Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03012005 - D.3 e r BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO: SO S Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP °`:, �4Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR v County osrq,C U DATE: March 1, 2005 SUBJECT: Hearing on a Recommendation of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on a Planned Unit (P-1) District Rezoning and Preliminary/Final Development Plan Request for a 4-unit Single Family Residential & Open Space Development at#157 Oakgate Drive in the Danville Tassajara Area. (CountyFiles RZ033122 & DP033009), (Oakgate Properties, LLC — Applicants and Mathew Beinke — Owner) (District III) SPECIFIC REQUEST (S) OR RECOMMENDATION (S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATIONS A. In accord with the recommendation of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for this project as adequate for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE G' AA� RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S): ACTION OF BOARD ON - APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED 7TWYE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT. 4- CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND -ES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Lashun Cross 335-1229 ATTESTED cc: Public Works Dept. JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Oakgate Properties, LLC SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BYDEPUTYY March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors Oakgate Properties Rezoning & Development Plan, Danville area Page 2 2. APPROVE the proposed rezoning of a 5.55- acre parcel from General Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1); 3. APPROVE the proposed Preliminary and Final Development Plan for four residential parcels and open space subject to conditions; and 4. ADOPT the findings contained in the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Resolution No. 1-2005 as the basis for the Board's action. B. AMEND Condition #19 clarifying review requirements for architectural plans as recommended below. C. INTRODUCE the ordinance giving effect to the aforesaid rezoning; waive reading adopt same. D. DIRECT the Community Development Department to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. II. FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant is responsible for the cost of processing the applications. III. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting to subdivide 5.55 acres into four parcels with a designated open space remainder. A part of the project involves a request to rezone the subject site from General Agriculture (A-2)to Planned Unit District (P-1), which will remain consistent with the General Plan designations of (OS) Open Space and (SL) Single-family Low Density. The site is located off of Camino Tassajara and at the end of Oakgate Drive in the Danville area. Surrounding the property are other zoning districts consisting of Planned Unit Development (P-1). The uses in the immediate area are single-family residential development, homes that have been constructed and completed approximately seven to ten years ago. The site is bounded by existing residential projects: • Bettencourt Ranch to the west; • Shadow Creek to the north; and 0 Stevens Court to the south. March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors Oakgate Properties Rezoning & Development Plan, Danville area Page 3 The project site contains an existing single-family residence, a barn, accessory structures and an orchard on the southeastern portion of the site. The open space area and the west branch of Alamo creek are on the northwestern portion of the site. In addition to this rezoning application, the project includes a minor subdivision (File # MSO40020) and a development plan (File # DP033009). The applications for this project were originally filed with the Community Development Department on February 12, 2003. At that time, the applicant was initially seeking to subdivide the subject site into a 5-lot major subdivision with a remainder. The applicant worked extensively to address concerns of the existing neighborhood residents. These discussions resulted in a change in October of 2004 of the original submittal of a 5 lot major subdivision to a 4 lot minor subdivision with a proposal to grant deed development rights for the remainder to the County. The dedication includes the northwestern portion of the subject site covering the west branch of Alamo Creek and open space area. A. Environmental Review Mitigations were prepared that would reduce the potential impact to a less than significant impact of construction activity to potential California red-legged frogs and nesting birds in the nearby creek foliage. Some of these mitigations include pre- construction surveys prior to any work commencing, contractor education, and prohibition of work during the rainy season. In addition to the mitigated negative declaration, a mitigation-monitoring program was prepared and agreed to by the applicant. B. San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Hearing The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission heard the applicant 3s rezoning, development plan and subdivision request on January 19, 2005. There was no opposition to the project at the public hearing. However, three neighbors abutting the site expressed the following: 1. Re-assurance regarding the maintenance and prohibition of development of the proposed open space remainder parcel; 2. Limiting the house design on Parcel 1 to a single story elevation on the south side; and 3. Clarification of the use of the proposed Landscape