tmultitud.es of studies and permits,Sid has made sure everything is up to the state and national standards. Ota reason for a lack of appreciation of property in El Sobrante has been the generally unkept condition.' I believe new houses will .aid decreasing decay and crirbe in the area. With new homes,an obvious security problem will be diminished. One acre ofthe property owned by these developers will.be left untouched to preserve wetland and spring, and they will replace a presently missing animal-corridor, In my opinion,the attempts to stop this project come from the campaign of fern,whohavoused the impetuous to furl.,:r their goals, In reading most of the arguments,they seem of little value and predominately without merit. Some wrote:`loss of wildlife corridor." I say:'`What wildlife corridor? More wild life,than wildlife." local schools would benefit from new homes. You can't have it both ways:we need more money for schools and yet say no to this increased tax revenue. Some of those roads up to this developri,ent are in very bad condition,And the developers will be improving,the quality'of all of that.'They complain about,the creek. I saw no creek. They talk about a park. The county has vetoed this beecause.of how imp ssible the slope. Relative to the whole Bay Area,the closer people can live to Oakland and San Francisco,the less driving and,therefore, the less pollution' People will have new neighbors that they might have to smile and.say"hello"to. As far as"native-American artifacts,"someone who cares should go through and find every possible artifact possible,put it in a museum,and then continue the project. Very likely many native Contra Costans complained when these own people's properties.were developed. If less homes represents progress,would not tearing down present homes represent even greater progross? Why atop at just hindering future development? Perhaps we should rid ourselves too of old development. Please stop unnecessarily hindering this development. 13randenbur re T Baptist Church&Christian ad y, 1000 Sun Hill Circle, El Sobrante,CA 94803 cc: Bob Brake,John Gioia FROM FPX NO. :5102224269 2224269 Jan. 28 2004 1:52PM 01 Steven D. Benson 6050 Oak Knoll Rel. El Sobrante,CA 94803 Mr. Darwin Meyem Community Dovelopment Dept, Contra Costa County County Admin, Build. 651 Piro:St.4th It,N.Wing Martinez.CA 94553-0095 .lt2.e. SDI-8533, Sid Afsher,Developer Although I do not presently live on an adjoining parcel,A am a long time resident of 131 Sobrunte(since 1949)and did live on hilltop Drive from 1987 until 200 1. During pail of that time I kept an eye on the property ror the owners and grazed hones on much cif it,to keep the fire hazard clown. During that time I regularly removed debris dumped from the adjoining properties,Tires,Batteries,Refrigmtors, Mattresses,ETC.and repaired fences cut by the neighbors. I frequently found blankets and used condoms in the bushes,I guess that's when;the local sex ed, is taught. I have reviewed Mr. Afshar's project and the letters from the friends of Garrity Creek, I find it interesting Out many of the addremes are the same ars those from which the debris came. True friends of a creek would not do that. I have studied the conditions for approval agreed upon by Mr.Afshar and The Rept.Of Fish and game and I find THAT THEESE CONDITIONS TRULY PROTECT THE CREEK Therefore anyone who wishes to preserve the urcek should he in favor of this development I have read the concerns of increase water runoff carried by the.Development and i have studied the project engineer's design for swales to slow the runoff and increase percolations and I have discussed the design with the engineer. After through Inveitigation, I am convinced that not only will there be no increase in peak runoff but during heavy rainy there will be a decrease. Anyone who is opposed due to increase runoff has not read,or doei not understand the plans. Lastly it appeati that the proposed developrmcnt,meets conditions of The General Pian,Zoning,Flood C patrol,Public Warks,Fish&game,Army Corps of Engineers,Fire Dept.Schools Dist.And Traffic Control:. The only remaining reason to appose development is so the opponents can continue to use the property without compensating the owner. To prevent the owner from using his property in a manner that clearly meets all Government Regulation:¢would amount to the taking of property without compensation, which is clearly forbidden by the U.S Constitution, Sincerely Steven D. Beeson February 3, 2004 Darwin Meyers County Administration Building 651 fine St, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, Ca 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Meyers, As a resident of El Sobrante for the past 32 years. What attracted me to El Sobrante was the diversity the mix of new and old coming together. El Sobrante is rich in history and I support any new development that would increase our little town popularity friendly citizens. Sid Afshar's Development which is slated for approval by the county I have seen in detail and support his integrity in keeping with reinforcement and beauty of the land. He has been sensitive the local neighbors concerns by creating addressing many of their issues in much thought out plans to support the environment. I can appreciate some citizens attempting to block any new development that they think would keep EL Sobrante small. If that would be the case I myself would not have been able to live and raise my family in the home I live. I understood the local neighbors had also did not want anymore-new homes in my area 30 years ago. El Sobrante has always been a land of progressive sensitive developments and I support salute Mr. Afshar's Hilltop Road that he has shown to increase the soft beauty of El Sobrante future. Sincerely, Sandy Fitzgera Higgins El Sobrante Resident Cc: Bob Drake John Goia February 4, 2004 Darwin Meyers Ron Frank County Administration Building 645 Stanley Lane 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor, North Wing El Sobrante, CA 94803 Martinez, CA 94533-0095 Dear Mr. Meyers, I am writing to support the property development off Hilltop Drive by Sid Afshar Development (SDI-8533). I live at 645 Stanley Lane, El Sobrante, CA., which has a similar environment to the proposed Hilltop Drive development. I moved to Stanley Lane in 1991, because I was attracted to the rural setting (green space, a creek, and animal corridor). This was a seven-home cul-de-sac, which eventually expanded to ten homes, and is known as Bay Tree Homes. Although Stanley Lane was a serene setting, there was no street lighting, unknown persons were dumping trash in the creek at night, and I would hear gunshots in the neighborhood at night, and on the weekends. Also, a large open area located across Dam Road from Bay Tree Homes, was being used by neighborhood kids to race dirt-bike motorcycles. The neighbor adjacent to my backyard has a horse that attracts flies throughout the neighborhood. In addition to this nuisance, the horse lives in a small backyard, and it just stands around all day in mostly one spot. I joined other neighbors, and complained to the SPCA, alleging this situation is "cruelty to animals," but the SPCA stated the situation is legal. I mentioned above, that neighborhood kids raced motorcycles in an open area adjacent to Bay Tree Homes (across Dam Road). A couple years ago, the Canyon Oaks Development replaced this open area, and the development has been a positive influence to the surrounding area. The new residents of"Canyon Oaks" appear to be responsible, and take pride in maintaining their investment, and it appears their attitude has filtered to the surrounding neighbors. In the "Bay Tree Homes Development," we have made upgrades to our homes, and home values have increased significantly. Also, the Canyon Oak developers improved the roadway and sidewalks on Dam Road, which provides easier access during peak commute hours. I have been employed as an Oakland Police Officer for the past 27 years, and I have observed an interesting phenomenon in Oakland. Some of the "old" neighborhoods deteriorated due to drugs and other criminal activity. However, "new" development of homes in these neighborhoods, has reversed the problem. I believe this is the result of, responsible, new homeowners that are diligent to protect their new investment. I believe the Sid Afshar Development, off Hilltop Drive, will not only improve that neighborhood, but also "brighten" the entire El Sobrante community. Sincerely, Ron Frank 645 Stanley Lane El Sobrante, OA 94803 cc. Bob Drake, John Coia January 29, 2004 Darwin Meyers County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Meyers, I am writing as a supporter of the development off Hilltop Road(Sid Afshar Development). I own my home on 942 Kelvin Road,El Sobrante, CA and I bought this house because of rural look of the won and the county. Now that I have lived here for three years, I am aware of the many important aspects of this green space such as the spring, the creek, the riparian vegetation and grasses, the animal corridor. I liked the way this project is dealing with sensitive above issues. I like and support the way in which this development is dealing with my concerns. As a homeowner in the area, I have made an investment and more to the neighborhood but, unfortunately property in this area has not appreciated as much as some other neighborhoods and cities such as Hercules,Pinole,Richmond, El Corrito, not even as much as San Pablo. I am happy to see new houses in the area. It prevents our neighborhood from decaying. I believe the county administration needs to be looking at how to encourage sensible new INFILL project. Sincere athy unham 942 Kelvin Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 cc:Bob Drale ,Zahn Goia February 3, 2004 Darwin Meyers County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4 1 Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Meyers, 1 am writing as a supporter of the development off Hilltop Road (Sid Afshar Development). I own my home in 3310 Clearfield Ave; El Sobrante, CA and I bought my house because of rural look of the town an the county. - Now that I have lived here for twelve years, I am aware of the many important aspects of this green space such as the spring, the creek, the riparian vegetation and grasses, the animal corridor. I like the way this project is dealing with sensitive above issues. I like and support the way in which this development is dealing with my concerns. As a homeowner in the area, I have made an investment and more to the neighborhood but, unfortunately property in this area has not appreciated as much as some other neighborhoods and cities such as Hercules,Pinole, Richmond,El Corrito, not even as much as San Pablo. I am happy to see new houses in the area. It prevents our neighborhood from decaying. I believe the county administration needs to be looking at how to encourage sensible new INFILL project. Sincer y, 11 imberly Chan CC; Bob Drale John Goia January 29, 2004 Darwin Meyers County Administration Building; 651 Pine Street, 4'h Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Meyers, I ani writing as a supporter of the development off Hilltop Road (Sid Afshar Development). I own my home on 942 Kelvin Road, El Sobrante, CA and I bought this house because of rural look of the won and the county. Now that I have lived here for three years, I am aware of the many important aspects of this green space such as the spring, the creek, the riparian vegetation and grasses, the animal corridor. I liked the way this project is dealing with sensitive above issues. I like and support the way in which this development is dealing with illy concerns. As a homeowner in the area, I have made an investment and more to the neighborhood but, unfortunately property in this area has not appreciated as much as some other neighborhoods and cities such as Hercules,,Pinole, Richmond, El Corrito, not even as much as San Pablo. I am happy to see new houses in the area. It prevents our neighborhood from decaying. I believe the county administration needs to be looking at how to encourage sensible new INFILL project. Sincere y, athy unham 942 Kelvin Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 cc:Bob Drale John Goia February 3, 2004 T -1 Darwin Meyers County Administration Building 651 Pine St, 4"' Floor, North ting Martinez, Ca 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Meyers, As a resident of El Sobrante for the past 32 years. What attracted me to El Sobrante was the diversity the mix of new and old corning together. El Sobrante is rich in history and I support any new development that would increase our little town popularity friendly citizens. Sid Atshar's Development which is slated for approval by the county I have seen in detail and support his integrity in beeping with reinforcement and beauty of the land. He has been sensitive the local neighbors concerns by creating addressing many of their issues in much thought out plans to support the environment. I can appreciate some citizens attempting to block any new development that they think would keep EL Sobrante small, If that would be the case I myself would not have been able to live and raise my family in the home I live. I understgod tjae local neighbors had also did not want anymore-new homes in my area 30 years ago. El Sobrante has always been a land of progressive sensitive developments and I support salute Mr. Afshar's Hilltop Road that he has shown to increase the soft beauty of El Sobrante future. Sincerely, Y Sanely Fitzgera Higgins El Sobrante Resident Cc. Bob Drake John Goia February 3, 2004 Darwin Meyers County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Meyers, I am writing as a supporter of the development off Hilltop Road(Sid Afshar Development). I own my home at 6235 Baywood Dr; El Sobrante, CA and I bought my house because of rural look of the town and the county. I have lived here for twelve months. I am aware of the many important aspects of this green space such as the spring, the creek, the riparian vegetation and grasses, the animal corridor. I like the way this project is dealing with sensitive above issues. I like and support the way in which this development is dealing with my concerns. As a homeowner in the area, I have made an investment and more to the neighborhood but, unfortunately property in this area has not appreciated as much as some other neighborhoods and cities such as Hercules, Pinole, Richmond,El Corrito, not even as much as San Pablo. I am happy to see new houses in the area. It prevents our neighborhood from decaying. I believe the county administration needs to be looking at how to encourage sensible new INFILL project. Sincerely, 44 veli Munoz CC; Bob Drale John Goia FEES-111 -2004 14: 10 FROM- TO: 1925258977 + P. 1 ETHEL CHRISTIAN ACADEMY Eph. 6:17h— "...the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God." 431 RINCON LANE EL SOBRANTE, CA 94803 DAVIo A. SUTTON, PRINCIPAL (510) 2:23-9550 February 11, 2004 Mr. Darwin Myers County Administrative Building 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, forth Wing Martinez, CA 94533-0095 Dear Mr, Myers: I am writing t4 support the Sid Afshar Development off of Hilltop Drive in El Sobrante. As principal of Bethel Christian Academy in El Sobrante, I can attest first-hand to the meticulous attention Mr. Afshar has given to the development of the property above our school (above Rincon Lane), He and his contractor have followed the rules and regulations of the county to ensure the integrity of this property and the well-being of the creek that runs below our properties. I am confident that Mr. Afshar will do the same with the property off of Hilltop Drive. He plans to protect green space by protecting the spring, creels, and riparian vegetation and grasses. He also plans to beep the animal corridor,as well as make a host of improvements to the neighborhood. Mr. Afshar's development will aid the property values of the neighborhood and provide an increased deterrent to any illegal drug activity(needles and drug paraphernalia have been observed)on the undeveloped property. 1 am,in favor of making the land useful, which is what the Bible says to do with the earth: subdue it and have dominion(make it useful and be in control)(Genesis 1:26, 28). I would urge you to support Mr. Afshar`s development of this property. Sincerely, David A. Sutton, Principal cc: Bob Drake,John Gioia February 17, 2004 Darwin Myers English, European& Administration Building Japanese car services 651 Pine St.,4th Floor,North Wing. 4267 Hilltop Dr. #A Martinez, CA 94533-0099 El Sobrante Ca, 94803 510-669-9028 Dear Sir I live and work in El Sobrante. I have done that for last 8 years. Frankly I love El Sobrante and I am committed to be useful to this community and I participate in the local politics. When Mr. Afshar approached me about his project, I was not trilled to begin with but after we spoke and he pointed out all the particulars of his project such as the way he is creating a safe animal corridor, how he is dedicating 50' on each side of the creek as no development site, the way he fences of the creek so people can not use it as there old battery and old tire storage ground, and finally my favorite the way he puts no stress on the drainage issue of the adjoining properties by keeping post development surface water drainage level same as pre-development level and grassy swell, I am left but admiration and support for these new home. It is only going to raise the value of our homes and bring much needed work and tax dollars to our neighborhood and county, Please approve this project Res ectfully Baroo Ahmadi February 12, 2004 Darwin Myers All In One Beauty Salon County Administration Building Tami Davidson 651 fine St., 4'h Floor,North Wing 4263 Hilltop Dr. Martinez, CA 94533-0099 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Dear Mr. Myers This letter is to confirm my support for Hilltop Dr., El Sobrnate project. (File No: SDO1-8533). As a business owner for last 5 years on Hilltop Drive I have seen very little improvement in the area. I have witnesed thousand of houses constructed in the city of Richmond but very little in El Sobrante. I always wandered why is that. Until I red the opposition letter for this project I had no idea of the meaningless issues that people will use to stop growth. I believe we need growth in El Sobrante and if Mr. Afshar's project complies with all the development laws and regulation which I am lure it does other wise the county would not have given him the green light, Then I am all for it. We could use more home owners and fewer renters in this town. I am sure it would be good for my business and all other businesses in the area. T4ijnk yo& mu rami Davidson 1'ebruary 12, 2004 Darwin Myers County Administration.Building 651 Fine St., 4'h floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94533-0099 (File No: ST301-8533). Dear Mr. Myers M�� husband and I have lived eery close to this project for last S years. During this time ,vvc: have witnessed brush tire, on this lot, kids constantly are fighting and running;thru the field, people have used the lot for illegal activities and dumping ground. We have also been campaigned hard by other people in the neighborhood against this project. i`rankly I like to see the neighborhood cleaned up. 1 don't mind some new houses in our neighborhood next to us, all you need to do is to drive. thrix El Sobrnate and see how our ntnghborhood is decaying,the county can not do anything to up grade the streets, because oicy don't have money and if a developer wants to do it, then we should help hien not Stop hint. 1 aria in support of this development, It could only take unused land and make it useful, .job and tax producing property for the town and the county. Erika and Solan Applin k3 - 5-7 J i � q i c 3: -SPAWNERS ,C> Say Pablo Watershed Neighbors Education and Restoration Society 155 Richmond Field Station, 1327 South 46th. Street, Richmond, CA 94804 July 11, 2004 Supervisor John Gioia 11780 San Pablo Ave. Suite D El Cerrito CA 94530 Re: SDOl-8533 Dear Supervisor Gioia: I am writing to urge you and the Board of Supervisor to require a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the above referenced project. I am a resident of El Sobrante and coordinator of SPAWN- ERS, a volunteer community group dedicated to protecting the San Pablo Creek watershed. While I share with my neighbors many concerns about all of the project's impacts, I am commenting here only on the effects of the proposal on Garrity Creek and the surrounding habitat. There are inconsistencies and assumptions contained in the Initial Study and in the proposed mitiga- tions. Neglecting to investigate these issues now will leave the new homeowners, nearby residents, the community at large and the county at risk. On pages 10 and 12 of the environmental checklist form the native tree loss is shown as 10 trees. On page 2 of the same document, 19 native trees are listed to be removed. The 3:1 mitigation uses the lower number (30 trees instead of 57). The loss of oaks throughout the state to Sudden Oak Death and the low rate of oak regeneration means established healthy oaks are critical resources. The mitigation is inadequate. In addition, the loss of vegetative cover during the construction and the use of willow pole cuttings to replace mature willow habitat are significant impacts that have not been mitigated. Garrity Creek is a year round creek and the springs and seeps on the parcel proposed for develop- ment are its headwaters. The importance of small streams and wetlands to nearby and downstream water quality is known to be significant. This project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area and the proposed mitigations are not detailed sufficiently to be sure they reduce the impact to "less than significant". The deed-restricted area along Garrity creek and the unnamed tributary will be blocked by wood and wire fence. This will prevent any maintenance of the corridor and block access by some native fauna. In addition, the ongoing performance of the grassy swales will need to be monitored closely. Because of these concerns and those expressed by other community members, I believe that the CEQA"fair argument" standard requires the county to prepare a full EIR. A full EIR will provide the detailed review of the impacts and proposed mitigations that the community deserves. Sincerely, t !Eliz eth O'Shea cc: El Sobrante Planning and zoning Committee Friends of Garrity Greek Page 1 of' 1 Ken Petersen From: Ken Petersen <kpetersen@nedsbooks.com> To: <Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 2:53 AM Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on SD01-8533, Personal Statement 07/13/04 Traffic is one of the most pressing concerns of neighboring residents— according to the staff report, 92%of letters opposing this development included concerns about the negative impact of increased traffic. Numerous residents have testified as to the heavy traffic on Hilltop Drive during commute periods and during the beginning and end of the school day, when traffic is backed up bumper to bumper and can come to a complete standstill. The staff finding that no full traffic study is required is based on the absurd assumption of 1.1 peak hour trips per unit, Most families own at least two vehicles, especially if both adults drive to work or to a public transit hub. Even if only one adult commutes to work, the other may take children to school or run household errands. A visual survey of my own street, Marin Rd., indicates that most residents have two, three or four vehicles. The proposed project, with its large homes can expect to see a high percentage of residents who not only have multiple vehicles but children needing to attend local schools and thus add to the daily gridlock. A reasonable estimate of 70 to 80 more vehicles in the neighborhood would dramatically increase the number of peak hour trips. The applicant provided traffic study is woefully inadequate, it is built upon incomplete information and faulty assumptions. The initial study included traffic information based on two intersections less than half a mile from what was then the only project entrance. Since then, a second access road has been added, Marin Rd., a narrow, substandard, dead end street that has trouble handling traffic from its own residents. No adequate assessment of the impact of the project on Marin Rd, has been done, instead residents' concerns have been cursorily dismissed. The cumulative effects of additional traffic generated by two other subdivisions in the immediate area have not been adequately addressed by the county, A full traffic study should be required that includes all Hilltop Dr. intersections from 1-80 to Manor Rd and then on to Appian Way as part of a comprehensive EIR. The mitigated negative declaration and the county staff report refers to the project as "infill"; a conversation with Supervisor Gioia about the definition of an "infill" project indicates that it does not meet this criteria. The project is not within walking distance of services needed by residents on a regular basis such as grocery stores, restaurants, cleaners, etc.. Public transit in the area is abysmal. The assumption by County Staff that a project is simply„infill"to justify recommendations should be reexamined in the course of an EIR and be appropriately revised. Kenneth A. Petersen 828 Marin Rd. El Sobrante CA 94803 7/13/04 RICHMOND NEIGHBORHOOD COOR.L?INAlINC COUNCII, { C 0 'BUIDiNG NEGHB RHOODS BLOCK BY BLOCK" 2004 R 0. Box 485 - Richmond,CA 94848 - (510) 620-6512 Eleanor Loynd President Sandi Genser-hiaack July 13, 2004 vice-President Hand Delivered Rhonda F.Harris To: The Board of Supervisors Wirer Supervisor DeSaulnier Supervisor Gioia Supervisor Glover Supervisor Greenberg Dorut2d y Woodrow Supersivor Uilkema Corresponding Secretary Jerry Yoshida Re: SDO1-8533, 40 home subdivision off Hilltop Drive Sergeant-at-Arrns .Dear Supervisors, Doris R Brown For Your Information, the Richmond Neighborhood Coordin- Public Information Officer ating Council is the umbrella group over 32 different Neighborhood Council groups in Richmond. We share problems, concerns, and George Schmidt it accomplishments. At the July 12f'meeting, the RNCC voted unanimously Naomi WMiams to support the appeal on SD01-8533. To protect the lives and properties Directors-At-Large of existing neighbors as well as the new residents, a full environmental Udswuh9w Comb impact report should be done. The County has no evidence to show that the drainage plan in Atchi=VMS= Hilltop Green is adequate to handle the increased run-off from this 40 Beldh*Wx�� home subdivision. Will improvements be needed? Who will pay for Curiap Hilb South those improvements to handle the increased run-off? Who will do the Cbrotutdo Maintenance work? Who will pay for the maintenance work? All of these questions should be answered and a maintenance plan East Richmond worked out before the project moves ahead. Eastsh El Sobmniz HM Pahw4dc/Hilltop Sincerely, Grp Grunri4v HilltopGrUn Hilltop Vgkr-s IronEleanor Loynd Lw=l Ph RNCC.president Marina Bay ;��Valleyt cc: Richmond City Council Hilltop Green HOA Panhandle Armx Par chester Map Park Plaza Parkview Point Richmond Ptzllftm Qu"Hill Richrmnd Annex R.ictumre VilIJwt.Square Santa Po Shields-Raid Southwest Aru= July 13, 2004 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, I want to bring your attention to a creek that runs at the bottom of the small valley behind Hilltop Drive in EI Sobrante. That valley includes the 10 acres of this proposed project, SD8533, as well as perhaps 20 acres of neighboring horse pastures, creating an open area that harbors wildlife and brings quiet and peace to the entire area. The beautiful year-round creek is called an "unnamed tributary" in staff documents. Near where the named part of Garrity Creek joins this tributary, the creek has been culverted under the ground and through the Hilltop Green development, under Hilltop Mail, into Hilltop Lake and eventually out to San Pablo Bay by Tara Hills. Board members, Mr. Chairman; if you walked on the trail next to this creek, as I know Supervisor Gioia has, I believe that you too would be struck by its beauty and the need to protect it and restore the portions buried underground. The open portion of the creek, which is mostly on the property that would become lot 29 in this project, was called by the developer a "ditch" or not named at all in the developer's maps, and called "wetlands" in staff documents. These designations do not reflect the reality of this flowing stream. In rainy season, this creek floods the pastures and becomes a pond that attracts water birds. County staff's finding of a less-than-significant impact to the creek relies on a "draft agreement" from the State Department of Fish and Game dated Nov. 6, 2002. That document discusses impact to Garrity Creek and "[its)tributary" caused by construction of a "Mahnaz Drive" and a „Naz Lane/fire trail,,, which are both part of a previous project design. I question how f=ish and Game approval for a previous design can be considered valid for the current design. All mitigation plantings are planned for this same area, lot 29. Our appeal letter points out that no plans have been made for management of this area, which is proposed to be deed-restricted with a house built in one corner. County staff responds that a Geologic Hazard Abatement District "could be assigned responsibility for maintenance of grassy swales, drainage structures, and maintenance of fencing." "Could be" is not adequate. Nor is any ongoing protection planned for the mitigation plantings, which are apparently all to be placed on one homeowner's property. To summarize, • the need for creek protection • the fact that the Fish and Game permit presented does not refer to the current project • the failure to manage the area where all mitigation planting is planned are three of the many areas of inadequate or insufficient information and study related to this project. In order to comply with CEQA regulations and protect the County from liability, as well as to protect an important natural resource in West County, I ask you to find for an Environmental Impact Report. Thank you for your attention. (Ms.) Jesse Golden 613 Pebble Drive El Sobrante CA 94803 July 13, 2004 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, I want to bring your attention to a creek that runs at the bottom of the small valley behind Hilltop Drive in EI Sobrante. That valley includes the 10 acres of this proposed project, SD8533, as well as perhaps 20 acres of neighboring horse pastures, creating an open area that harbors wildlife and brings quiet and peace to the entire area. The beautiful year-round creek is called an "unnamed tributary„ in staff documents. Near where the named part of Garrity Creek joins this tributary, the creek has been culverted under the ground and through the Hilltop Green development, under Hilltop Mall, into Hilltop Lake and eventually out to San Pablo Bay by Tara Hills. Board members, Mr. Chairman: if you walked on the trail next to this creek, as I know Supervisor Gioia has, I believe that you too would be struck by its beauty and the need to protect it and restore the portions buried underground. The open portion of the creek; which is mostly on the property that would become lot 29 in this project, was called by the developer a "ditch" or not named at all in the developer's maps, and called "wetlands" in staff documents. These designations do not reflect the reality of this flowing stream. In rainy season, this creek floods the pastures and becomes a pond that attracts water birds. County staff's finding of a less-than-significant impact to the creek relies on a "draft agreement" from the State Department of Fish and Game dated Nov. 6, 2002. That document discusses impact to Garrity Creek and "[its] tributary" caused by construction of a "Mahnaz Drive" and a "Naz Lane/fire trail,,,which are both part of a previous project design. I question how Fish and Game approval for a previous design can be considered valid for the current design. All mitigation plantings are planned for this same area, lot 29. Our appeal letter points out that no plans have been made for management of this area, which is proposed to be deed-restricted with a house built in one corner. County staff responds that a Geologic Hazard Abatement District "could be assigned responsibility for maintenance of grassy swales, drainage structures, and maintenance of fencing." "Could be" is not adequate. Nor is any ongoing protection planned for the mitigation plantings, which are apparently all to be placed on one homeowner's property. To summarize, • the need for creek protection • the fact that the Fish and Game permit presented does not refer to the current project • the failure to manage the area where all mitigation planting is planned are three of the many areas of inadequate or insufficient information and study related to this project. In order to comply with CEQA regulations and protect the County from liability, as well as to protect an important natural resource in West County, I ask you to find for an Environmental Impact Report. Thank you for your attention. (Ms.) Jesse Golden 613 Pebble Drive El Sobrante CA 94803 July 13, 2004 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, I want to bring your attention to a creek that runs at the bottom of the small valley behind Hilltop Drive in El Sobrante. That valley includes the 10 acres of this proposed project, SD6533, as well as perhaps 20 acres of neighboring horse pastures, creating an open area that harbors wildlife and brings quiet and peace to the entire area. The beautiful year-round creek is called an "unnamed tributary„ in staff documents. Near where the named part of Garrity Creek joins this tributary, the creek has been culverted under the ground and through the Hilltop green development, under Hilltop Mall, into Hilltop Lake and eventually out to San Pablo Bay by Tara Hills. Board members, Mr. Chairman: if you walked on the trail next to this creek, as I know Supervisor Gioia has, I believe that you too would be struck by its beauty and the need to protect it and restore the portions buried underground. The open portion of the creek, which is mostly on the property that would become lot 29 in this project, was called by the developer a "ditch" or not named at all in the developer's maps, and called "wetlands" in staff documents. These designations do not reflect the reality of this flowing stream. In rainy season, this creek floods the pastures and becomes a pond that attracts water birds. County staff's finding of a less-than-significant impact to the creek relies on a "draft agreement" from the State Department of Fish and Game dated Nov. 6, 2002. That document discusses impact to Garrity Creek and "[its] tributary„ caused by construction of a "Mahnaz Drive" and a "Naz Lane/fire trail," which are both part of a previous project design. 1 question how Fish and Game approval for a previous design can be considered valid for the current design. All mitigation plantings are planned for this same area, lot 29. Our appeal letter points out that no plans have been made for management of this area, which is proposed to be deed-restricted with a house built in one corner. County staff responds that a Geologic Hazard Abatement District "could be assigned responsibility for maintenance of grassy swales, drainage structures, and maintenance of fencing.,' "Could be" is not adequate. Nor is any ongoing protection planned for the mitigation plantings, which are apparently all to be placed on one homeowner's property. To summarize, • the need for creek protection • the fact that the Fish and Game permit presented does not refer to the current project • the failure to manage the area where all mitigation planting is planned are three of the many areas of inadequate or insufficient information and study related to this project. In order to comply with CEQA regulations and protect the County from liability, as well as to protect an important natural resource in West County, 1 ask you to find for an Environmental Impact Report. Thank you for your attention. (Ms.) Jesse Golden 613 Pebble Drive El Sobrante CA 94803 July 13, 2004 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, I want to bring your attention to a creek that runs at the bottom of the small valley behind Hilltop Drive in El Sobrante. That valley includes the 10 acres of this proposed project, SD8533, as well as perhaps 20 acres of neighboring horse pastures, creating an open area that harbors wildlife and brings quiet and peace to the entire area. The beautiful year-round creek is called an "unnamed tributary„ in staff documents. Near where the named part of Garrity Creek joins this tributary, the creek has been culverted under the ground and through the Hilltop Green development, under Hilltop Mail, into Hilltop Lake and eventually out to San Pablo Bay by Tara Hills. Board members, Mr. Chairman: if you walked on the trail next to this creek, as I know Supervisor Gioia has, I believe that you too would be struck by its beauty and the need to protect it and restore the portions buried underground. The open portion of the creek, which is mostly on the property that would become lot 29 in this project, was called by the developer a "ditch" or not named at all in the developer's maps, and called "wetlands" in staff documents. These designations do not reflect the reality of this flowing stream. In rainy season, this creek floods the pastures and becomes a pond that attracts water birds. County staff's finding of a less-than-significant impact to the creek relies on a "draft agreement" from the State Department of Fish and Game dated Nov. 6, 2002. That document discusses impact to Garrity Creek and "[its]tributary" caused by construction of a "Mahnaz Drive" and a "Naz Lane/fire trail," which are both part of a previous project design. I question how Fish and Game approval for a previous design can be considered valid for the current design. All mitigation plantings are planned for this same area, lot 29. Our appeal letter points out that no plans have been made for management of this area, which is proposed to be deed-restricted with a house built in one corner. County staff responds that a Geologic Hazard Abatement District"could be assigned responsibility for maintenance of grassy swaies, drainage structures, and maintenance of fencing." "Could be" is not adequate. Nor is any ongoing protection planned for the mitigation plantings, which are apparently all to be placed on one homeowner's property. To summarize, • the need for creek protection • the fact that the Fish and Game permit presented does not refer to the current project • the failure to manage the area where all mitigation planting is planned are three of the many areas of inadequate or insufficient information and study related to this project. In order to comply with CEQA regulations and protect the County from liability, as well as to protect an important natural resource in West County, I ask you to find for an Environmental Impact Report. Thank you for your attention. (Ms.) Jesse Golden 613 Pebble Drive El Sobrante CA 94803 July 13, 2004 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, I want to bring your attention to a creek that runs at the bottom of the small valley behind Hilltop Drive in El Sobrante. That valley includes the 10 acres of this proposed project, SD8533, as well as perhaps 20 acres of neighboring horse pastures, creating an open area that harbors wildlife and brings quiet and peace to the entire area. The beautiful year-round creek is called an "unnamed tributary" in staff documents. Near where the named part of Garrity Creek joins this tributary, the creek has been culverted under the ground and through the Hilltop Green development, under Hilltop Mall, into Hilltop Lake and eventually out to San Pablo Bay by Tara Hills. Board members, Mr. Chairman: if you walked on the trail next to this creek, as I know Supervisor Gioia has, I believe that you too would be struck by its beauty and the need to protect it and restore the portions buried underground. The open portion of the creek, which is mostly on the property that would become lot 29 in this project, was called by the developer a "ditch" or not named at all in the developer's maps, and called "wetlands" in staff documents. These designations do not reflect the reality of this flowing stream. In rainy season, this creek floods the pastures and becomes a pond that attracts water birds. County staff's finding of a less-than-significant impact to the creek relies on a "draft agreement" from the State Department of Fish and Game dated Nov. 6, 2002. That document discusses impact to Garrity Creek and "[its)tributary" caused by construction of a "Mahnaz Drive" and a "Naz Lane/fire trail,,, which are both part of a previous project design. I question how Fish and Game approval for a previous design can be considered valid for the current design. All mitigation plantings are planned for this same area, lot 29. Our appeal letter points out that no pians have been made for management of this area, which is proposed to be deed-restricted with a house built in one corner. County staff responds that a Geologic Hazard Abatement District "could be assigned responsibility for maintenance of grassy swales, drainage structures, and maintenance of fencing.,' "Could be" is not adequate. Nor is any ongoing protection planned for the mitigation plantings, which are apparently all to be placed on one homeowner's Property. To summarize, • the need for creek protection • the fact that the Fish and Game permit presented does not refer to the current project • the failure to manage the area where all mitigation planting is planned are three of the many areas of inadequate or insufficient information and study related to this project. In order to comply with CEQA regulations and protect the County from liability, as well as to protect an important natural resource in Vilest County, i ask you to find for an Environmental Impact Report. Thank you for your attention. (Ms.) Jesse Golden 613 Pebble Drive El Sobrante CA 94803 July 13, 2004 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Burd, I want to bring your attention to a creek that runs at the bottom of the small valley behind Hilltop Drive in El Sobrante. That valley includes the 19 acres of this proposed project, SD8633, as well as perhaps 20 acres of neighboring horse pastures, creating an open area that harbors wildlife and brings quiet and peace to the entire area. The beautiful year-round creek is called an "unnamed tributary„ in staff documents. Near where the named part of Garrity Creek joins this tributary, the creek has been cuiverted under the ground and through the Hilltop Green development, under Hilltop Mall, into Hilltop Lake and eventually out to San Pablo Bay by Tara Hills. Board members, Mr. Chairman: if you walked on the trail next to this creek, as I know Supervisor Gioia has, I believe that you too would be struck by its beauty and the need to protect it and restore the portions buried underground. The open portion of the creek, which is mostly on the property that would become lot 29 in this project, was called by the developer a "ditch" or not named at all in the developer's maps, and called "wetlands" in staff documents. These designations do not reflect the reality of this flowing stream. In rainy season, this creek floods the pastures and becomes a pond that attracts water birds. County staff's finding of a less-than-significant impact to the creek relies on a "draft agreement" from the State Department of Fish and Game dated Nov. 6, 2002. That document discusses impact to Garrity Creels and "[its] tributary" caused by construction of a "Mahnaz Drive" and a "Naz Lane/fire trail,"which are both part of a previous project design. I question how Fish and Game approval for a previous design can be considered valid for the current design. All mitigation plantings are planned for this same area, lot 29. Our appeal letter points out that no plans have been made for management of this area, which is proposed to be deed-restricted with a house built in one comer. County staff responds that a Geologic Hazard Abatement District"could be assigned responsibility for maintenance of grassy swales, drainage structures, and maintenance of fencing," "Could be" is not adectuate. Nor is any ongoing protection planned for the mitigation plantings, which are apparently all to be placed on one homeowner's property. To summarize, • the need for creek protection • the fact that the Fish and Game permit presented does not refer to the current project • the failure to manage the area where all mitigation planting is planned are three of the many areas of inadequate or insufficient information and study related to this project. In order to comply with CEQA regulations and protect the County from liability, as well as to protect an important natural resource in West County, I ask you to find for an Environmental Impact Report. Thank you for your attention. (Ms) Jesse Golden 613 Pebble Drive El Sobrante CA 94803 July 13, 2004 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine St. Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on SD 01-8533 Board members, Mr. Chairman, As Supervisor Gioia and Mr. Myers know, petitions in opposition to SD8533 have been signed by over 360 residents of the Hilltop and Manor neighborhoods in El Sobrante. Today 1 present to you another 44 signatures, making a total of over 400. t would like to read you the text of the petition: "We are deeply concerned by the proposed 40-home development on Hilltop Drive in El Sobrante and the probable negative impacts on the environment,tragic, wildlife, Garrity Creek, and the semi-rural character of the area. We hereby ask Contra Costa Supervisor John Gioia and the Centra Costa Planning Department to take all possible steps to reduce the size and scope of this development and prevent degradation of the natural environment." I'm also presenting recent letters of support for the appeal before you. The writers and,groups represented are: Ruby Molinari of El Sobrante Suzanne Fox of El Sobrante Janet Katulas, Director,El Sobrante Valley Legal Defense Fund Donald Bastin, chair, County Service Area R-9 Committee Rita Minjares, Chair, West Contra Costa County Group, San Francisco Bay Chapter, Sierra Club Eleanor Loynd, President, May Valley Neighborhood Council As you know,in your packet there are also dozens of letters from individuals expressing opposition to this development and supporting the need for an EK as well as the El Sobrante Manor Neighborhood Council, the Fund for Animals, the Urban Creek Council, and the Richmond/El Sobrante Greens. We hope you will consider the concerns of these many area residents in making your decision. Thank you for your time. Sincerely yours, K ......... Jean Stewart 727 Bayview Court El Sobrante, CA 94803 July 13 Board members, Mr. Chairmen; As Supervisor Gioia and Mr. Myers know, petitions in opposition to SD8533 have been signed by over 360 residents of the Hilltop and Manor neighborhoods in EI Sobrante. Today I present to you another 44 signatures, making a total of over 400. 1 would like to read you the text of the petition: We are deeply concerned by the proposed 40-home development on Hilltop Drive in El Sobrante and the probable negative impacts on the environment, traffic, wildlife, Garrity Creek, and the semi-rural character of the area. We hereby ask Contra Costa Supervisor John Gioia and the Contra Costa Planning Department to take all possible steps to reduce the size and scope of this development and prevent degradation of the natural environment. I'm also presenting recent letters of support for the appeal before you. The writers and groups represented are: • Ruby Molinari of El Sobrante ' • Suzanne Fox of EI Sobrante1 � • Janet Katulas, Director, El Sobrante Valley Legal Defense Fund • Donald Bastin, chair, County Service Area R-9 Committee • Rita Minjares, Chair, West Contra Costa County Group, San Francisco Bay Chapter, Sierra Club • Eleanor Loynd, President, May Valley Neighborhood Council As you know, in your packet there are also dozens of letters from individuals expressing opposition to this development and supporting the need for an EIR, as well as the El Sobrante Manor Neighborhood Council, the Fund for Animals, the Urban Creek Council, and the Richmond/El Sobrante Greens. We hope you will consider the concerns of these many area residents in making your decision. Thank you for your time. x{+i t CSV"e-, YLw3✓`:P 4. s � July 13 1 7-Do 4 Board members, Mr. Chairman; As Supervisor Gioia and Mr. Myers know, petitions in opposition to SD8533 have been signed by over 360 residents of the Hilltop and Manor neighborhoods in EI Sobrante. Today 1 present to you another 44 signatures, making a total of over 400. 1 would like to read you the text of the petition: We are deeply concerned by the proposed 40-home development on Hilltop Drive in El Sobrante and the probable negative impacts on the environment, traffic, wildlife, Garrity Creek, and the semi-rural character of the area. We hereby ask Contra Costa Supervisor John Gioia and the Contra Costa Planning Department to take all possible steps to reduce the size and scope of this development and prevent degradation of the natural environment. I'm also presenting recent letters of support for the appeal before you. The writers and groups represented are: • Ruby Molinari of EI Sobrante V!e- • Suzanne Fox of EI Sobrante5 • Janet Katulas, Director, El Sobrante Valley Legal Defense Fund • Donald Bastin, chair, County Service Area R-9 Committee • Rita Minjares, Chair, West Contra Costa County Group, San Francisco Bay Chapter, Sierra Club • Eleanor Loynd, President, May Valley Neighborhood Council As you know, in your packet there are also dozens of letters from individuals expressing opposition to this development and supporting the need for an EIR, as well as the El Sobrante Manor Neighborhood Council, the Fund for Animals, the Urban Creek Council, and the Richmond/El Sobrante Greens. We hope you will consider the concerns of these many area residents in making your decision. Thank you for your time. �f� July 13 � Board members, Mr. Chairman; As Supervisor Gioia and Mr. Myers know, petitions in opposition to SD8533 have been signed by over 360 residents of the Hilltop and Manor neighborhoods in El Sobrante. Today I present to you another 44 signatures, making a total of over 400. 1 would like to read you the text of the petition: We are deeply concerned by the proposed 40-home development on Hilltop ©rive in EI Sobrante and the probable negative impacts on the environment, traffic, wildlife, Garrity Creek, and the semi-rural character of the area. We hereby ask Contra Costa Supervisor John Gioia and the Contra Costa Planning Department to take all possible steps to reduce the size and scope of this development and prevent degradation of the natural environment. I'm also presenting recent letters of support for the appeal before you. The writers and groups represented are: • Ruby Molinari of EI Sobrante �Fss� '. , j5. • Suzanne Fox of EI Sobrante C ` ems) D n_v!�,-ke v`s • Janet Katulas, Director, El Sobrante Valley Legal Defense Fund • Donald Bastin, chair, County Service Area R-9 Committee • Rita Minjares, Chair, West Contra Costa County Group, San Francisco Bay Chapter, Sierra Club • Eleanor Loynd, President, May Valley Neighborhood Council As you know, in your packet there are also dozens of letters from individuals expressing opposition to this development and supporting the need for an EIR, as well as the EI Sobrante Manor Neighborhood Council, the Fund for Animals, the Urban Creek Council, and the Richmond/El Sobrante Greens. We hope you will consider the concerns of these many area residents in making your decision. Thank you for your time. iY3 Y �CiL; V, f —7 �--- r r July 13, Board members, Mr. Chairman; As Supervisor Gioia and Mr. Myers know, petitions in opposition to SD8533 have been signed by over 360 residents of the Hilltop and Manor neighborhoods in EI Sobrante. Today I present to you another 44 signatures, making a total of over 400. 1 would like to read you the text of the petition: We are deeply concerned by the proposed 40-home development on Hilltop Drive in E! Sobrante and the probable negative impacts on the environment, traffic, wildlife, Garrity Creek, and the semi-rural character of the area. We hereby ask Contra Costa Supervisor John Gioia and the Contra Costa Planning Department to take all possible steps to reduce the size and scope of this development and prevent degradation of the natural environment. I'm also presenting recent letters of support for the appeal before you. The writers and groups represented are: • Ruby Molinari of El Sobrante • Suzanne Fox of El Sobrantel� �� ,,� a� • Janet Katulas, Director, El Sobrante Valley Legal Defense Fund • Donald Bastin, chair, County Service Area R-9 Committee • Rita Minjares, Chair, West Contra Costa County Group, San Francisco Bay Chapter, Sierra Club • Eleanor Loynd, President, May Valley Neighborhood Council As you know, in your packet there are also dozens of letters from individuals expressing opposition to this development and supporting the need for an EIR, as well as the EI Sobrante Manor Neighborhood Council, the Fund for Animals, the Urban Creek Council, and the Richmond/El Sobrante Greens. We hope you will consider the concerns of these many area residents in making your decision. Thank you for your time. � C--e f - July 13 Board members, Mr, Chairman; As Supervisor Gioia and Mr. Myers know, petitions in opposition to SD8533 have been signed by over 360 residents of the Hilltop and Manor neighborhoods in El Sobrante. Today l present to you another 44 signatures, making a total of over 400. 1 would like to read you the text of the petition: We are deeply concerned by the proposed 40-home development on Hilltop Drive in El Sobrante and the probable negative impacts on the environment, traffic, wildlife, Garrity Creek, and the semi-rural character of the area. We hereby ask Contra Costa Supervisor John Gioia and the Contra Costa Planning Department to take all possible steps to reduce the size and scope of this development and prevent degradation of the natural environment. I'm also presenting recent letters of support for the appeal before you. The writers and groups represented are: f f • Ruby Molinari of El Sobrante e 4 • Suzanne Fox of El Sobrante s " Sf-3 ' • Janet Katulas, Director, El Sobrante Valley Legal Defense Fund • Donald Bastin, chair, County Service Area R-9 Committee • Rita Minjares, Chair, West Contra Costa County Group, San Francisco Bay Chapter, Sierra Club • Eleanor Loynd, President, May Valley Neighborhood Council As you know, in your packet there are also dozens of letters from individuals expressing opposition to this development and supporting the need for an E1R, as well as the El Sobrante Manor Neighborhood Council, the Fund for Animals, the Urban Creek Council, and the Richmond/El Sobrante Greens. We hope you will consider the concerns of these many area residents in making your decision. Thank you for your time. _ z Gia :r 7 a ,` tVj July 13 r Board members, Mr. Chairman, As Supervisor Gioia and Mr. Myers know, petitions in opposition to SD8533 have been signed by over 350 residents of the Hilltop and Manor neighborhoods in El Sobrante. Today 1 present to you another 44 signatures, making a total of over 400. 1 would like to read you the text of the petition: We are deeply concerned by the proposed 40-home development on Hilltop Drive in EI Sobrante and the probable negative impacts on the environment, traffic, wildlife, Garrity Creek, and the semi-rural character of the area. We hereby ask Contra Costa Supervisor John Gioia and the Contra Costa Planning Department to take all possible steps to reduce the size and scope of this development and prevent degradation of the natural environment. I'm also presenting recent letters of support for the appeal before you. The writers and groups represented are: • Ruby Molinari of El Sobrante sal 6y�`� � Inc HJ!,-,iij `1 �cL.- • Suzanne Fox of E1 Sobrante C., , ,� - • Janet Katulas, Director, El Sobrante Valley Legal Defense Fund • Donald Bastin, chair, County Service Area R-9 Committee • Rita Minjares, Chair, West Contra Costa County Group, San Francisco Bay Chapter, Sierra Club • Eleanor Loynd, President, May Valley Neighborhood Council As you know, in your packet there are also dozens of letters from individuals expressing opposition to this development and supporting the need for an EIR, as well as the El Sobrante Manor Neighborhood Council, the Fund for Animals, the Urban Creek Council, and the Richmond/El Sobrante Greens. We hope you will consider the concerns of these many area residents in making your decision. Thank you for your time. of L;T6 V Xz v. July 13, 170C � Board members, Mr. Chairman; As Supervisor Gioia and Mr. Myers knew, petitions in opposition to SD8533 have been signed by over 360 residents of the Hilltop and Manor neighborhoods in El Sobrante. Today i present to you another 44 signatures, making a total of over 400. 1 would like to read you the text of the petition: We are deeply concerned by the proposed 40-home development on Hilltop Drive in El Sobrante and the probable negative impacts on the environment, traffic, wildlife, Garrity Greek, and the semi-rural character of the area. We hereby ask Contra Costa Supervisor John Gioia and the Contra Costa Planning Department to take all possible steps to reduce the size and scope of this development and prevent degradation of the natural environment. I'm also presenting recent letters of support for the appeal before you. The writers and groups represented are. + Ruby Molinari of EI Sobrante { + Suzanne Fox of EI Sobrante + Janet Katulas, Director, EI Sobrante Valley Legal Defense Fund + Donald Bastin, chair, County Service Area R-9 Committee + Rita Minjares, Chair, West Contra Costa County Group, San Francisco Bay Chapter, Sierra Club + Eleanor Loynd, President, May Valley Neighborhood Council As you know, in your packet there are also dozens of letters from individuals expressing opposition to this development and supporting the need for an EIR, as well as the El Sobrante Manor Neighborhood Council, the Fund for Animals, the Urban Creek Council, and the Richmond/El Sobrante Greens. We hope you will consider the concerns of these many area residents in making your decision. Thank you for your time. CJ fe ` . July 13 , Board members, Mr. Chairman; As Supervisor Gioia and Mr. Myers know, petitions in opposition to SD8533 have been signed by over 360 residents of the Hilltop and Manor neighborhoods in EI Sobrante. Today I present to you another 44 signatures, making a total of over 400. 1 would like to read you the text of the petition: We are deeply concerned by the proposed 40-home development on Hilltop Drive in El Sobrante and the probable negative impacts on the environment, traffic, wildlife, Garrity Creek, and the semi-rural character of the area. We hereby ask Contra Costa Supervisor John Gioia and the Contra Costa Planning Department to take all possible steps to reduce the size and scope of this development and prevent degradation of the natural environment. I'm also presenting recent letters of support for the appeal before you. The writers and groups represented are: • Ruby Molinari of EI Sobrante ;{ i • Suzanne Fox of EI Sobrante • Janet Katulas, Director, El Sobrante Valley Legal Defense Fund • Donald Bastin, chair, County Service Area R-9 Committee • Rita Minjares, Chair, West Contra Costa County Group, San Francisco Bay Chapter, Sierra Club • Eleanor Loynd, President, May Valley Neighborhood Council As you know, in your packet there are also dozens of letters from individuals expressing opposition to this development and supporting the need for an EIR, as well as the El Sobrante Manor Neighborhood Council, the Fund for Animals, the Urban Creek Council, and the Richmond/El Sobrante Greens. We hope you will consider the concerns of these many area residents in making your decision. Thank you for your time. July 13,, d ' Board members, Mr. Chairman; As Supervisor Gioia and Mr. Myers knew, petitions in opposition to SD8533 have been signed by over 360 residents of the Hilltop and Manor neighborhoods in El Sobrante. Today I present to you another 44 signatures, making a total of over 400. 1 would like to read you the text of the petition: We are deeply concerned by the proposed 40-home development on Hilltop Drive in EI Sobrante and the probable negative impacts on the environment, traffic, wildlife, Garrity Creek, and the semi-rural character of the area. We hereby ask Contra Costa Supervisor John Gioia and the Contra Costa Planning Department to take all possible steps to reduce the size and scope of this development and prevent degradation of the natural environment. I'm also presenting recent letters of support for the appeal before you. The writers and groups represented are: • Ruby Molinari of El SobranteP. 3 • Suzanne Fox of EI Sobrante Wit'; -7- ' ` � � ' '��_ yr� _5" r • Janet Katulas, Director, El Sobrante Valley Legal Defense Fund • Donald Bastin, chair, County Service Area R-9 Committee • Rita Minjares, Chair, West Contra Costa County Group, San Francisco Bay Chapter, Sierra Club • Eleanor Loynd, President, May Valley Neighborhood Council As you know, in your packet there are also dozens of letters from individuals expressing opposition to this development and supporting the need for an EIR, as well as the El Sobrante Manor Neighborhood Council, the Fund for Animals, the Urban Creek Council, and the Richmond/El Sobrante Greens. We hope you will consider the concerns of these many area residents in making your decision. Thank you for your time. 7 " i { r 3r 3 _. July 131 _,f>,3€ Board members, Mr. Chairman; As Supervisor Gioia and Mr. Myers know, petitions in opposition to SD8533 have been signed by over 360 residents of the Hilltop and Manor neighborhoods in El Sobrante. Today I present to you another 44 signatures, making a total of over 400. 