Easement for vineyards and orchards, prohibiting any landscaping within the easement. March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors Oakgate Properties Rezoning & Development Plan, Danville area Page 4 Staff noted those conditions of approval requiring: • Establishment of a project Homeowners Association in which maintenance of the open space area will be under the responsibility of lot owners(COA#12)and development rights of the open space remainder conveyed to the County(COA #9). • The staff recommendation limits the height of the house on Parcel 1 to 28 feet (COA#21) Further, prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall be required to provide evidence that residential designs have been referred to nearby homeowners associations for opportunity to review and comment, subject for final review and approval by the Zoning Administrator (COA #19). Staff also understands that there may be a separate private agreement between one or more property owners within the Stevens Court project and the developer concerning allowable development on Parcel One. • The Landscape easement is a private agreement between the developer and the Steven's Court homeowners; however, the Commission modified condition of approval #10 to reflect the establishment of vineyards and orchards and no new landscaping. Commissioner Gibson questioned the justification of a reduced 15-foot front yard setback for Parcel One, a parcel proposed for slightly more than one acre. The Commission added a condition that requires this lot to have a side entry garage (New COA #21). The Commission did not concur with the request to limit the development of this lot to a one-story residence. After evaluating the proposal and the evidence submitted, the Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the Board approve the proposed rezoning and final development plan, and approve the tentative map subject to attached conditions. The Commission's approval of the tentative map was made contingent on adoption of the recommended approval of the rezoning and final development plan applications by the Board of Supervisors. C. Project Impact To Existing Trees And Replacement Program One concern associated with the proposed development is its effect on existing mature trees within the project boundaries. The site contains 73 trees, most of which were originally planted as an orchard. The most numerous trees are almond March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors Oakgate Properties Rezoning & Development Plan, Danville area Page 5 and Monterey pine. The site contains three trees of a species that are native to the area: 2 Valley Oaks and a Sycamore. The trees are located primarily on the southern side of the creek, and are located along the perimeter and within the interior of the property. The trunk sizes extend up to 59-inches in diameter,with the largest tree being a Blue Gum Eucalyptus. Initially, the applicant proposed the removal of 53 trees from the site, including 11 of 19 trees along the southern property line. But in working with the Stevens Court neighbors, and staff, they agreed to moderate the extent of proposed tree removal along the southern boundary of the site (Lot 1). All of the 19 existing trees along this boundary will be retained, unless the affected abutting property owner(s)within the Stevens Court project provide written consent/request to remove a particular border tree. (COA #34) In making this adjustment to the project's tree protection program, the applicant reduced the initial allotment of trees proposed for removal to 42 trees (53 — 11). The applicant also agreed to replace the 42 trees proposed for removal by the planting of sixteen (16) new native species trees that are a minimum 15-gallons in size. (COA #24.A) • Planning Commission Modification to Require the Planting of Additional Replacement Trees In approving the project, the Commission modified the recommended tree planting conditions to require that the developer replace any border trees where the Stevens Court property owners authorize a tree removal to be replaced by trees of a native species. The Commission further clarified that these replacement trees would be in addition to the base replacement sixteen trees that are specified in the permit. (COA #34) IV. DISCUSSION No appeal was filed on the tentative map application following the Commission approval, and staff has received no follow-on correspondence on this project following the Commission hearing. As reviewed in the staff report to the Planning Commission, the proposed development (and rezoning) is consistent with split Single Family Residential and Open Space General Plan designations for this site. March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors Oakgate Properties Rezoning & Development Plan, Danville area Page 6 Recommended Modification to Permit Condition (#19) Requiring Review of Architectural Plans by Neighboring Parties Before obtaining a building permit, Condition#19 requires the applicant to submit plans to several neighboring parties for opportunity to comment prior to final review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Two of the parties to be contacted are the Bettencourt Ranch Homeowners Association and the Shadow Creek Residents Association. The intent of the condition was also to provide an opportunity to comment for abutting owners within the Stevens Court project.' However, the language in the condition of approval should be clarified as indicated below in marked text. Architectural Plans 19. At least 45 days prior to the request of building permits, final architectural plans, floor plans, elevations, and color schemes shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. The height of each home (including roof-line) shall be limited to 35- feet in height as described in the Contra Costa County Code for the R-15 standards. The design of the home shall be compatible with the immediate surrounding neighborhood. (Mitigation Measures) Prior to the submittal of architectural plans to the Community Development Department the applicant shall submit plans for review and comment to a abutting property owner within Stevens Courtthe the Bettencourt Homeowners Association, and the Shadow Creek Residents Association. Staff has reviewed this proposed revised text to the Condition with the applicant, and he has indicated that it is acceptable to him. ' Staff understands that there is no homeowners association that collectively serves all of the properties in the Stevens Court development. March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors Oakgate Properties Rezoning & Development Plan, Danville area Page 7 V. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE DECISION OF PROPOSED ENTITLEMENTS BY THE BOARD In the event that the Board denies the request to rezone, the General Agriculture (A-2) zoning would remain and the vesting tentative map as approved by the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission for four parcels and an open space remainder could not be exercised. The property would remain zoned General Agricultural,which would allow one residence and all types of agricultural activity. GACurrent Plan ninglcurr-plan\Board\Board Orders\BOARD ORDER RZ033122-b.doc LC\RD1 SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 1-2005 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATIONG FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING BY OAKGATE PROPERTIES, LLC (APPLICANT), MATHEW BEINKE (OWNER) FILE NUMBERS (RZ033122, MSO40020, & DP033009) IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING FOR THE BLACKHAWK/DANVILLE AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, requests by Oak Gate Properties LLC (Applicant) to rezone a 5.5 acre parcel at#157 Oak Gate Drive from General Agricultural to Planned Unit District; Preliminary & Final Development Plan approval for a 5-lot and open space residential project, and a 5-lot (major) subdivision was filed with the County on February 13, 2005; WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for review and comments between May 2004 and September 2004; WHEREAS, the applicant elected to withdraw the proposed five-lot subdivision application (SUB 8711) and then filed a minor subdivision similar to the withdrawn subdivision other than a reduction in the number of residential lots from 5 to 4 (County File #MSO40020); WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on Wednesday January 19, 2005, where all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission accepted public testimony and closed the public hearing; WHEREAS, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; Resolution No. 1-2005 Rezoning, Final Development Plan, and Subdivision Oak Gate Properties,Danville area RESOLVED, that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission that on the basis of the whole record before it, including the Initial Study and the comments received: 1. FINDS that on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis. 2. ADOPTS the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration determination and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the purpose of this project's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; 3. RECOMMENDS that the Board of Supervisors ADOPT the proposed rezoning of the site from the General Agricultural (A-2) District to Planned Unit Development (P-1); and APPROVAL of the Preliminary and Final Development Plan for a 4-lot residential development, plus designated open space remainder; and 4. APPROVES the Tentative Map subject to modified conditions including a requirement to design a side entry garage with the 15- ft setback as proposed on Parcel One. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission FINDS as follows: A. PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT FINDINGS: 1. Required Finding: The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. Proiect Finding The applicant has indicated that he intends to start construction within 2 %years from the effective date of the zoning change. 2. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the county general plan. Prosect Finding: Two general plan designations apply to this site. The north side of the West Branch of Alamo Creek is designated Open Space; the south side of the creek is designated Single Family Residential—Low Density. The applicant has proposed to retain the 2 Resolution No. 1-2005 Rezoning, Final Development Plan, and Subdivision Oak Gate Properties,Danville area north side of the property in open space that will be maintained by a project homeowners association to be established. The applicant will also be required to convey the development rights for this portion of the site to the County (so-called "scenic easement"). The southern side of the creek is proposed for a four parcel single- family residential development on 2+ acres that is consistent with the density range associated with the general plan category that applies to this portion of the site. Based on these factors, the project will be consistent with the General Plan. 3. Required Finding: It will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. Proiect Finding: The project will be observing a creek structure setback in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The project has also been designed to comply with the design requirements of the Floodplain Management Ordinance so as to avoid damage from flooding that may periodically occur in the area. The residential design standards that apply to this property are very similar to those that apply to other properties in the vicinity. The project will also be required to establish a Landscape Easement (no structures permitted) along the western portion of the south side of the creek so as to preserve the views of the creek and hillside of the Stevens Court residents. This portion of the project requires a parcel that is one-acre in area, much larger than any nearby residentially zoned property. Based on these factors, the project will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. 