1 would like to read you the text of the petition: We are deeply concerned by the proposed 40-home development on Hilltop drive in El Sobrante and the probable negative impacts on the environment, traffic, wildlife, Garrity Creek, and the semi-rural character of the area. We hereby ask Contra Costa Supervisor John Gioia and the Contra Costa planning Department to take all possible steps to reduce the size and scope of this development and prevent degradation of the natural environment. I'm also presenting recent letters of support for the appeal before you. The writers and groups represented are: • Ruby Molinari of EI Sobranten - • Suzanne Fox of EI Sobrante c t '1 : tom`` ea) 5-Pt R 5 • Janet Katulas, Director, El Sobrante Valley Legal Defense Fund • Donald Bastin, chair, County Service Area R-g Committee • Rita Minjares, Chair, West Contra Costa County Group, San Francisco Bay Chapter, Sierra Club • Eleanor Loynd, President, May Valley Neighborhood Council As you know, in your packet there are also dozens of letters from individuals expressing opposition to this development and supporting the need for an EIR, as well as the El Sobrante Manor Neighborhood Council, the Fund for Animals, the Urban Creek Council, and the Richmond/El Sobrante Greens. We hope you will consider the concerns of these many area residents in making your decision. Thank you for your time. -77.7 f f July 7, 2004 Beard of Supervisors: Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, Ca 94553 Re. Planning Department Decision on SDOI-8533 Environmental Impact Report on Afshar Development Hilltop Area,El Sobrante,Ca.. Federal Mover, Chair,and Board Members. This letter is to support the appeal filed Eleanor A. Loynd,El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee and Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek/Hilltop Neighborhood Association regarding the Contra Costa Planning Commission's decision to permit this project to be built without an environmental impact report. Because of the size of the project and the terrain on which it is to be built there are serious concerns that future problems will occur effecting the new homeowners and their neighbors.A complete Environmental Impact Report is required to detail all the proced- ures needed to insure the stability of the homes to be built and the effect on the surround- ing neighborhood. Areas which need more studies are traffic,Marin Read as an access road,landuse as related to slope densities,geology,natural springs on the property,and drainage. There is no provision for any parks in the development although there will be children moving into the new houses. The Contra Costa County Planner for this project recommended the development be limited to 35 homes.The Planning Commissioners ignored this recommendation and approved 40 homes.No reason was given for overriding the County Planner's best judgment to put a limit of 35 homes. No doubt the Planner had a good reason for his decision. This project will have a significant impact on the neighborhood and should have at least a focused report, if not a full Environment Impact Report. S' y, Ru MO El Sobrante Citizen Cc: Barbara Pendergrass,Friends of Garrity Creek/Hilltop Neighborhood Association Eleanor Loynd, El Sobrante'Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee Clear Board of Supervisors, I have lived in El Sobrante for over 10 years, and Pinole 10 years before that. I moved here to get a little bit of country flavor in an urban setting. Over the years I have watched more and more open space get filled up with stores (1 now have two Starbucks within walking distance), strip malls, and high-end housing. I used to be able to see the stars at night with no glow of the city. Now it is almost light enough at night to see without a flashlight...and only a few stars are visible. I walk my dogs in the neighborhood daily and have to walk on Manor Road for a couple of blocks. It is so dangerous at night because of speeding cars, and in the mornings it is a nightmare with school children's parents making many many trips up and down the road. It is already unsafe, loud and smelly in the morning. And now we will have 40 new homes with access to the schools via Marin and Manor? Cao you know what the impact would be on this neighborhood? With the projected two cars per household, an average of 3 to 4 trips a day, that could be up to 400 more vehicles passing through! Our neighborhood simply cannot handle that much traffic! Also, there are no parks , (at least around this neighborhood), in El Sobrante. The kids in the schools have to play on the pavement and have very little nature to see. 1 ask you to at least consider an EIR to consider these issues as well as the slope and drainage issue. Let El Sobrante voters have some power to decide how much development should go into our already full- to- the- brim town. Thank you for considering my point of view. Suzanne Fox 857 Idlewood Circle El Sobrante, Ca. P.S. I have a fulltime job, otherwise I would be at this meeting on the 13th. I have attended the Planning Commission meetings in the evenings. EL SOBRANTE VALLEY LEGAL DEFENSE FUND P.O. BOX 21195 EL SOBRANTE, CA 94820 July 6, 2004 Supervisor John Gioia Board of Supervisors CCC Ad. Bldg. 651 Pine St. Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Appeal of the Approval of Subdivision SDOI-8533 Dear Supervisors, The El Sobrante Valley Legal Defense Fund organization is in support of he appeal of Subdivision SDC}l-8533. The approval decision made by the County Planning Commissioners should be set aside. This project should not be allowed to move ahead without the full depth of information which can only be provided by an Environmental Impact Report. We ask that you support the appeal and require a full Environmental Impact Report. There are many unanswered questions on various aspects of this project. A full EIR should provide an information base to ensure the continuing quality of life for the existing neighbors as well as the new neighbors. The project then needs to be redesigned to fit the new information. Thank you for your attention Sincerely, 7 r4�- 'T U Janet lCutula , Di ectVLDF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SERVICE AREA R-9 COMMITTEE 6191 Hillside Drive El Sobrante, CA 94803 CC County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine St. Martinez, CA 94553 Re. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on SDOl-8533 Dear Board Members, On Thursday, June 171h, the CSA R-9 Committee:met in regular session to consider various matters in connection with parks and recreation issues in El Sobrante. Among the community members present was Eleanor Loynd, Chairperson of the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Committee. Ms. Loynd brought up the matter of the Afshar 40 home Hilltop Drive project, pointing out what she felt were the numerous problems connected with its approval. Of key interest to this committee is-the fact that the developer, while made aware that the local planning advisory group and community members wanted a play area built on the site, no such provision has been made in the approved plan. The P&Z has therefore requested that, in lieu of building such a platy area, that the developer be required to pay a fee of$50,000 to $70,000, to be paid into the fund administered by the R.-9(Parks&Recreation Advisory)Comrnittee. It was the consensus of the group to support the appeal in general, and, on the natter of the parks fee, a motion was made and unanimously adapted to support P&Z's request that the developer be required to pay a fee($50,000 to $70,000)in lieu of building the desired play area. It should be noted that there is ample precedent for this request, as not long ago the developer of a 22 home project at the corner of Appian Way and Valley View Read was required to pay$75,400 in lieu of building a tot lot, which the original plan celled for. In addition, Braddock&Logan Services, Inc., currently in process of planning for a 43 home subdivision in the old Albertson's shopping center on Valley Vieux Rd., has generously offered $50,000(in addition to regular parks dedication fees)to help build a.children's play structure at LaMoine Parr, about 2 blocks away. We therefore feel that this request is reasonable and will help to mitigate the negative impact of this development. Sincerely, Donald Bastin Chair, It-9 Committee cc: Supervisor.John Gioia El Sobrante Planning&Zoning Committee Ruby Molinari, E.S.M.A.C. NEIGHBORHOOD MAY VALLEY COUNCIL P.O. Box 21.551 / Richmond, CA 94820-1551 June 25, 2004 Board of Supervisors CCC Ad. Bldg. 651 Pine St. Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Support for Appeal of SDOI-8533,Afshar project in El Sobrante Dear Supervisors, On June 8,the County Planning Commission approved a mitigated negative declaration and 40 homes for this project. At the meeting of June 24, the May Valley Neighborhood Council voted unanimously to support the appeal of SDOI-8533 filed by the El. Sobrante Valley Planning&.Zoning Advisory Committee,the Friends of Garrity Creek, and the Hilltop Neighborhood Association. We feel that the Planning Commission's decisions were based on flawed and incomplete information. We request that the appeal be upheld,that a full Environmental Impact Report be required,and that the project be modified based on the new information. The May Valley Neighborhood Council represents about 1500 homes in the Richmond/El Sobrante area. Since 1972,the MVNC has co-sponsored the ESVP&ZAC with the El Sobrante Chamber of Commerce. The ESVP&ZAC is made up of both city and county residents,working together to make the El Sobrante Valley area a better place. The ESVP&ZAC makes recommendations to Richmond and to the County regarding planning applications in the El Sobrante Valley. If you have any questions,you are welcome to call me at 510-223-6398. Thank you. Sincerely, Eleanor Loynd,Preeent cc: ESVP&ZAC Friends of Garrity Creek Hilltop Neighborhood Asso. To: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors From: Melissa McMillion Gate: July 12, 2034 Subject. Development#SD 01-8533 4823 Hilltop Drive(near Marin Road), EI Sobrante Developer—Sid Afshar I attended the County Planning Commission hearing on June 8, 2004 and was extremely surprised and disappointed that this development was approved by a vote of 4 to 2. The Commission has made a serious mistake—one that I hope you will rectify. Much of the proposed development would be built on a 26% slope in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood. It will also encroach on the headwaters of Garrity Creek—an important urban stream that enters San Pablo Bay near MonTara Bay Community Center(an area that the County Supervisors have slated for redevelopment). Not only did the Planning Commissioners ignore their own staff's recommendation for no more than 35 homes on this site,they also ignored a very large contingent of local residents who seemed uniformly opposed to the project. Neighbor after neighbor testified that the proposed development would destabilize the slope; decrease their property values; cause excessive and dangerous traffic congestion near two schools; and increase water run off into a sensitive environmental area and Into the hilltop Commons neighborhood The only people who spoke in support of this development seemed to be real estate developers, friends of developer Sid Afshar, and a curious contingent of Christians who live nowhere near the neighborhood that will be affected. It seemed to me that some members of the Planning Commission just weren't listening to the many people who spoke against this development. I was especially disappointed in the behavior of Commissioner Richard Clark who,on two occasions, simply walked away during the testimony of anti- development people and started a conversation with other people in the room. Twice, he also interrupted and scolded two other neighbors who were opposed to the development. In contrast, he gave rapt attention to the pro-development speakers—even when they exceeded the three-minute limit each speaker was supposed to follow. It appeared that his mind was made up long before the hearing and the neighbors actually affected by this development(including two local schools)were ignored. Contra Costa County's General Plan calls for a certain percentage of open space—however most of the open space is being preserved in eastern Contra Costa. As a property owner in western Contra Costa, I'm asking you give us open space in ourside of the county. Sid Afshar is planning a development that is much too big and too invasive for this parcel. Please reverse the decision by the Planning Commission. Thank you, Melissa McMillion 1140 Amend Street Pinole, CA 94564 SPAWNERS an Pablo Watershed Neighbors Education and Restoration Society 255 Richmond Field Station, 1327 South 46th Street, Richmond, CA 94$04 July 11, 2404 Supervisor Jahn Gioia 11780 San Pablo Ave. Suite D El Cerrito CA 04530 Re: SD41-3533 Dear Supervisor Gioia: I am writing to urge you and the Board of Supervisor to require a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the above referenced project, I am a resident of EI Sobrante and coordinator of SPAWN- ERS, a volunteer community group dedicated to protecting the San Pablo Creek watershed. While I share with my neighbors many concerns about all of the project's impacts, I am commenting here only on the effects of the proposal on Garrity Creek and the surrounding habitat. There are inconsistencies and assumptions contained in the Initial Study and in the proposed mitiga- tions. Neglecting to investigate these issues now will leave the new homeowners, nearby residents, the community at large and the county at risk. On pages 10 and 12 of the environmental checklist form the native tree loss is shown as 10 trees. On page 2 of the same document, 13 native trees are listed to be removed. The 3:1 mitigation uses the lower number (30 trees instead of 57). The loss of oaks throughout the state to Sudden Oak Death and the low rate of oak regeneration means established healthy oaks are critical resources. The mitigation is inadequate. In addition, the loss of vegetative cover during the construction and the use of willow pole cuttings to replace mature willow habitat are significant impacts that have not been mitigated. Garrity Creek is a year round creek and the springs and seeps on the parcel proposed for develop- ment are its headwaters. The importance of small streams and wetlands to nearby and downstream water quality is known to be significant. This project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area and the proposed mitigations are not detailed sufficiently to be sure they reduce the impact to "less than significant'. The deed-restricted area along Garrity creek and the unnamed tributary will be blocked by wood and wire fence. This will prevent any maintenance of the corridor and block access by some native fauna. In addition, the ongoing performance of the grassy swales will need to be monitored closely. Because of these concerns and these expressed by other community members, l believe that the CEQA"fair argument" standard requires the county to prepare a full EIR. A full ElR will provide the detailed review of the impacts and proposed mitigations that the community deserves. Sincerely, Eliza eth O'Shea cc. El Sobrante planning and Zoning Committee Friends of Garrity Greek r � J V�e ,ter +✓ r►7 tJ .,-� �ti'� �, dl wrt v < �S�v A C'.� +✓ '.fief +�' � "'� � \�. �.t\ � i `�.., t , �v '`:,J a✓ .iii V .Jlr V �'\�4��,�� .`.."'� vl '�/ �`Yy' ..""^�� .0 � a .� { 4 ISI• �'��v za y i a � •i d 1 i% co 1�4 1 n •;3j,.;_ � d��. y,,.x ��,, �� V �' ¢F '.. *.eR'^.� _; ��,� � s '`b fi.w��' � �7��t°ay �o.... 1` I a ? a cn � c d 60 i rn z � CIO � _" '�~✓ � L a ;.X31 .y vz Vo � r tr, i J httpJ/sunsite.berk&,ey.edu/mrsid2.2/mrsid_server/bin/ MrSID Image Server:MFSID Image Viewing Friday July show�pi UC BERKELEY L 1 8 R A A Y HOME SEARCH Digital Imagety by V, -/c, 70�pqqrq�pljji, VLI - Us G A S& ` t n a $ s ::�......... Select desired zoom level and window size from the options below, the map and then click on the image. The display will be centered where you click. To move up, down, left, or right,click near the — edge of the image 400 x 400 pixels-127o zoom 4 13:•,Gk r t ;r S �.v}. ,p/�p,.•(r�SN�y. { }r'J � t t. ° 2tw t.�nFa�,w+°3•i �},{ {.`•• �`{' { � 'U+ Y _ Y �,- tt ,' 1 } -_ t a t s 3r}" \t 5 .�, t� �•... +r�}h i it x� ;�..`"`^M \ '4$ ��+.K -< � try'f 3" t Y'r7{'+k' ... � rJo- � X • 1 n S� t ,{y{t� `7.Y i y- � � � r 1 { �;,.r•>J< Yih� �C' Hi �j 1--'7•.- y�� -0 t, ' } S r �` _�ht4 r x oy<^ t•{�Ki4'yt. ,k. Y 5+� r„ a xK � t ; . Y Y } \,t } � a r J Zoom to (percent) Size (pixels) Page: I �t"i Y:d dS`r5E$',bw;(divJ.�d di?1 SE .2!?31C�i SBYi d iSf/ Aht sl :. age Serve;:M SZD image Viewing s =;�? Sunday; iy , LIBRARY xv WWI &----USGS ofC.............. Select:desired zoom level and window size from the options€ elow the map and tl,.�,n click on the image. The display-will! he centered-where you click. To move up, dawn,leftor right, click.near the edge of the image sots x 4 -- 00 pixels-100%zoom � 1 } { , L , t� { :...... ...........:.. :: rf : MEL F f t f v { { { :•}S: r S k , - } i f Y�•c hf '$''•. t ff ;� } .,r < fF: ;.• i { 9Pf { {h { :. ....:: .... n-h.:.:. - .tib• ! 4 YJJ }$ y v f K �f } f F • .. .. "" .: } Zoom to (percent) Size (pixels) Page: 1 �c n 5 9 Ifo + - -4• -� 93.3, - R X .�'� }y a> s " _K'�. •f n �,` �R .i � �, 9 3 �FF�Yy�. ,•E��E �y�.�,K9 w 'n' 1 � � �� , F� t k ,� u E �'. .� s �o�+p' •r 6y �. f may! • ro �' x4"'mow: i 09 6 ��±' / . .•tel r _ y � _ Fjy� f F •�.�.A .� < :Ole it �b�Flf �.� �i.�y; b Fes• .F t F r1y 6 v ! {� t VIV 4. s i F u li r f.. l lY f >i r 'y1k 3 r 'illi : og ,o Ys a s t Y f s kz �affi .gt,<,,,,N✓p �\ 2, �.f �d�� < � ..t t,fY."� � 4f >,X,s^ 4..� ii f g" a+ v � � w A C # ,m Z! 'y w � � �..• S "a p4 A •ty 'ts °/ q n p � A Ma"i `..ra; -a � m ,� r H .•+ N ; u .a ati ,� c a ria 'C7 a " � m a '� a v .°. � � ci a � ro .". °' d •n n °' n ,w N .:; " a aha u .: � "� ® n .w d, a ° � � .M m •K u n n � ,a n � '° a m A � 0° K 1 v w u w n w H m qr. ani .d w -r ' J v • •n .° w ° � a "' `�•.' 's' "" q, q p n om n a :+ .n. � C ° q ° 'S. V •a0 q.i p. 4`� e+a 0i .. `tl k O' 0 • r n •ti m .. A St fl a+ b o A © A m M � .'Y P.b.. m � {ti � � v w y m y � � N °n .moi d '•a•+a •.Wy � � ,cx n d � � n m K m q 'd v C O ^ •ti •A � d a Q > 8 i m u ° ..�• � w .-°r y6d`�{ C� � n d y t� ,y, d k0 IV ■ � a � Y 9 .+7 � 0. 1W n 6 k 'v.J ♦�t}�� d ;� °° ,.b a «a7 m u a A ro .w° A a w m m ar � � � ,.�. a A �+ a •" .�. .+� F•i .{.s u �., a ° a o a v a n r ,+ w n .G .m+ a .m, u " .q •n m " u ° u..:. b o C « u A •m :. n "� a A �s n °• i1 n a es 7 m a `a u a A � m m �+ q• u C7 m a n u n v a d d 65 g n m c a n a © u " m u m •' Yr A a » cL r a 6 �° < C;7 r-4 ..0, � C_.o O •K :: A $ ... tf w � •rY K etl K o K m u �+'t A A °f °e a �°''+ �.•� K an d u a, ® O U n A i v K d 'Srr ^a 4 ® i1 0. v ;A A. '•Y 4 'V '° m `n m K rW 'b .•�. � 'tla .m n a d m W ; m Y n n Z a 'd o •q m _ to +� m r•� a e ffi s w 'Fr 9 '�k n a u acd ' n p c a ••+ A "ra :: •rt � as 'wry u ` a U2 n•Y• G/] 0 1 V Y w 4 � .° 4 M ♦.j w s•-f Y �F r'Yi H NS l'S !IN••�YMM CD cl r j 'l�• r''`y''� � �*,�"'� '."' r� T ° � � "'ti .fit �� '� 4• "� `y ,� a{ ' _..".w } 3 i � i♦ �''«�-•--...e.i' j} [;�`4 �t tt�� U/ �,� t- � 1 1 -'1 X tw4�e.-. 1 �•-"'fes 'i •; /,� i` l s.r y � � '' � !� � t, + �`'`"�� i 4 � t�lI� +R t �� '� fir-•" �� ' LTY.\ # T f7: t { .,A�1.t J .:-f '.'a..`+.�O'I"' y •./ �J ) 4; "'Y�. `i CM Ll A i 'V, d '► ©oma ¢pm E } r Ig 4 •� x tiy,*. .....-" r ' � ....�- i xh 1 i `. 1 `.�"�6s`�� (��'�1 � ti �n �� , r �: \t syr'."' �.«,y.�r 1 r-,.,: 1 a�� ` `'�*ry`+.�....•' r,,,"° G 'n t,J 7-� C.{� V v we ' l_ � , � ! .,....,�/ F fit_+. a;'[ a-n" `N- -i�F• rf; `-i: L i,.7 Yi �sy >i Y M Y r4 { JfJ J A H a / rr i f y r • 9 C9 +l f' } f + +f Yf•{ g r r<. �• r 1. 2 � f r� r s � 4 LAW, OFF'ICI: (,)I, J. WILLIAM YEATES 8002 CALIFORNIA AVENUE FAIR OAKS, CALIFORNIA 95628 TELEPHONE: (916) 860-2000 FACSIMILE: (916) 860-2014 MARY U.AKENS I.WIL,LIAMYRATES infoCq>envxroqualztylaw.com MTHG.WAGNER July 13, 2004 Via Hand Delivery Mr. Dennis M. Barry, AICP Community Development Director Contra Costa.County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine St., 4th Floor,N. Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Response to July 13, 2004, Staff Report to Board of Supervisors/Additional Points on Appeal—SD018533 Dear Mr. Barry: On behalf of our client, Friends of Garrity Creek, we have reviewed the Community Development Department's July 13, 2004, staff report for today's public hearing before the Board of Supervisors on the above-referenced project. We appreciate the effort that staff has made to respond to our client's concerns, and to our prior letter raising numerous issues regarding the project's potentially significant, adverse environmental impacts and the project's inconsistencies with the County's general plan. The County's responses confirm that the negative declaration for the project is inadequate, and that the project cannot lawfully be approved at this time. The points raised, and authorities cited; in this letter are supplemental to, and do not in any way supercede or replace,the prior comments and objections that we,our client and other concerned citizens have raised regarding the proposed project. I. CEQA's LEGAL STANDARDS FOR ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A public agency may only adopt a mitigated negative declaration where 1) "[rjevisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review" would clearly avoid,a project's potentially significant, adverse environmental effects or would mitigate such effects "to a point where no significant effects would occur," and 2) "[t]here is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment."' In addition, an agency's cannot hide behind its own lack of investigation of a project's potentially significant adverse effects to defend the adoption of a mitigated negative declaration for a proposed project.' I Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.5, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, ch. 3 (CBQA Guidelines), § 15070, subd(b). Sundstrom v, County ref lendocino(1988) 20 Cal.App.3d 296, 311. Mr. Dennis M. Barry,AiCP Juiy 13, 2004 Page 2 of 6 11. THE P'ROP'OSED PROJECT HAS POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT, ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT ARE NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED IN THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The July 13, 2004, staff report, on its own terms, fails to meet CEQA's standards, as follows: A. LONG-'PERM NOISE IMPACTS In responding to Friends of Garrity Creek's points of appeal, staff notes that the Noise Element of the County's General flan "contains: a)noise contour maps; b) noise policies; and c) a table showing land use compatibility for community noise environments" and claims -- without any citing any supporting evidence --that the project site "is not identified as an area impacted by noise"3 The staff report then goes on to state: The project can be expected to generate long-term noise that is characteristic of a residential project. It is therefore not expected to create a significant impact.