4. Required Finding: The development of a harmonious integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of this code. 3 Resolution No. 1-2005 Rezoning, Final Development Plan, and Subdivision Oak Gate Properties,Danville area C. Growth Management Element Performance Standards Findings 1. Traffic: The project will be required to make a fair-share contribution to the traffic light at the intersection of Camino Tassaj ara and Oak Gate Drive/Lawrence Road. The project is required to contribute traffic area of benefits fees at time of issuance of building permits. The project will generate an estimated four additional AM and PM Peak hour trips. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. 2. Water Supply: The project lies within the service area of the East Bay Municipal Utility District. The District has indicated that it is capable of providing service to the project. 3. Sewage Disposal: The project lies within the service area of the Central Sanitary District. The District indicates that it has sufficient capacity to provide for the wastewater demand from this project. " 4. Fire Protection: The project lies within the service area of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. The site lies within 1-Y2 miles of the fire station west of Blackhawk Plaza. 5. Public Protection: The project will not result in a population increase of 1000 people, therefore there are no special capital improvement contributions required of this project. The project will be required to pay a police services district fee prior to filing a final map to augment existing police services to the site. 6. Parks and Recreation: The applicant will be required to pay the Town of Danville in-lieu park dedication fee per residence in the amount of$7,873.00. 7. Flood Control and Drainage: A portion of the site lies within a flood hazard area. The area that lies within the Special Flood Zone is not proposed for structural development. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant will be required to comply with the Floodplain Management Ordinance. (Ref. The Growth Management Element, Chapter 4, of the General Plan) 5 Resolution No. 1-2005 Rezoning, Final Development Plan, and Subdivision Oak Gate Properties,Danville area D. Tentative Map Findings 1. Required Findings: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. Project Finding: The project is consistent with elements of the General Plan. The land use designation is SL single family residential and OS open space. The tentative map provides for four residential lots on a 5.55-acre parcel, which complies with the single-family-low density requirement. 2. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Project Finding: The applicant is working with the Public Works Department.and already met most of the requirements that are needed. All of the remaining requirements will be fulfilled by implementation of the conditions of approval. The creek structure setback has been established for the project. Buildings must comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code administered by the Building Inspection Department prior to issuance of building permits. 6 Resolution No. 1-2005 Rezoning, Final Development Plan, and Subdivision Oak Gate Properties,Danville area BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairperson and Secretary of the Planning Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California. The instructions by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given by motion of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Ingalls, Neely, McPherson, Gibson, Mulvihill, Couture and Matsunaga. NOES: Commissioners - None ABSENT: Commissioners—None ABSTAIN:Commissioners - None NEAL MATSUNAGA Chairman of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Contra Costa County, State of California ATTEST: CZ1.-A &7**Dennis M. Barry, AICP Secretary, San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Board\Resolutions\RESOLUTION 1-2005-b.doc LC\RD\ 7 FINDINGS MAP AND ORDINAN CE 'i F nd' ings EW"O-Cla PM1 ••i i•••i i••• i•�I�i�w •••w•r••!•r i i•••!!•i••i•r i , r r•••••••+w•••• • ••••••••••••••r••••r•r••••r• •• i j r► rrr � r'!rl Jr !�................ CAMINO TASSAJARA Rezone From A-2 To P-PI BArea 1, N. Matsunaga , chair of the San Ramon Valley Planning commission,State of California,do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy ofpage X1-19 of—the County's 1978 zoning rnap.. k s indicating thereon the decision of the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission in the matter of Oakcate Properties - RZ033122 ATTEST: Secretary of the Contra Costa county . Planning Commission, State of Calif. ORDINANCE NO. flan D Sl_ (Re-Zoning Land in the U-19 Blackhawk Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I: Page _ U-19 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map(Ord.No.78-93)is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also Community Development Department File No. RZ033122 .) FROM: Land Use District A-2 ( General Agrieulture ) TO: Land Use District P-1 ( Planned Unit ) and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.003. y w -�vrs wow a crest ::•:•: A-2 c C.r - CITY Jr IJ......!//!! ................... CAMINO TASSAJARA N SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the L cn Pra, Cos. -rx, T#'m e a newspaper published in this County. F PASSED on ' by the following vote: Supervisor Awe No Absent Abstain 1. J. Gioia ( ) ( ) ( ) 2. G.B.Uilkema ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. M.N.PiephoQ ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. M.DeSaulnier ( ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. F.D.Glover ( ) ( ) ( } V ATTEST: John Sweeten,County Administrator and Clerk o e Board of Supervisors hairman of a Board By (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO. RZ03 3122 Oakgate Properties FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR RELATED APPLICATION MSO40020 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT REZONING FILE#RZ-033122,PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FILE#DP033009 AND MINOR SUBDIVISION 040020 (Oak Gate Properties, LLC - Applicant) IN THE DANVILLE / TASSAJARA (X-ref. MSO40020) PER THE JANUARY 19, 2005 SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL FINDINGS A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1) Traffic -The project will be required to make a fair-share contribution to the traffic light at the intersection of Camino Tassaj ara and Oak Gate Drive/Lawrence Road. The project will also be required to contribute traffic area of benefits fees at time of issuance of building permits. The project will not result in an increase in more than 100-trip peak period trips-therefore a Measure C traffic study is not required. 2) Water Supply-The project lies within the service area of the East Bay Municipal Utility District. The District has indicated that it is capable to providing service to the project. 3) Sewage Disposal -The project lies within the service area of the Central Sanitary District. The District indicates that it has sufficient capacity to accommodate the sewage disposal services that would result from this project. 4) Fire Protection-The project lies within the service area of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. The site lies within 1 1/2 miles of the fire station west of Blackhawk Plaza. Therefore,no automatic sprinklers are required for this project. 5) Public Protection -The project will not result in a population increase of 1000 people, therefore there are no special capital improvement contributions required of this project. The project will be required to pay a police services district fee prior to filing a final map to augment existing police services to the site. 6) Parks and Recreation-As a condition of approval to this project,the applicant will be required to pay the Town of Danville park dedication fee per residence in the amount of $7873.00 with credit due for one existing residence. 7) Flood Control and Drainage -Only a portion of the site lies within a flood hazard area. The area that lies within the Special Flood Zone is not proposed for structural development. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant will be required to comply with the Floodplain Management Ordinance. The project would develop drainage improvements that would collect and convey runoff into existing underground storm drains in Oak Gate Drive.Use of the creek for drainage facilities will not be authorized. B. Tentative Map Subdivision-Section 94.12.806 of County Code requires the following findin&s prior to approval of the tentative map: • Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. . 2 Project Finding. The project is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan. The land use designation is SL, which calls for single-family low-density development. The tentative map provides for four residential parcels on a 5.55 acre of land, which complies with the density requirement. With the mitigation measures the project would not cause significant impacts to the environment. • Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Project Finding: The applicant is working with the Public Works Department and has already fulfilled most of the requirements that are needed. All of the remaining requirements will be fulfilled by implementation of the conditions of approval. The project must comply with collect and convey regulations. The creek structure setback has been established for the project. The County Geologist stated that the site is suitable for construction from a geologic standpoint. Buildings must comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. C. Rezoning- Section 26-2.1806 requires that the following findings be made before a pro-pe is rezoned. • Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the general plan. Project Finding: The intent of the proposed P-1 zoning district with R-15 zoning standards is to create a low density of single family residences, while at the same time creating a functional and desirable neighborhood consistent with the immediate surrounding developed properties. The intent of the Open Space designation is to maintain the "Open Space Remainder " parcel in permanent open space. • Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts. Project Finding: The projects' single-family residential use is consistent with the zoning district regulating adjacent parcels. The proposed use, as conditioned, will also be compatible with the uses in the vicinity. • Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. Project Finding.