& The environmental baseline for the initial study is inadequate, because the County has failed to conduct or produce for public inspection the studies necessary to demonstrate that the project area is, in fact,not presently beyond the General Plan's allowable noise contour limitations. Furthermore, even if the area could be assumed, without investigation, to be within present noise contour limits, no evidence supports the County's assertion that the addition of the subdivision will not cause cumulative noise impacts to exceed the levels allowed in the general plan. B. SHORT-'PERM NOISE IMPACTS With regard to short-term, construction-related noise impacts, the staff report notes that several conditions of approval have been proposed for the project, including, but not limited to, limiting hours of operation and requiring mufflers on construction equipment.$ Unfortunately,these proposed, but as yet unadopted conditions of approval were not included as revisions to the project plan before release of the initial study for public review, nor is there clear evidence in the record that they were agreed to by the project applicant before the initial study was released for public review, as required by CEQA.6 C. STORMWATER RUNOFF The record contains personal observations by the public that there have been downstream drainage problems in the Hilltop Green area. Again, the County attempts to hide behind its lack of investigation of how the project might contribute to this problem, stating"there is no technical n Community Development Kept. Memorandum re: Hearing on Appeal of Request for 40-Lot Subdivision, File SDO18533 (July 13, 2004), at p. 9 (Hereinafter"July 13, 2004, Staff Keport"). 4 July 13, 2004, Staff Report, at p. 9. 5 July 13, 2004, Staff Report at p. 9, and p. 10, Table 1. 6 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.5; CEQA Guidelines, § 15070, subd. (b)(1). Mr. Dennis M. Barry,AICD July 13, 2004 Page 3 of 6 data or engineering analysis to support his assumption."7 The staff report also admits that partial information confirming this known, potential impact was provided by the City of Richmond and Hilltop Green Homeowners association.8 Despite the staff report's attempt to pass this limited information off as inadequate, the fact remains that enough factual information has been presented that the County owes an affirmative duty to actively engage in the environmental analysis necessary to fill in any perceived gaps in the information that has been offered by the public and neighboring jurisdictions.9 In attempting to rebut this office's letter regarding inadequate analysis of offsite drainage impacts, the staff report makes the claim that "[t]he duty of the proposed 40-lot project is [to] mitigate its drainage impacts and not to analyze and solve the existing drainage problems in the 500-lot Hilltop Green subdivision."'0 We agree with the first part of this statement, and again emphasize that, due to the lack of investigation, the County cannot determine whether it has met this requirement. With regard to the second part of the statement, while it is true that CEQA only requires mitigation to the extent that the ability to mitigate is within the agency's control, that does not preclude the need to find that offsite impacts may be a significant, adverse environmental effect under CEQA, thus requiring the preparation of an EIR. In such circumstances, the appropriate process is to investigate, analyze, and disclose the impact, and then adopt a finding that mitigation(if feasible)is within the jurisdiction of another agency, and that such measures should be adopted by that agency.'r Simply turning a blind eye and refusing to analyze such impacts is not acceptable under CEQA. Finally, as with noise impacts, reliance on unadopted conditions of approval is not appropriate. The staff report states that"the Conditions of Approval require further analysis to conform the project engineer's preliminary estimate that the project will not increase the peak flows exiting the site for the `design storm. ,,12 A mitigated negative declaration can only be approved where such measures are adopted before release of the initial study for public review.13 D. GEOLOGY Our client has recently submitted a July 1, 1988 geological report by Soares and Associates for the proposed site that, for some reason,has not been previously been included in the administrative record for the project, despite the fact that the document is located in the Contra Costa County Community Development Department files, date stamped"received"on July 13, 2004, Staff Report, at p. 18. July 13, 2004, Staff Report, at p. 31. 9 Sundstrom, supra, 20 Cal.App.3d at 311. July 13, 2004, Staff Report, at p. 31. Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a)(2). �z July 13, 2004, Staff Report, at p. 31. '� 1'ub. Resources Code, § 21064.5; CEQA Guidelines, § 15070, subd. (b)(1), Mr. Dennis M. Barry,AICD July 13, 2004 Page 4 of 6 November 29, 1990.14 As this document is already in the County's possession, we hereby incorporate that full document by reference and make it a part of the administrative record for this proceeding. The Soares and Associates report contradicts the conclusions in the AMSC? report that was considered by the Community Development Department in preparing the initial study. Specifically, the Soares report provides substantial evidence, in the form of factual observation and expert opinion, that soils at the project site are not sufficiently stable in certain locations to support residential structures, and that significant adverse consequences may result from proceeding with the proposed project. On this basis alone, substantial evidence in the whole of the record presents a"fair argument" that the project may have significant adverse effects with regard to soil stability, thus requiring the preparation of an EIR.'s E. AES'T'HETICS The staff report appears to claim that the only way a project can have a cognizeable effect with regard to aesthetics is if a specific County policy regarding scenic views has been violated." However, CEQA requires consideration of all of a project's potential adverse effects on the environment, not just impacts associated with an agency's arbitrarily established list of thresholds.17 In this case, a mitigated negative declaration cannot be adopted,where the initial study declares that the project will result in substantial changes to the existing visual environment, and no changes have been proposed or incorporated that will clearly reduce such acknowledged effects to a less-than-significant level. F. AIR QUALITY The staff report contains substantial new information regarding federal and state air quality standards,and appears to indicate that the project will be expected to comply with BAAQ1v1D guidelines, as well as the County's Grading Ordinance to ensure that impacts associated with PM10, diesel exhaust, volatile organics, and dust will be mitigated to less than significant levels, Unfortunately, this information regarding the project's potentially significant air quality impacts and the measures that will be implemented to reduce such impacts to less-than-significant levels was not included in the initial study prior to its release for public review. Before the project can be approved the initial study must be revised and recirculated to allow for public review and comment regarding this substantial new information in the staff report.'8 4 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Assessor's Parcel No's. 426-192-005, 007 and 008, Marin Road in the El Sobrante District of Contra Costa County (July 1, 1988). Pub. Resources Code §§ 21080, subd (d), 21082.2, subd (d). July 13, 2004, Staff Report at p. 22. 37 Communities for a Better Environment i,. California Resources Agency(2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-114. 18 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.5; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15070, subd. (b)(1). 15073.5, subd. ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ....... ......... ...... Mr. Dennis M. Barry, AICD July 13, 2004 Page 5 of 6 Moreover, our client has submitted substantial evidence, in the form of personal observation, that the applicant's practice is to leave exposed dirt at his project sites for extended periods of time."' Specifically the applicant has left bare dirt exposed at his Orion Court Project for over one-and- one-half years, leading to significant, adverse dust, air quality, and habitat impacts.21 Staff s response to this information--that evidence of past performance at other locations cannot be used to require an EIR for this project—is incorrect. The applicant's observed failure to follow the County's Grading Ordinance requirements at Orion Court constitutes evidence that the supposed mitigation measure that will reduce this project's dust impacts to insignificance (i.e., compliance with the Grading Ordinance) is ineffective and illusory. Dust impacts far this project will not be reliably mitigated by the Grading Ordinance, because the applicant has a demonstrated history of ignoring that Ordinance's requirements. Therefore, even if the Grading Ordinance had been properly included and discussed in the initial study (which it was not), citation to the Grading Ordinance now does not lead to a rational conclusion that dust impacts have been, in fact, mitigated to less-than-significant levels. III. NEWLY IDENTIFIED ISSUES DURING PUBLIC COMMENT/TESTIMONY Friends of Garrity Creek also raises as an additional point of appeal,the Mitigated Negative Declaration's failure to recognize, analyze or mitigate potentially significant effects regarding the potential presence of biohazards and other hazardous waste on the project site. At the Planning Commission hearing on the project, the applicant submitted a bound document titled "Supplemental Materials for Subdivision 4015533." i At Tab 7 of that submittal, numerous photographs depict the presence of industrial trash, including vehicles (potential sources of lead, oil, gasoline), blackened trees(potentially contaminated with volatile organics), tires and paints, and various other metal appliances and objects. In addition, at Tab 1 I of that submittal, extensive personal observations are offered by the public of unpermitted dumping (including refrigerators and tires), gun shooting, and "needles,mattresses stained with bodily fluids, and drug paraphernalia." Public testimony by numerous persons at the Planning Commission's hearings corroborated these letter's accounts of various types of hazardous wastes having been found on the property. The mitigated negative declaration must, at a minimum, be revised and recirculated, in light of the identification of this new, avoidable significant effect that was not previously recognized or addressed in the mitigated negative declaration.22 IV. THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY'S GENERAL PLAN The proposed project is generally inconsistent with the County's general plan policy that forbids development on parcels with slopes of greater than 26%. Moreover, in approving the project, the Planning Commission went so far as to reject a proposed change by staff to reduce the number of 19 July 13, 2004, Staff Report, at p. 16 (reciting Appeal Point#10, and staffs response). 20 Id 21 Siavash Afshar(Applicant & Owner), Supplemental Materials for Subdivision #018533 (June 5, 2004) (hereinafter"June 5, 2004, Applicant Submittal"). 212 CEQA Guidelines, § 15073.5, subd. (b). Mr. Dennis M. Barry, A1CP July 13, 2004 Page 6 of 6 lots from 40 to 35, in order to comply with the County's mandatory general plan policy:23 "The reduction is necessary to be consistent with various slope protection policies (e.g.protecting slopes with a natural grade that exceeds 26%, and slopes that exceed 15%v) . . . "2 Friends of Garrity Creek disagrees with staff's opinion that even 35 lots can be approved under the County's mandatory General Plan Policy, which requires that"[s]ignificant hillsides with slopes over 26 percent or more shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading or other land disturbance,i2' especially in light of the fact that the project will require grading of 15,234 cubic yards of cut and 20,859 cubic yards of 611.26 In any event, it is clear that the project, as approved by the Planning Commission, is inconsistent with the County's General Plan Policy. V. CONCLUSION As the foregoing information demonstrates, there is substantial evidence in the administrative record that the proposed project may have significant adverse effects that have not been adequately disclosed, analyzed or mitigated in the mitigated negative declaration. Moreover, the proposed project cannot be approved because it is inconsistent with the County's General Plan. As stated at the beginning of this letter,these responses are in addition to, and do not in any way replace or supercede Friends of Garrity Creek's prior comments on, and objections to, the proposed project. Sincerely, i6illtt 1 Keith Wagner 13 July 13, 2004, Staff Report at p. 6. See also, Community Development Department Staff Report of May 25, 2004, at p. S-23 to S-24 (hereinafter"May 25, 2004, Staff Report"), 24 May 25,2004, Staff Report at p. S-24. 25 Contra Costa General Plan, Safety Element Policy 10-29 76 July 13, 2004, Staff Report, at p. 32. Bate: 07-13-2004 To: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. From: Barbara A. Pendergrass, member of"Friends of Garrity Creek ", and "Hilltop Neighborhood Association". Subject: Support of an Environmental Impact Report on the proposed subdivision 01-8533. My name is Barbara A. Pendergrass, 745 Renfrew Road, El Sobrante, California. I am speaking in support of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed subdivision 01-8533. In the County's appeal background information it states that the property is zoned for R7. However, the report doesn't state that R7 zoning for this property is direct conflict with an article in the General Plan in policy 10-29,"Areas with slopes greater than 26 percent should be left undisturbed." The zoning ordinance also states "Achieve land use residential densities that are in keeping with the General Plan, with the result that such densities will usually diminish as the slope of terrain increases, in order to retain the significant natural features of hillside areas." The zoning ordinance also says "Encourage the planning, design and development of hillside area building sites so as to provide maximum safety and human enjoyment" and, " The attractiveness of hillside and ridgeline areas and the other objectives specified in this article are important tactors of the General Welfare of the citizens of the county, and reasonable control of residential slope density and hillside development is in the public interest." The County's General plan Section 8, Conservation Element 8-14, page 8-29 states that development on hillsides shall be limited to 1 maintain valuable natural vegetation, especially forests and open space lands, and to control erosion. Mr. Afshar's own Geological report states on page 2 under the heading "Findings" that parcel one has a slope of 5 to 1 or 20% slope, parcel two, about 5 acres has a slope of 5 to I or 20% slope and parcel 3, approximately 2 -/2 acres has a gradient of 3 to 1 and 4 to 1, or in percentages a 33% and 25% slope. Parcel 3 is zoned R7 in direct conflict with the General plan conditions for slopes. The County's slope map for SDO 1-8533 lumps all three parcels together to give a different picture of the true nature of the five parcels in this proposed subdivision. An Environmental Impact Report would address the differences in the codes and the proposal. Section 8-15 states that Existing vegetation both native and non native, and wild life habitat areas shall be retained in the major open space areas sufficient for the maintenance of a balance of wild life proportions. 8-24 states "The County shall strive to identify and conserve remaining upland habitat areas remaining adjacent to wetlands and critical to the surviving and nesting of wetlands species. SDOI- 8533 has a riparian area with a natural spring. The Geological report states "Areas of the site to be built on or paved should be stripped to remove any surface vegetation, organic top soils, andexisting debris. Stripping depths shall be determined in the field by a soils engineer, at the time of stripping but for planning purposes an average depth of 3 inches may be assumed An Environmental Impact Report would resolve the conflict of stripping with the County General Pan and Zoning ordinances on maintaining land use near riparian areas and the other areas in conflict. I am going to mention the following subjects because they were presented at the Planning Commission Meeting and I feel influenced the committee members because we were unable to speak again to correct the misinterpretations. 2 The County Report summary states that the Developer has revised the plan a number of tunes to accommodate the El Sobrante Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee requests. I wish to inform you that revisions to the plan were made for a number of reasons. The "Friends of Garrity Creek " and the "Hilltop Neighborhood Association" pointed out that the plan was consistently coming out with a grade of 2 to 1 in conflict with the Geological Report that stated a cut of 2 112 to 1. The County Ordinance states that subdivisions within a mile or less shall have sidewalks. The plans came out consistently with no sidewalks. The plans came out with more than 16 homes on a dead end cul de sac in conflict with the County Ordinance that restricts to 16 homes. The plan was changed by the developer to drop the mid- Eastern names and rename the streets to ones like Royal Oaks etc. Mr.. Afshar's lawyer presented photographs of an old structure tipped on its side, a old refrigerator lying on its side and two old vans residing on one of the parcels and testimony by speakers implied that neighbors were using the land as a dumping ground. The facts are that the structure, the refrigerator and the vans were left there by a previous owner and were there when Mr. Afshar issued an option to purchase the property. The structure was upright and fridge inside the structure. The Geological report mentions the structure and in one of the reports it states that bats could reside there. Now the structure is on its side. I ask you who would benefit the most if the structure was destroyed so no bats could reside in it's interior as bats are a protected species? In conclusion I close with a strong recommendation for an Environmental Impact Report for subdivision 01-8533 to resolve the numerous outstanding questions. 3 stand here before you as living testimony of the instability of the slope on which this developer intends to build and as an eyewitness to the disasters that resulted from building on this slope. The development behind my lot, 816 Marin Road, is immediately adjacent to the development we are discussing here. The slope is the same. The soil is the same. The proposed building plan is similar. After that project was built, a large Monterey Pine near my back fence began to lean precariously toward my neve neighbor's roof. When the lean angle approached 15 degrees and I could slide my hand under the root ball on the uphill side I felt compelled to hire a bonded professional (at great cost to myself) to remove this beautiful tree. Had I not taken action when I did, extreme property damage and possible loss of human life would certainly have resulted from the builder disturbing this unstable slope. I reiterate — That slope (behind my lot) is ADJACENT to the proposed development and has the SAFE SOIL and the SAME SLOPE ANGLE. Even more frightening is the slope at the end of Marin Road. It is much steeper and has an even greater potential for tragedy. That area has a long history of landslides well known to longtime residents of Marin Road Bernard A. Willis Resident and Homeowner 816 Marin Road El Sobrante, CA 94803 510-223-8005 .................. Id* T My name is Shirley Petty, President of the Board of Directors, Hilltop Green Homeowners Association. This is my second time appearing before this governing group; and my second time in urging the Board to deny permission for the AFSHAR project to go forward. Despite staff recommendation to the contrary,I would like for this Board to vote"NO" on Subdivision 8533. Since its inception there have been extensive drainage and land slippage problems throughout the Hilltop Green Development. To date, over thirty (30) slides have occurred in our housing complex costing the Hilltop Green Homeowners Association tens of thousands of dollars, including road collapse repairs totaling close to a million dollars on Park Central --our only means of getting in and out of our community. Had it not been for a successful lawsuit against the developer of our subdivision, we would not have had the funds to repair subject road collapse. Living in Hilltop Green is having to worry about erosion, slides, creep, etc., from whatever source. There is no terra firma in Hilltop Green. Anyone living in Hilltop Green must at all times be aware of any and all possible soil impacts on our individual properties. The residents of the Hilltop Green community are in fact so concerned about the AFSHAR development with its possible impact on the stability of the ground in our community, that they have signed a petition pleading that the subject project be rejected. Because of careful attention to the DO's and DON'T's relative to problems associated with building sites in hillside developments,we are enjoying a period of relative calm from slides, erosions, flooding, etc. However, that said, the stability we are currently enjoying could be ruined if SF 01 8533 is allowed to proceed. The land designated for SF 01 8533 abuts our Hilltop Green boundary line and acts as it were, as a safety/buffer zone from interference. Interference in this context means contamination of Hilltop Green land use stability by man-made activities(i.e., earth movements, leveling, filling, grading, drain creation, etc.) in converting raw unimproved land into a major development. The preceding is not indulging in exaggeration. Published data indicate that the site of the proposed development lies at or near an area associated with shallow, intermediate and deep landsliding, soil erosion and creep, Although County planning staff made light of the flood potential in our community, I can assure you that it does flood in our community. The old Garrity Creek runs through our subdivision near past slides. It is not unusual to have several homes in our housing complex with wet foundations during the summer months and standing water during the winter months. In the recent past some homeowners with flooding problems have applied and received FEMA's grant funds assistance to help homeowners mitigate their flooding problems. Although Resolution No. 94-03 affirmed the City of Richmond's opposition to residential development SD 01-8533, it further requested that a complete environmental impact report be done before giving approval to project; and although the City of Richmond via its Public Services Department, Engineering Division has indicated that the grading of SD 01-8533 site would have a negative impact on the environment and hydrology, county planning staff has put these official concerns aside and recommended development approval to the Board of Supervisors. This is very wrong. Finally, I would be less than candid if I didn't tell you that if the Board gives its approval to subject development sans a complete EIR,the Hilltop Green Homeowners Association will respond with what options and remedies are available to us, including legal. I sincerely hope that after hearing all of the testimony--the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will reject SD 01-8533 in its present form. r untitled Compairing Amso report to previous soils report, soares for Degennero in 1988.The soils report has one important detail ,which is that in the same location but in two different reports, there were dramaticlly different results from testing of the soil . slows it takes, 140 pound hammer draped 30 inches to go down 1 foot shows soil stability. Soares says 5 - 10 blows per foot, verses Amso, 50 blows to achieve 4 inches. In 1988, the year of the Soares report, and 5 years previously, the rainfall was very low, 13 inches and 89 inches, respectively. The moisture content of the soil according to the Soares report was however quite high 22% in the bore hole that matches the Amso one of 2001. In 2001, the year of the Amso report, rainfall that year and the 5 years previous, was high, 37 inches and 144 inches respecively, but the moisture of the soil was only 13%.The Soares data show low rainfall and high moisture content, which is not an inherent contradiction but an indication of underground water sources. The first 4 pages are the points of interest. on those four pages you will find boringg log B-2, Amso and boring log P-4 Soares. You will also find two maps of the end of Marin R;ad and you will see numbers 54.5/19.5 and 1.25 on Soares map and 55/19 and 1.25 on Amso map.You may see projecting the right-of-way line of Marin Road to intersect the lower property line of the project that creates a beginning point for these coorinates. These holes were bored in approximately the same location within plus or minus 2 feet. The logging information on boring for Soares shows the bottom at 15.5 feet.At 14 feet it takes 5 blows to achieve 1 foot of penetration, at 14.4 six blows and at 15.5 10 blows. Also at 15.5 the moisture content is 22%. A moisture content of 22% is soil that can not be excavated and then placed back in the hole as engineered fill . The Amso bore number2 button of hole is 15 feet and takes 50 blows to achieve 4 inches of penetration. the last reference to moisture content on the boring log is at approximatly 4.5 feet and that moisture is 13%. The significance of these differences is that the contractor bidding on the Amso report would assume excavated materials to be used as engineered fill (stated in Amso report) to quickly buttress the open keyway however the Soares repot would cause the contractor to drasticlly change his operation and search for dryer dirt in order to buttress an open excavation that would likely be very unstable. During this period of instability (as the keyway is developed) it is likely that the excavation slides and the possibility of movement at the properties on Marin Road. For instance windows and doors not opening properly and possible cracks in the flat work and asphalt. a r Page 1 BORING LOG No. B-2 PROJECT H€LLVIEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DATE 04/09/2001 LOGGED BY BAA DRILL RIG Continuous Flight Auger. HOLE DIA. 4" SAMPLER X-Modified California; `-S.P.T GROUND WATER DEPTH INITIAL -- FINAL --- HOLE ELEVATION SILTY CLAY; brown, damp, stiff. Cu CH 1 I x SILTY SANb; yellowish brown, damp,-___.____ ----- 2 x 2$ 20 99 very dense to hard. 3 4 " 50/8" 13 101 5 6 8 9 10 ' 50/4" 11 12 13 14 15 " 50/4" Bottom of hole at 15 feet. No ground water encountered. 16 17 18 i 1 19 k 20 i Project# 3128 AMSC? CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 1 of 1 y 31 4 r � 1 ` Not to Scale 4 .. • 7 6 10 .� y Legend: Boring Location / �'C 1 Aproximate Location of slide AM'SO CONSULTING SITE PLAN AND FIGURE ENGINEERS LOCATION OF EXPLORATION BORINGS 2 HILLVIEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION 4823 HILLTOP DRIVE PROJECT APRIL 2001 EL SOBRANTE, CALIFORNIA 3128 PLAN � t'. 5 .04 kill { t ✓ t t � r, k l: I I I I Location tea 7• •t zaa 9 LOG BORING NO. - Jab#! 11 s_ —L Dat 46 Hammer Type of Boring Surface Elevation In-Placo Vliet Moisture Description ctU.a E Density Content 'i m ci z #ift.3 % � t9 L �, f>If ltd b .�•-� .S� ��.� , �' .,� 7 1'1 G L.o jp MR R. SORRIS and flacmI Te-S4- goottchnical•ngln om 730 D San Pablo Ave. 724-4616 Pinole, California 94564 lai()lrtljlvPrecipitation, RtCHlNiOND,C AL.WC.1RN A Page 2 of 2 1978 U3 4.42 6..01 3,39 0:111 1'.1.134 0.00 (3.00 0,SO 0.00 1.82 0,74 ..25,12 1979 7.00 549 230 13.87 4,30 17.f.)0 0.20 0,00 0.01 2.07 4.53 6,3)3 29,14 1980 5.69 7.401 1.20 1.51 0,11 0.03 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.23 2,43 18.90 12381 5.75 1:613 4.04 0.18 0,31 CI.00 0.00 0,00 0,1 + 2:08 8.38 6.32 28.89 1982 11.23 147 0,60 4,98 0.00 0.11 0,00 0.00 0-63 3.52 7.17 3.11 40,82 1983 6,42 8.81 12.24 3.41 0.46 0.00 OM 0:22 0.83 0,45 7.16 7.49 47,40 1984 030 1-65 2-12.9 1,18 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.16 0-05 1.81 7.2E 1.97 �} 19115 0,80 2,22 9 437 0.10 0,0' 0.14 0,08 0.00 0,35 1.23 4:85 3.49 1 1986 5.56 10,J."I 5,84 1.25 13.16 0,00 4:44 0. 30 0.59 0,11 4,12 1.07 .. 1 1987 3.01 4.56 2,37 0.10 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 2,41 3.25 _1988 3.89 u% 0.01 1.61 0,42 0,71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 2.42 3,32 1089 1.04 030 5,17 0,48 0.03 4.04 €1.00 0.00 1 k5 1.42 .2,24 0,00 12:77 1990 3.65 3,14 1,€15 0.15 2.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0,16 0.44 1.68 13.09 1991 0.47 4,05 7,77 0.40 0,10 13.16 0.010 0.24 0,03 1.41 0:86 1.91 17.46 1992 1.75 6.50 13.00z 0,67 4.40 0_56 0.00 0,00z 0,00 1.97 0.22 5.92 17.59 1993 9A7 4.33 0.97 a 0,85 0.68 1.46 0,00 0,110 0.00 0.42 1.81 2.82 22.81 1994 1.79 4.13 O24 1.10 1,21 0.00 0,1113 0.00 0.00 0.50 7.981' 1.73 i 8.97 1995 10.07 j OA7 b 11.31 d 0.91 d 028 a 1.03 0.04 0,00 z 4.04 0,04 0.12 8,02 21,84 1996 7.76 O 90 2.12 2-19 3.38 0,00 O.Ofj 0.00 0.01 ?.07 3_2 5 9,71 3738 1997 9,39 0.2 9 0.42 0.26 042 038 0.%113 1.10 0.00 1.x-)2 7,48 2.78 2-41-44`-� 1998 11.26 16A 2.52 2.14 3.74 0. 32 OW 0.00 0.10 0.75 4.97 1.03 4 1� i 1999 3.76 7.30 2.56 2,60 0.00 0,02 0.04 QM 0.09 036 2.84 0,95 a 2WO 6.13 a 0,00z 2,34 1. 8 1.217 020 0,C14 0,00 0.44 6,29 0.77 0.78 1� 411,E 2001 7.10 8.27 1.43 1.10 0.04 0'26 0.00 0.00 000 0,60 6.70 11,86 2002 2,51 1..3 31 a 1,30a 0.33 0.91 0.00 €3.411 0.00 0.00 z 0,00 a 2,94 15,4€7 24,7; 2003 1.98 1,28 1.93 3,04 0,00 z 0.00 z 0.00 0,00 z 13.00 0,00 2.138 9.82 a 20.13 2004 3.20 6,17 0,73 0.26 0.00 b 0.00 i 0,00z 0-00 z 0,00 z 0.00z 0.00 z 0,00z 10.36 Pe1'iod of Record Statistics ME-AN 4,86 3.86 3,07 .1.51 0,49 0.18 0.04 0.08 0.24 1.24 3.10 4.44 23.76 S,D, 3.13 3.2.3 2.62 1.41 O3 87 0,33 4.20 0.21 0,49 1.54 ?.€i5 3.58 8.81 SKI-7-V, 0.53 1,38 1,59 .1.33 '2.61 12i) 6.55 3.89 3,3'2 2.11 0.78 1.15 0.84 MNX 11.68 14.40 12.24 5.54 3,74 1,46 1.41 1.10 2.74 7.38 10,55 15.40 4T49 MIN 0.301 0.01.E 13.01 0.10 0.4(3 0.00 0,130 0,01••4.1 0,00 0.00 0.00 0:00 9,88 NO 57 53 52 54 52 52 53 50 51 53 50 53 42. Y1 111 :r` www.wrec.dri,edti cui-bin/cliki(I. tnrt-villi-archin nrI,: BORING LOG N0. B-1 PROJECT HILLVIEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DATE 0410912001 LOGGED BY SAA DRILL RIG Continuous.dight Auger HOLE DIA. 4" SAMPLER X-Modifier!California; '-S.P.T GROUND WATER DEPTH INITIAL -- FINAL --- HOLE ELEVATION aesCRJPTM " CLAYEY SAND; brawn,damp, dense. SC 1 5#LTY F#NE SANG; WI-0wish brown SM1 2 x 47 15 112 damp, very dense to hard; cemented; SC (weathered sandstone) 3 4 x 50/7" 18 105 5 6 I gravelly, gravel size up to about 1 inch. 7 8 9 " 5014" 10 11 more gravelly. 12 13 14 15 * 5015" Bottom of hole at 15 feet. 16 No ground water encountered. 17 18 19 20 Project# 3128 AMBO CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 1 of 1 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR ASSESSOR' S PARCEL NO' S. 426-192--005, 007 AND 008 MARIN ROAD IN THE EL SOBRANTE DISTRICT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY July 1 , 1988 FOR MR. GARY DEGENNERO SECURITY PACIFIC REALTY 3223 Blume Drive Richmond, California 94805 D BY T� , O Ott 2J 1990 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ABEL R. SOAR ES AND ASSOCIATES INC-Community t1-,.-""n? ent Dept GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS 730 D San Pablo Avenue Pinole, California 94564 JOB o i bI ` ,Z Ilk- fix s � t'. �4 Locatlon A.. LOG BORING NO. M -i AA-L-C1 e Lt2bA4g,Job# 11S`C3-1 Date -c'L--tt& Hemmer Type of Boring >!"p wyrda— &=,tt-2ig Surface Elevation In-Place nwet Moisture U. Description I � � � Density Content elft. Orreb-.y C , b"we e s �-•.d 75 •�� s ME R. SOMand # CMT ' geotechnical engineers 730 D San Pablo Ave. 724-4616 Pinole, California 94564 Location. 04t&"/9Z•o `P-41 cl ..a 1. 1..._ ..LOG BORING NO. ». Job# 11.,E_ Date Hammer Type of Boring Surface Elevation In-Place Q* — Wet Moisture Description 06E Density Content CD z #Ift.3 % r eL S 4, o t, 6f[ R. SON and ami gwt*chnicai ongin+wws 730 D San Pablo Ave. 724-4616 Pinole, California 94564 Location _ y ,L�e� ~. d_o ;, . �-, th -�,►1� Job N t�,s �l LOG BORING NO. Date -41-8 Hammer Type of Boring a Surface Elevation In-Place LL n, Wet Moisture Description cit � �° Density Content /fit. cre- OR R. SORM and WC 6' 9eoteehnicai"inters 730 D San Pablo Ave. 724-4616 Pinole, California 94564 Location AP# -0,0 d 7 d ov LOG BORING NO. ._ _ Job 0 /► Date Hammer Tyne of Boring .ea + ..-- Ar%a t:2t? Surface Elevation In-place —'�, Wet Moisture Description CL d E Density Content c m Az° #Ift.3 % 0—IA-,y, s 7z7— f �� Y'Y�.'i//'7`rte.,'�'i )) ✓'rr l7�1' -2�. ' . t A_AA F 08a R. SHE and MOCRISOX geotechnical engineers 730 d San Pablo Ave. 724-4616 Pinole, California 94564 Location w azo .-nr - A Job# 1t�' 9 1 LOG Bt7i�iNC NO. Date Hammer Type of Boring Surface Elevation In-Place -� a Wet M ure .. U. Description != Density Content NIft.3 % �C �+ �-` ?,�� b+-��w�l� �''t t�--ate..�► is RL R. SEE ad ZONE gootechnical onginws 730 D San Pablo Ave. 724-4616 Pinole, California 94564 Location LOG BORING NO. �- Jobl# /t AnZ Date �?z-. _. Hammer Type of Borinflaj&� Surface Elevation In-place LL Wet Moisture E o Density Content Description cr Z #/ft.3 % 1! �l i T r ILR. SMUSand OWN" gsatschntcal snglnwe 730 D San Pablo Ave. 724-4616 Pinole, California 94564 July 11 1988 JOB #1158-1 made on samples obtained from the power borings. The results of these tests are shown on the attached power boring logs. PHYSIOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGIC SETTING The subject site is located among the hills and galleys east of the San Francisco and van Pablo Says. The area is part of the Diablo Range, an elongate system of northwest trending mountains, hills, ridges and narrow intervening valleys formed within the Coastal Ranges of Central California. The site rests along a west facing hillside overlooking a small south trending tributary drainage of Garrity Creek. .Reference to geologic mapping (Dibblee, 1980) (Contra Costa County 1976) indicates that the subject site is underlain by undifferentiated rocks of the Contra Costa Group of Pliocene age. These nonmarine sedimentary rocks primarily consist of weakly consolidated pebble conglomerate, sandstone, claystone, siltstone and volcanic rocks. The rocks underlie rolling to moderately steepsided hills and Wage -5- July 1 , 1988 JOB #1158-1 valleys. The rocks weather irregularly, producing montmorillonite (expansive) clay which is highly plastic and expands in volume when wet. When dry, the rock and derived soil shrink in volume and crack. These adverse engineering characteristics are in part responsible for poor slope stability. Landslides are abundant •in both soil and weathered rock, on oversteepened, man-made fills derived from the naturally occurring soil and weathered bedrock, and on man-made cut slopes. Geologically, bedrock in the area is folded with a predominant northwest structural trend. Dibblee shows the axial trace of a syncline (concave upward fold) trending to the northwest approximately 1000 feet northeast of the site. Dibblee, also, shows bedrock in the vicinity of the subject site to be dipping 350 to 400 to the north--northwest. A prominent debris flow landslide is present toward the southwestern quarter of the property. This feature does not appear on our aerial photographs (1965) or on Page .-6- July 1 , 1988 JOB 11158-1 photointerpretative mapping by Nilsen (1975) of landslides and related surficial deposits. This landslide most likely occurred during the wet seasons of 1982 or 1983. SEISMICITY Reference to State of California Special Fault Study Zone mapping indicates that traces of the active Hayward Fault have been mapped approximately 2 miles southwest of the site. The Hayward Fault, as well as the active San Andreas Fault and Calaveras Fault, located at distances of 20 miles southwest and 15 miles southeast, respectively, are northwest trending, right lateral, strike-slip faults. They are capable of generating large earthquakes with the capacity to damage man-made and natural structures on a regional basis. Other active faults in the area such as the Concord, Antioch and other faults are shorter in length and are located further from the site than the Hayward Fault and subsequently are less potentially damaging to the site. Significant earthquakes last occurred on Hayward, Calaveras, and San Andreas Page -7- July 1 , 1988 JOB #1158-1 Drainage consists of sheet flow runoff and direct infiltration. As stated earlier, a small intermittent drainage runs along the western side of the property. No springs or surface accumulations of water are present on the site. None of our subsurface borings encountered free water. A prominent debris flow landslide is present at the southwestern portion of the property. The headscarp of the landslide begins at midslope and the toe crosses the western property line near the creek drainage. The landslide was found to be relatively shallow tlapprox. iO feet de p? However, the landslide occurred in very weak, weathered bedrock. No other landslides or areas of instability were identified on the site. No areas of significant erosion were identified. Areas that were densely wooded or brush covered were not investigated, because of the limited access by our equipment and uncertainty as to the final develoment plan. Seven power borings were drilled at locations shown on Figure 2. Materials and conditions encountered in the Page -9- July 1 , 1988 JOB #1158-1 borings were recorded and are presented on the attached boring logs. Boring P-11 P-2 , P-3 , P-4 , and P-7, were drilled to investigate conditions along the slopes, while Borings P-5 and P-6 were drilled to investigate conditions of the landslide Y Borings P-1 , P-2 , P-3 , and P--7 encountered 1 to 3 feet of dark brown clayey dr y clods underlain by dense or hard conglomerate, sandstone, or siltstone. Boring P-4 encountered 3 feet of dry, dark brown clayey silt underlain by relatively dense sand. Below approximately 6 feet, relatively weak, hi.ghly weathered- siltstone was overlain by weak,weathered olive green claystone. Boring P-5 encountered 2.5 feet of black clay underlain by soft-mottled, buff colored silty clay and brown clay (landslide debris) to a depth of 11 feet. The landslide debris was underlain by relatively weak, weathered, green siltstone and claystone. Boring P-6 , drilled just above the landslide scarp, encountered 3 feet of dark brown clayey silt Page -10- July 1 , 1988 JOB #1158-1 underlain by relatively soft to firm, olive clayey silt and caliche to a depth of 10 feet, where a thin dark brown clayey layer with rock fragments was encountered. Materials became noticeably stiffer at 21 feet, -where a sample of stiff, weathered clayey mudstone was recovered. Our subsurface borings indicated that a series of interbedded conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and clayey mudstone or claystone layers are present beneath the surface. These units probably dip moderately to the north-northeast, as shown on geologic mapping and interpreted from aerial photographs. The materials are much harder along the upper slopes of the property, while the lower slopes that we investigated seem to be underlain by softer, more weathered rock. The northwest portions of the property were not investigated at this time, due to the limited access and uncertainty of development. The landslide appears to have occurred along the strike of a weak, clayey mudstone or claystone bedrock unit. The weak unit is predicted to extend from Boring P-6 toward the southeast corner of the property. The upper portions of the Page -11- July 1 , 1988 JOB X1158-1 lot were found to be competent enough to support structures on relatively shallow foundation systems penetrating into the hard or dense bedrock. It will be necessary to provide landslide repair to the area occupied by the landslide: This repair s i dude ad bu essing, drainage, sloe gradients, excavation a 'a t.� ., or,,; o ete excavation to ,n � . stabs :tY _ . ..o of adjacent slopes in order .for structures to be constructed that location. Additional exploration of the northwest corner of the property will probably be necessary once the completed plan for development is decided upon. CONCLUSIONS Based on our preliminary investigation, it is our opinion that: 1 . Stability of the site and competantcy of bedrock appears to be de ndent u the conf duration and type of local �� .. . YP a ,. bedrock trending through the site, and may also be Page -12- July 1 , 1988 JOB 11158-1 dependent on how far up the slope, materials. are located; ter.,.. 2. Materials further up the slope appeared to be more competent. 3 . Additional investigation of the northwest portion will probably be necessary to determine conditions �tt that location when this area is cleared, allowing equipment access, and a final plan for development is submitted; 4. The relatively shallow landslide on the site appears to follow the strike of a relatively weak clayey mudstone or claystone rock unit; 5. This landslide can be repaired allowing successful development of that portion of the site; 6. The upper portions of the lot should be easily developed utilizing standard grading and construction techniques recommended in this report. RECOMMENDATIONS General recommendations for the development of the site are. Page -13- July 13, 2004 To: Contra Costa Board of Supervisors RE: Appeal by El Sobrante Planning &Zoning Advisory Committee,et al on property owned by Mr. Sid Afshar at 4823 Hilltop Drive,El Sobrante Contra Costa Board of Supervisors: I object to the ongoing abrogation of the personal property rights of Mr. Sid Afshar,owner of property located at 4823 Hilltop Dr. (parcels 426-210-007; 426-182-001 &017; 426- 192-005 & 008). In my opinion Mr. Afshar is being prohibited from a reasonable development of this property by a small number of citizens and government officials whose political agenda would remove Mr. Afshar's Constitutional property rights and replace them with rights for the"common good". I am concerned with the implications of the development of this particular property as I, too, own property in the El Sobrante area and could be subject to the same abrogation of property rights. I have repeatedly voiced my opinion to the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council (of which I am a current member),that more single family housing(SFH)is needed in this area.. In addition,the building of SFH in this area would help to dilute the increasingly high property tax burden on our residents. Mr. Afshar has presented a perfectly acceptable plan for the development of this property to the County and is now being subjected to costly and unreasonable delay tactics. These tactics include a number of totally unnecessary hearings that cost not only Mr. Afshar unnecessary legal expense,but burden our County which is already suffering a severe financial crisis,the expense of holding these hearings. The County expense is born by the tax paying citizens of Contra Costa and so,we the citizens of Contra Costa County,pay for these hearings and stalling tactics, also. As a member of the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council(MAC), I have observed my fellow MAC members, some of which are also on the EI Sobrante Planning and Zoning Advisory(P &Z)exhibit a pattern of recommending against or imposing severe and costly restrictions on any proposed housing development that would contain single family housing(SFH). I have voiced my opinion in meetings that there is a bias against the building of SFH in EI Sobrante. Because of the P&Z pattern of land use recommendations, I have voiced my opinion that this committee,appointed by the Dist. l Supervisor should be an elected position because this committee holds the real power in El Sobrante land use policies. My opinion, based on personal observation, is that the MAC and P & Z presently do the political bidding of the Dist. I Supervisor's office with regard to land use and other matters in the El Sobrante area. The result of my I am opposed to the recommendation that Mr. Afshar's property at 4823 Hilltop Drive be subject to another delay via a"focused EIR". My understanding is that Mr. Darwin Myers has recommended that no EIR need be done on this property and he is the County expert on such matters. In addition,I am opposed to any further change in Mr. Afshar's present plan for development of this property such as lowering the number of units to be built requiring a"focused"EIR and mandating `open space' in the plan for this property. I was present at the June 8h hearing on this property before the Contra Costa Planning Commission(PC). I observed a large contingent of people present expressing the opinion that Mr. Afshar's private property was "open space"and had renamed it the"Garrity Creek"property. I have seen their flyers all over El Sobrante that are misleading in that they proclaim this is a matter of preservation of"open space"—the signs proclaim in bold letters"Preserve Open Space". In fact,this is actually a matter, for me, of preserving the rights of private property ownership. I spoke up at this hearing in favor of allowing the project to continue without an EIR. I was subject to misleading characterizations of my statements by at least one member of those opposing this project. When I saw the letter of June 15 from Eleanor Loynd to Supervisor Gioia Re: "Conduct of Planning Commission"I was dumbfounded. Ms. Loynd's assertion that the Planning Commissioners made "hurtful,demeaning and inappropriate comments"is a gross distortion of the facts. In fact, I observed quite the opposite. The PCA literally bent over backward to listen to a large number of the opponents. t7Ve were even subjected to a video that took a great deal of meeting time to present and glorified some animals purportedly located on Mr. Afshar's property. As a member of the public supporting the project, I was amazed that the PC would allow so much time to be taken up by such a display. It would appear that those opposing Mr. Afshar EXPECT to be given much more respect than they are willing to give those with an opposing opinion. In fact, I observed a pattern of inappropriate comments by those in opposition of Mr. Afshar's project. When Mr. Afshar arrived at this meeting on crutches due to a leg injury,the demeaning comments from this crowd were easily heard. Those in opposition seemed to think Mr. Afshar's property is theirs to use anytime they want. I'm sure they wouldn't want strangers tramping around on their property, fenced or not?i Many of the opponents complain that Mr. Afshar's development would cause increased traffic. However, some of these same opponents actually support the proposed Downtown El SobrantelAppian Way Redevelopment plan that proposes to build over 1000 units of high density housing along Appian Way and San Pablo Dam Rd. Think of the traffic this will generate!! At a recent MAC meeting I brought in pictures I had taken of this property owned by Mr. Afshar. I observed it to be a perfect location for single family housing with gentle sloping land; the`creek"was very small -certainly not a reason to deny any building on the land. I later went back after torrential rains this winter and observed the"creek" still had only a small amount of water flow. In my mind, this is in opposition to those who state that this "creek" could cause flooding conditions in periods of torrential rain. I'm sure flooding could be a possibility,but flood problems could potentially occur anywhere given the right weather conditions. I ask that the BOS do not impose any further restrictions or delay Mr. Afshar's Hilltop property development any further. I further ask that no more unnecessary hearings at County expense be held on this matter. sincerely, IA Marilynn 6/L. Mellander 7010 Monte Verde Rd. El Sobrante, CA 94803 510-223-0443 My name is Gwynn O'Neill. I own property in El Sobrante. I live at 210 Tunnel Avenue in Richmond. P' What Garrity Creek we are talking about?' Often When you look at some of the documents 6W+ aq provided to you, you might see only one Garrity Creek, running from below Hilltop Drive westward toward the Richmond City boundary.. North of this Garrity Creek In the documents provided to us, we have seen not another fork of the creek, but something labeled a ditch, in spite of our having painted out several times in the past 3 years that it isn't. ,-,,,In fact there are two forks and and the north fork is larger, runs year-long fed by a year-long spring and a seep, both hidden in a mass of willows below the end of Marin Road .This larger fork is not shown on some newer maps for some unknown reason, but USGS maps, starting in 1895, clearly show the north fork, as you can see in the booklet I gave you. Anyone who looks dawn on the Garrity Creek valley or at the photographs in this booklet sees the north fork with its much larger and more varied vegetation. probably because of the spring and the seep. An old tripod and some pump equipment, hangs above the spring, evidence that it was a water supply for someone in the past. as well as for the wild animals. I included a photo of the eastern, smaller fork. You can see the foliage is low and narrow compared to the north fork's. However, even here is evidence of the rich wildlife that this whole area supports. The two almost hidden animals in the upper left are deer startled from sleep. A creek is a creek, even if seasonal. The east fork is seasonal, but it has the same regulatory protection as the north fork. Of course, the presence of both forks of Garrity Creek and the spr�hg says something about the hydrology of the soil. l now refer to the Kropp report, dated 1991 , although it includes many reports, some done long before 1991 A page of the Kropp report is in the booklet I submitted to you . It documents a large landslide below and south of the current landslide . I provided. a photo of this current landslide. As you can see, the photo is a combination of two photos , one taken on a grey day, the other sunny. Here you see the slide below the homes on Marin Road. It is about 100 feet wide, and extends out and downward about 180 feet. I photo'ed plants growing in this slide area and had them identified by a botanist at the Wetland Project. They are wetlandplants that are rawin half-way up the side of this ,_. _ _ it C &W'� from tie area t esignated as wetiaiicl on t1�ie she map. This is further vcder e, o� -t,hc vet nature-of.this whole area., as is the presence of a*much► wildlife. R E C E I PIE�D ' S JUL 1 To: Supervisor John Gioia From. Friends of Garrity geek CLERK€OARD Or supr_RYIBC»;; Hilltop Neighborhood so GtJ ' A CCFTA" ° F1 Sobrante Valley Pla Ing&- .. Zoning Advisory ommittee July 8,2004 Dear Supervisor Gioia, At your request,we've prepared this short list of why a full Environmental Impact Report should be required for SDOI-8533. This summary is intended as a guide to our detailed appeal, the attached supplemental material,and all our previous comments on SDO1-8533. We hereby include it all by reference in this document. The Planning Commissioners' decision to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 40-home project were based on flawed and incomplete information. Topics: 1. Geolory/Soils -Discrepancy in site test borings. The information from recent AMSO test borings at this site when compared to Soares&Associates(1998)show discrepancies. EIR should also compare Alan Kropp&Associates borings on the same site in 1990/91 which Darwin Myers should make available to the board.AMSO report assumes presence of bedrock,but none was found. -The revised plan to build houses higher on the 33% grade hillside was not evaluated. Combined 132 ft.high retaining wall structures and buttressing system needs detailed evaluation in EIR due to landslide danger to residents above prior to project approval. -At least 4 mitigation measures are yet to be completed and evaluated. According to CEQA,the project is not allowed to aggravate existing problems. How can the project be approved when there is no credible information on which to base decisions? -There needs to be an updated grading map as well as updated investigations on subsurface and slope stability. A supplemental geologist's report is to be done on drainage facilities, slope excavations, and any replacements. Geologic mapping on location and depth of subdrains and test data on fill compaction need to be done. -The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the grading is not balanced.(p. 16) About 5,500 cubic yards of clean fill dirt will be transported on site.No information is given as to where and how it will be stored. 2. Land Use/Planning -Staff recommendations do not accurately reflect slopes of parcel 3 between 26 and 33%and should be revised to conform fully to Safety Elements 10-28 and 10-29. -The County adopted a Slope Density Ordinance(Chapter 814-2). Staff contends that it is not applicable to the El Sobrante area,nor has it ever been applied to El Sobrante. However, Planner Bob Drake, in his letter dated 5/17/01,stated that"over 80%of the site has a slope of more than 15%, 15%of the site has a slope exceeding 26%." -It appears that the slope density ordinance does apply to El Sobrante. There is no evidence to substantiate otherwise. An EIR might be able to clear up this discrepancy. 3. Transportation/Traffic -Low staff estimate of only 1.1 car trips per peak hour per unit should be scrutinized. -Traffic information is based only on 2 intersections within I mile of the entrance. -Complete traffic information is needed on Hilltop Drive from I-80 to Manor at Appian Way as well as side streets such as Pebble Drive and La Paloma Rd. -No evaluation was done on the use of Marin Road as an entrance point. -No information was provided on improvements on Hilltop Drive at the entrance. 4. Hvdroiogy/Drainage -A study of existing drainage facilities in Hilltop Green and their capacity is missing. Summary Statements SunRorting the Need for a Full EIR vatic 2 Hydrology cont'd -An evaluation of the increased run-off due from this project and a list of related improvements is needed. -A determination is needed re: who pays for the improvements to the drainage system. -A drainage maintenance plan for this site and the Hilltop Green subdivision is needed. -A comprehensive study is needed to determine if landslides on the adjacent property may be triggered by grading and/or drainage from this project. 5. Utilities and Service Systems - Storm water drainage facilities -EIR needs to provide definitive information on existing storm water drainage facilities. 6. Public Services -Fire: There is no statement from County Fire about the use of Marin Rd. as a fire entrance road. -Police:There is no statement that County Sheriff s Dept will be able to provide at least minimal services to the site. -Parks: The developer promised the community an on-site tot lot. If not included in the development,the developer should pay the$2,000 for each home in county park fees as well as $50,000-$75,000. This last open space should not be granted off-site mitigation for recreation space;the community wants on-site facilities maintained by the HOA. 7. Bioloeical Resources —The plan to protect the riparian habitats by deed restrictions,established along Garrity Creek and the unnamed tributary, is unsatisfactory and almost unenforceable. There is no plan for monitoring and/or enforcing the deed restriction. -The County needs to develop a monitoring and maintenance plan between the County and the developer. The County could monitor the riparian habitats as well as test the creeks' water quality several times a year. The HOA could pay the county's costs. 8. Cultural resources -EIR should provide examination of areas not surveyed and survey for human remains. So far, both the developer's archaeological surveys only utilized partial visual surveys. 9. Noise -The mitigated negative declaration says that noise from the grading and building of this project is less than significant. That is not true. -Children are considered sensitive receptors. El Sobrante Elementary School is about a half block from the site. Juan Crespi Middle School is about two blocks away. -A study of the noise level of the big equipment is needed. A restriction should be placed on the moving times for the big trucks onto the site. 10. Air Quality -County did not provide data or mitigation measures re: short and/or long term air quality impacts. 11. Aesthetic/VisualImpacts -The change from valley open space to a housing project will be a significant change in views to the neighbors. Most neighbors are above the project area. -The plan has been revised to move some of the homes higher on the slopes where they will be more visible to the surrounding neighbors. -Some computer generated visual images of what the project will look like should be done and then carefully reviewed to see what can be done to lessen the impact. Sincerely, Friends of Garrity Creek E.S.Valley P&Z Adv. Committee Hilltop Neighborhood Association EI Sobrante Valley Planning& Friends of Garrity Creek& Zoning Advisory Committee Hilltop Neighborhood Association P.O. Box 20136 745 Renfrew Rd. El Sobrante, CA 94820 El Sobrante, CA 94803 July 8, 2004 To: CC County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine St. Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Supplemental detail for Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on SD01-8533 Dear Supervisors, The members of the Friends of Garrity Creek, the Hilltop Neighborhood Association, and the El Sobrante Valley Planning& Zoning Advisory Committee have filed an appeal on the Planning Commissioners' decision to approve SD01-8533 based on a mitigated negative declaration and a 40-home plan when County Staff recommended a limit of 35 homes. We feel that the Planning Commissioners' decisions were based on incorrect information. There is a lack of credible evidence to support their decisions. We are presenting supplemental points of appeal with supplemental information, making this part of the administrative record. These points show evidence of potential significant environmental effects not adequately addressed in the mitigated negative declaration. These supplemental points are in addition to and clarify and do not supercede points raised in the letter of appeal submitted June 17, 2004. We incorporate,by reference, all written comments from Attorney Keith Wagner, Barbara Pendergrass for Friends of Garrity Greek& Hilltop Neighborhood Association and Eleanor Loynd for the El Sobrante Valley Planning& Zoning Advisory Committee. We strongly disagree with staff that a "Mitigated Negative.Declaration is adequate for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act." In our testimony, the appeal documentation, our lawyer's comments, and this supplemental detail, we present evidence showing that the MNG relies on detailed reports that have not been created and mitigation measures yet to be formulated, and CEQA requires these to be in place before issuing any project approvals. We ask that a full Environmental Impact Report be required. Then the subdivision plan should be re-evaluated based on that information. These are our statements to support the request for a full Environmental Impact Report and a complete reevaluation of the project. 1.Geologry, Soils,& Seismicity: The full EIR should comprehensively examine seismic concerns, discrepancies in geological data on the site from various reports, elements of the proposal not in compliance with county slope protection policies, the variances requested for 132-foot combined retaining wall structures, and the previously unevaluated buttress system. Details follow: The protect site is located in a region of high seismicity. The Hayward Fault is generally regarded as having the highest probability of producing the next large magnitude earthquake in the Bay Area. The Hayward Fault is about 1 mile from this site. Request for a full ETR Page 2 The lack of detailed, credible information on the geology, soils, and seismicity leads to the request for a full EIR. Existing and fixture residents need to know that the development plan has been fully evaluated by credentialed specialists in the various fields prior to granting any approval. The AMSO test borings done on this site for Mr. Afshar were recently compared to a 1998 study of the same site done by Soares &Associates. In the May 25 hearing, Darwin Myers also referenced data prepared in 1990-1991 by Alan Kropp &Associates. There are apparent discrepancies in the data provided by the AMSO and Soares reports on this same site. Since we are not experts, an EIR needs to be done to ensure the currency and accuracy of the evidence used as a basis for any decision on this project. Variances for retaining walls more than 3 feet in height at end of Marin Road should be denied. This tiered set of extremely steep multiple retaining walls has a combined height of up to 132 feet. Construction of these structures will require extensive excavation of a hillside with known landslides, no evidence of bedrock in the developer's geological reports, and a grade of more than 26 percent, a slope which according to Policy 10-29 should remain undisturbed.No approval of this aspect of the project should be granted. We ask that a full EIR include thorough examination of this problematic aspect of the proposal. We refer you to our attorney's letter of May 21, 2004,p. 4,where he noted that CEQA requires "a mandatory finding of significance for any potential project impacts that may result in 'substantial adverse effects on human beings.' If the potential exists that grading permits cannot be issued for the project due to landslide potential, that information should be adequately investigated by the County and disclosed to the public before project approval." This aspect of the proposal represents significant risk of adverse effects on human beings living in homes at the western terminus of Marin Road, and should be thoroughly scrutinized in the EIR prior to project approval. We were told by the developer that a buttressing system would be used to stabilize the landslide areas just below Marin Road. This would allow houses to be built up higher on the hillside. That aspect of the plan has never been evaluated, and should be addressed in the EIR. See additional landslide issues in section on Hydrology. According to statements in the mitigated negative declaration, these mitigation measures are yet to be completed and evaluated: -special engineering solutions based on a future yet-to-be-updated grading map; -an updated report on subsurface investigations and slope stability; -supplemental geologist's recommendations on drainage facilities, slope excavations, and replacement plans; -geologic mapping on the location and depth of subdrains, test data on fill compaction, and monitoring plan for buildings, walls, and other details. 2. Land Use/Plannin : The County's General Plan Safety Element: 10-28 "Generally,residential density shall decrease as slope increases, especially above a 15% slope" and 10-29 "Significant hillsides with slopes over 26%or more shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading or other land disturbance." Request for a full EIR Page 3 The developer's proposal incorporates inappropriate development of areas steeper than 26% grade, and this has not been reflected in the staff report. The May 25, 2004, staff report on SD 418533 contains this description from B) Findings to approve a tentative map: "Most of the site contains slopes that exceed a 15% gradient; some of the property has slopes as steep as 26%." This description is inaccurate. In a 5/17/41 letter to Mr. Afshar, county planner Bob Drake referenced the applicant's exhibit showing "over 80%of the site has a slope of more that 15 percent, and 15 percent [of the site] .has a slope exceeding 26%." Staff recommendations may not have taken into account the true steepness of the slopes, since these details are not included in their findings. The AMSO engineering report dated April 30, 2401 for Project 3128,page 2, findings for surface conditions, documents that the slopes for the 3 parcels in this development range from 20 percent to 33 percent: 5 to 1 slopes for parcels 1 and 2, with parcel 3 having slopes of 4 to 1 and 3 to 1. County ordinance 813-2-612 density table mandates the following densities: 2.9 homes per net acre for 20% slope; 1.6 homes/net acre for 25%slope, and .7 houses/acre for 33%slope. The developer's proposal should be modified to conform to the lower densities on the parcels delineated in the AMBO report as having steeper slopes. According to the general plan's county slope protection policy 10-29,areas with slopes greater than 26% should be left undisturbed. Staff recommendations lowering the project density from 40 to 35 homes is appropriate in order to comply with other county policies. However,that revised configuration does not address policy 14-29, since it still allows extensive grading to build six homes and a road on that very steep 33%grade. The development plans should be reconfigured to leave the steep area at the end of Marin Road undisturbed in accordance with policy 10-29. As it stands,this project should be viewed as having significant, adverse environmental effects because it is inconsistent with the General Plan policy. It is also a violation of the state Planning and Zoning Law,which forbids the approval of any project that is inconsistent with the overlying general plan. In short, unless the development is modified to avoid grading on 26%+ slopes, it cannot be approved, regardless of whether an EIR is prepared, because the project is inconsistent with the County's General Plan. There seems to be a disagreement among staff regarding the County's slope density ordinance and if it applies to El Sobrante. Can page 26 in the mitigated negative declaration, staff stated that"The County adopted a Slope Density Ordinance(Chapter 814-2), but it is not applied to the E1 Sobrante area,nor has it ever been applied to El Sobrante. (The ordinance is, in effect, an overlay of zoning that requires larger minimums standard parcel sizes as slope increases.)" There are no statements or proof that the County's Slope Density Ordinance does not apply to El Sobrante. There is no credible evidence that the slope density ordinance does not apply to El Sobrante. 3. Transnortation/Traffic: An EIR would provide needed traffic information that is missing from the mitigated negative declaration. At the time the initial study was done,the only entrance to the project was off Hilltop Drive. Traffic information was provided for only 2 intersections within about 1 /2 mile of the project entrance. The revised plans now call for Request for a full EIR Paue 4 a second entrance on Marin Road at Hilltop Drive. A full traffic study is needed. It should include all Hilltop Drive intersections from I-80 to Manor Road to Appian Way. It should also include traffic impacts on local side streets such as La Paloma and Pebble Drive. We note here that traffic is by far the most universal concern of neighboring residents--the staff report indicates that 92 percent of letters to opposing this development included concerns about negative impacts of increased traffic. Traffic on Hilltop Drive backs up to a standstill between 7:34-9 am and again between 2:30-3:34 pm. Hilltop Drive is a main entry point to and from local schools. A 40 home project would add 320-400 daily car trips to Hilltop Drive. The new entrance to Marin Road needs to be evaluated. It is a narrow county road with no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. For area residents' safety, it needs to be improved. Because the plan was revised after the mitigated negative declaration,no evaluation was done to see if the Marin/Hilltop Drive meets the usual standards for a connector road. Staff findings that no traffic study is required are based on an unbelievably low estimate of only 1.1 peak hour trips per unit. Most families own two cars, with both adults driving to work or to a public transit hub during commute time. In fact, an evening visual survey of the closest neighboring road, Marin Road, shows most homes with three or four vehicles. Residents of a 40-home development would most likely add 70 to 80 more vehicles to the neighborhood, exponentially increasing the number of car trips during peak use time. The low estimate of traffic impacts in the staff report should be thoroughly evaluated. We note that SD01-8533 is only one of many projects proposed in this area. These other projects will contribute to traffic going to the El Sobrante Elementary and Juan Crespi Middle schools. ESVP&Z requested an El Sobrante traffic study Sept 18, 2001. We would like this EIR to address the cumulative impact of these many projects on local traffic infrastructure. As stated on page 25 in the mitigated negative declaration, County staff considers this an"in-fill"project. Conversations with Supervisor Gioia about the definition of an "in-fill"project show that this project does not meet the "in-fill" standards. The project is not within walking distance of services that residents need such as grocery stores, cleaners,restaurants, etc. The area is poorly served by AC Transit. Elements of staff recommendations based on the assumption that this is an "infill" site should be scrutinized during the EIR and appropriately revised. A. Hydrology& Drainage: The staff report mentions Policy 3-202, calling for "implementation of measures to avoid inundation,ponding and sheet overflow during storms." Residents of Solano Court who daily walk the open area caring for their livestock testified in the May 25 public hearings before the commission that every rainy season a vernal pond takes shape around the confluence of the two branches of Garrity Creek. Breeding families of ducks congregate at the pond, as do other migratory waterfowl. This is evidence that ponding already occurs prior to any development activity on the proposed site, and that existing drainage facilities in this area have been neglected both by the county and the city of Richmond. Solan Court residents also testified that there is a high volume of water Request for a full Efft Page 5 under their foundation slabs during the rainy season, despite the fact that they are at the highest elevation overlooking the valley. The staff report utilizes models based on a 100-year flood event. Changes in climatological factors such as increases in average rainfalls over recent decades indicate that this model is no longer sufficient as a predictor of public safety for flood control. In addition, we find no inclusion of evidence accounting for the changes to water table levels that development will bring. Development eliminates natural recharge areas by introducing much higher percentages of impervious surfaces. Additionally, year-round yard irrigation by home owners keeps the ground damp, not allowing it to dry out as it naturally would,and contributing to much swifter saturation of the ground once the rainy season begins. With the Hilltop Green drainage system already unable to cope with the winter rains, additional stresses such as these could create substantial problems. The Globe soils reports describe that Hilltop Green's considerable slide problems result from poor drainage and unstable soils. The EIR should comprehensively address these factors, particularly since the new development is on the same kind of unstable soils and would be vulnerable to landslides without adequate drainage, etc. Linder CEQA law, the project does not have to solve existing problems, but the project is not allowed to aggravate existing ones. It is an absolute necessity, for the safety of the residents in Hilltop Green and the new project residents,that a detailed assessment of the existing drainage problems in Hilltop Green be done now. A study of the existing drainage problems,the project run- off from the new project, and a list of what developer paid-for improvements are needed should be done now. Under CEQA law,the impacts on regional drainage and mitigation measures must be in place before the project is approved. This project cannot be approved with existing problems to be studied and, somehow, mitigated at a future time. The County Planning Commissioners approved this project without reviewing or verifying the adequacy of the downstream drainage facilities in the Hilltop Green subdivision which is located next to and at a lower level than the planned project. Off- site improvements may be required to increase the capacity of the existing drainage system in Hilltop Green. We don't know what those requirements are or who will be responsible for maintaining them. The Hilltop Green Subdivision is in the city of Richmond. On April 15, 2003, the Richmond City Council passed a Resolution stating its opposition to the project and requested that an EIR be prepared for the project. 5. Utilities and Service Systems - Storm water drainage facilities: There is no accurate, definitive information on the existing storm water drainage facilities in the adjacent Hilltop Green Subdivision or on the need to expand those existing facilities. The mitigated negative declaration merely stated that"this may require off-site improvements to increase capacity should these facilities prove to be inadequate." The problem is that these adjacent facilities are in Richmond. We have no confidence that the applicant can provide competent information on the existing facilities or that the funds exist to pay for any or all improvements to these facilities. The EIR should resolve these questions. Request for a fill EIR Pine 6 6. Public Services-Fire Services and Parks: A full EIR should be required so that information on fire services and parks are reviewed before the project is approved. There is no statement from the County Fire Dept. about accessing this subdivision using Marin Road. The Marin Road extension is to be about a 15% grade and the project was just recently revised to include it. There is no information or validation of the County's decision to allow the developer to remove an on-site park or tot-lot from the development. In fact, the applicant provided us with his list of suggested conditions dated 4/10/03. His condition #24 states: "The project now includes two potential sites for a tot lot. The site selected would be graded and improved as part of the subdivision improvements. The design of the improvements will be provided at the appropriate time in the planing (sic)process." Residents have requested an on-site park since review of this project began several years ago. Since the County has no Parks Maintenance Dept.,there are no County parks in the area. Park funds are directed to the County Service Area Recreation 9 Committee which has partnered with schools and the EBRPD to provide some area playgrounds. The school playgrounds are not accessible during school time. The small park(play area) on site would be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. For example,Appian Village, a 22-home County project on Appian Way, was required to put in a tot-lot as well as pay the $2000 per unit County park fees. The developer agreed to provide$75,000 to the CSA R-9 Committee in lieu of putting in the tot-lot. The developer of a nearby 43 home Richmond subdivision at Valley View and May Roads paid the park fees and, in addition, agreed to pay an additional $50,000 for a play structure at a local park instead of creating an on-site tot-lot. In both the examples above, we note that developers were allowed to mitigate off- site, ffsite, and this was also the case with Mr. Afshar`s development a few blocks away off Renfew Court. Given that this project area(SDO1-8533) is the last remaining open space in the neighborhood, we request that no off-site mitigation be granted; rather, the developer should respond to the needs of the community by providing on-site recreation space. We support the county staff recommendation for an easement possibly to be used for a public trail, and request that this be accompanied by the wetland area comprising lot 29,to be maintained as recreation space for the public and managed by the HOA. We request that the ESVP&Z recommendation that land adjacent to the creek be deed- restricted for recreation be granted. In conjunction with this, we reinforce our previous comments that current existing Dept. of Fish& Game creek setback rulings of 100 feet should be followed in designing this development. The steep property at the end of Marin Road which overlooks the wetland area would be a natural addition to an on-site deed- restricted recreation area --this hillside is an area that should remain undisturbed due to its 33%grade, per county slope protection policies. We strongly request on-site recreation space. If the county denies our request, the Board of Supervisors should, at the very least, add a condition requiring that the developer will pay an additional fee of$50,000-$75,000 to the CSA R-9 Committee for park development. However,we ask that no determination regarding any off-site mitigation be made until a full and complete EIR has evaluated the project. Request for a full EIR Page 7 7. Biological Resources: This 10-acre site is currently a wildlife corridor. Neighbors frequently see deer, raccoons, birds, opossums, turtles,frogs, and other creatures on site. The site is grassy hillsides with trees and two creeks flowing through the property. One of the concerns is that the development will close off this entry/exit for the wildlife. The mitigated negative declaration stated that the riparian habitats will be protected by a deed restriction established along Garrity Creek and the unnamed tributary. The question is - Who is responsible for monitoring these restrictions? We have no confidence that a statement in the deed will force the landowners to comply with the restrictions. Can the County set up a process whereby, for a set fee paid by the Homeowners Association,twice a year county staff will monitor the protected riparian habitats to be sure that the deed restrictions are in place? The deed-restricted area is approximately 40 ft. wide between the houses' backyards and Garrity Creek's top of bank. A 6 ft. high wood and wire fence will be construction at the edge of the 40 ft. set back. Signs will be posted to discourage dumping and to restrict public access. The County should also have the authority to enforce the deed restrictions as well as to order fences repaired, etc. The water in Garrity Creek should also be tested to ensure that the water quality will sustain the wildlife. 8. Cultural resources. We refer you to the Nov. 20, 2003 letter from Katherine Perez,representative of the Northern Valley"Yokut/Oholone/Miwok included in our appeal packet. She is uncomfortable with the surveys conducted by Afshar's archaeologists because only three of the five segments of the proposed subdivision were surveyed, areas where artifacts were likely to have been found were deemed "inaccessible", and they were visual walking surveys that did not include surveying for possible human remains. Subsequent to receiving her letter,Afshar sent out an archaeologist who essentially did a walking survey with some members of Hilltop Neighborhood Association. We noted that his survey was also a visual survey--he never used the shovel he brought along. used on her concerns and the cursory followup, we request that the completed EIR address these issues prior to approvals being granted. 9. Noise: The mitigated negative declaration states that noise from the grading and building of this project is less than significant. There are 2 schools within 2 blocks of this site. Children are considered sensitive receptors. The impact of noise on these 2 schools, El Sobrante Elementary and Juan Crespi Middle School was not evaluated. In addition, the effect of noise on County residents and residents in the 500 home adjacent Hilltop Green subdivision was not evaluated. The initial study does not quantify or analyze the usual noise makers, such as air conditioners, law mowers, etc. A full EIR is needed. 14. Air Quality. We note that the County failed to quantify and analyze either short-term, construction related impacts or long-term operational air quality impacts, or mitigation measures or alternatives to avoid such impacts. These would include limitations on the types of construction equipment to be used,mitigation measures to keep fugitive dust under control, and analysis or mitigation ofPM10, diesel particulate, or other volatile Request for a full EIR Page8 organics associated with implementation of the project. Due to the project's location in a low-lying valley, such pollutants could have a high impact. This is of great concern to Marin Road residents bordering the project who have severe respiratory problems. The EIR should clearly spell out the requirements to minimize air quality impacts. 11. AestheticsNisual Impacts: This 10 acre parcel has never been developed. The project will result in significant changes to the visual character of the area. Neighbors along the rim of the project, as well as the neighbors next door in the Hilltop Green Subdivision, will see a dramatic difference—houses, streets, lights where they now see open space,trees, wildlife. There will be a significant visual impact from the project, and this should be addressed in a full EIR. Summary Statement: A full environmental impact report should be required to thoroughly resolve the concerns above. After the EIR is completed,the project plans should be re-evaluated and redesigned to comply with the new information in the EIR. The number of units on site should be re-evaluated and downsized based on the new information provided. The conditions should be evaluated and re-written as necessary. Vicki.Zumwalt@kp.org To: distl@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us,dist2a@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us, 07/1312004 09:16 AM dist3@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us,dist4@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us, dist5@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us cc: reid@biggie.com, SpriteArta@aol.com, GLOMAGLEBY@SBCGLOBAL.NET, mtoms@cd.co.contra-costa.ca.us cd.co.contra-costa.ca.us Subject: Bay Harbor Commerce Center Project I am unable to attend todays afternoon meeting because of my work schedule here in Oakland. However, I am in complete agreement with our Chair, Norma Siegfried whose letter I have attached for your reference. The MAC and PAC have voted twice to approve the Bay Harbor Commerce Center,which we feel would be a distinct benefit to our community. The Business Park developers have made every effort to work with the community and make agreeable changes requested. The area they would develop has been a wasteland for homeless encampments and substance abuse loiters. We urge you to approve this development and thank you for your consideration. Vicki M. Zumwalt, Council Member Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council Office: (510)987-4011 Home: (925)458-4527 BAY HARBOR COMMERCE CENTER. DORTHSi@aol.com To: distl@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us,dist2@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us: dist3@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us,dist4@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us, 07f12f2004 07:24 PM dist5@bos.co.contra-,costa.ca.us,bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us, mtoms@cd.co.contra-costa.ca.us cc: Subject: Bay Harbor Commerce Center Attached is a statement sent earlier by Norma Siegfried concerning the hearing on the above project. With minor editing, I wholeheartedly agree. BAY HARBOR COMMERCE CENTER. DORTHSI@aol.com To: distl@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us, dist2@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us, r: dist3@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us,dist4@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us, 07/12/2004 t77:24 PM dist5@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us, mtoms@cd.co.contra-costa.ca.us cc: Subject: Bay Harbor Commerce Center Attached is a statement sent earlier by Norma Siegfried concerning the hearing on the above project. With minor editing, I wholeheartedly agree. D BAY HARBOR COMMERCE CENTER. VFcki.Zumwalt@kp.org To: distl@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us,dist2@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us, 07/13/2004 09:16 AM dist3@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us, dist4@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us, dist5@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us cc: reid@biggie.com,SpriteArt@aol.com, GLOMAGL EBY@SBCG LOBAL.NET, mtoms@cd.co.contra-costa,ca.us Subject: Bay Harbor Commerce Center Project I am unable to attend todays afternoon meeting because of my work schedule here in Oakland. However, I am in complete agreement with our Chair, Norma Siegfried whose letter l have attached for your reference. The MAC and PAC have voted twice to approve the Bay Harbor Commerce Center, which we feel would be a distinct benefit to our community. The Business Park developers have made every effort to work with the community and make agreeable changes requested. The area they would develop has been a wasteland for homeless encampments and substance abuse loiters. We urge you to approve this development and thank you for your consideration. Vicki M.Zumwalt, Council Member Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council Office: (510)987-4011 Home: (925)458-4527 BAY HARBOR COMMERCE CENTER.