- The inding:The proposed use will assist in meeting the housing development targets as identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan. D. Adoption of P-1 and approval of a Final Development Plan — Section 84-66.1406 of the Ordinance Code requires the findings to be made prior to approval • Required Finding: The applicant intends to start construction within two and one half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. - 3 Project Finding: The applicant has indicated that they intend to commence construction of this subdivision within 2.5 years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. • Required Finding: The proposed P-1 planned unit development is consistent with the county general plan. Project Finding: The proposed Oak gate Property project request to rezone to P-1 with R-IS standards is consistent with the general plan, including the residential general plan density of single- family residential Low designation for the site. The project will provide a unit density level that is consistent with the unit range allowed by the general plan (1.0-2.9 units per net acre). • Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. Project Finding The project provides a unit density that is consistent with other residential neighborhoods within the Oak Gate Drive/Mrack Road area. It will provide residential design of a common character,yet not be uniform. The variation of the lots frontage on the Final Development Plan provides for varied placement of residences so as to avoid a tunnel effect along the access road. Each residence will in effect be providing room for five on-site parking spaces (three car garages). Installation of front yard landscaping will be required prior to occupancy of units. The residences will have ample separation (minimum 40 feet)from the existing homes to the south to protect the privacy of those residents. 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Administration 1. This application is approved, as generally shown on the revised Vesting Tentative Map received October 5, 2004 by the Community Development Department for four lots and a open space remainder parcel on a 5.55-acre parcel. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map for four parcels is contingent on final Board approval of the proposed P-1 zoning and Preliminary and Final Development plan. 2. This approval is based on the exhibits received by the Community Development Department listed as follows: A. (Revised) Vesting Tentative Map received October 5, 2004 by the Community Development Department for four (4) residential lots and a designated remainder. Approval is also based on the following reports: B. Geotechnical Exploration Report prepared by Engeo Incorporation dated July 10, 2003 C. Revised Biological Constraints Assessment prepared by Sycamore & Associates dated March 31, 2004. D. Arborist Report prepared by HortScience dated December 2002 E. Archaeological Reconnaissance report prepared by Holman and Associates dated December 16, 2002 3. This application is subject to an initial application fee of ($16,393.00) and additional fees of ($6063), which was paid with the application submittals, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If additional fees are owed, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. 4. At least 15 days prior to filing a parcel map or issuance of a grading permit shall provide a parcel map locating the restrictive development easement on parcel one and the remainder parcel. Indemnification 5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval 5 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. CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF THE FINAL MAP UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED Condition of Approval Compliance 6. Prior to filing the Final Map, the applicant shall submit an application for Condition of Approval Compliance. Currently, the fee for this application is a deposit of $1,000 that is subject to time and materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit, additional fees will be required. Submittal for this application shall include a checklist describing how each condition of approval has been satisfied, along with applicable proof that each condition has been satisfied (i.e. documentation, plans, photographs, etc.). This application will remain active throughout the life of the project and additional submittals will be required to ensure compliance with each phase of development (grading, building), as described below. Compliance with those conditions administered by the Public Works Department need not be included as part of this application. Rezoning Required 7. The subdivision approval is contingent upon the approval of the rezoning from A-2 to P-1 by the Board of Supervisors. If the site is not rezoned this approval is null and void. 8. Submittal of CC&R's—Covenants, Conditions,and Restrictions shall be submitted for review with the parcel map.This document shall provide for the maintenance of the open space parcel, fencing, the private street, keeping of pets, and signage. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's) developed for this project shall include the following deed restrictions: No recreational vehicle,boat, or boat trailer shall be stored outdoors for more than one week. Grant Deed of Development Rights for designated remainder 9. The following grant deed of development rights for approximately 2.34 acres as shown on the Tentative Map dated October 5, 2004 shall be incorporated into a draft deed subject to the Zoning Administrator's review and approval, and subsequent recordation with the Parcel Map. Open Space Remainder Parcel — The grant deed language shall include a description of the area in metes and bounds and specify maintenance of the area as the responsibility of the Homeowners Association of the four parcels. The specific 6 language shall include no tree removal,no grading ernor development activity may occur. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall be required to provide plans that demonstrate compliance with this requirement for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Deed Disclosure for"No Build"Landscape Easement 10. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall be required to record a deed on Lot 1 for a No-Build Landscape Easement in which no development activity shall occur except orchards and/or vineyards. The deed shall also include language notifying future buyers of the 40' side yard setback with the exception of landscaping and pools. The language of the deed disclosure shall be provided to the Stevens Court residents for review and comment prior to the approval of the Zoning Administrator. Park Fees 11. Augmented In-Lieu Park Dedication fee-Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall be subject to an in-lieu park dedication fee of $7,873.00 per residence. This fee amount is based on the current park fee charged by the Town of Danville and provides credit for the one single-family residence, which was on the site at the time of filing of the applications. Staff shall recommend that the revenues from these fees be allocated to the Town of Danville to be expended for improvements. Creation of HOA 12. A Homeowners Association shall be formed for the maintenance of the private streets and open space area as shown on the Tentative Map. Biology 13. Construction shall occur during the non-rainy season (April 15-November 1)when California red-legged frogs are less active. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, contractor education will be conducted for all on-site identification and avoidance of California red-legged frogs and their aquatic habitat. Contractors will be provided with photos depicting California red legged frogs and clear instructions to stop site work and notify the County biological monitor if the animal is encountered. The County monitor will notify USFWS within 24 hours and has the authority to stop construction if the project site is out of.compliance with adopted mitigation measures or permit conditions. (Mitigation Measure) 14. Pre-construction surveys will be conducted according to USFWS protocols by a qualified biologist 30 days prior to the issuance of grading and building permit issuance to ensure no California red-legged frogs are within the construction area. At the same time field surveys shall be conducted for western pond turtles and the 7 California tiger salamander, if evidence of the species is found, the appropriate state and federal agencies shall be contacted prior to commencement of any construction on site. If no California red-legged frogs are found within the construction area, exclusion fencing(made of 1/4 inch mesh hardware cloth of at least four feet in height with the top six inches bent inward toward the creek, buried or fastened to the ground all along its base)will be placed around all project construction area to keep California red-legged frogs from potentially moving onto the construction site. Exclusion fencing will be placed along the riparian area if deemed necessary by the biologist. Placement of the exclusion fencing shall be shown on the grading plans for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a grading permit. (Mitigation Measure) 15. Prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits, text shall be included in the contractor's notes on the grading plans informing the contractor that no grading activities, site disturbances or stockpiling of construction materials shall occur within this setback area. The exclusion fencing will remain in place during the duration of all grading and construction related activities. The biologist hired at the cost of the applicant will routinely inspect the site throughout the course of construction to ensure that construction fencing is in tact, no California red-legged frogs are present in the construction area and sensitive habitats are avoided. The biological monitor will provide an anticipated schedule defining the frequency of the necessary site inspection visits at least 30 days prior to the issuance of grading permits for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. (Mitigation Measure) Child Care 16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay a fee of$400.00 per parcel toward childcare facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. Police Services District 17. Prior to filing a Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit two copies of a proposed disclosure statement for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The approved disclosure statement shall be used to notify prospective buyers of Parcels A-D, which is not occupied by existing legally — established residence at time of filing the tentative map application. The disclosure statement shall advise prospective buyers of affected Parcels that prior to issuance of a building permit, they will be required to contribute to the County $1000.00 per residence for police services mitigation. The fee may be paid to the Contra Costa County Application& Permit Center. Compliance with Growth Management Fire Protection Performance Standard 18. All house numbers and addresses shall be placed on all new homes in a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Each house number shall contrast with their backgrounds. 8 Architectural Plans 19. At least 45 days prior to the request of building permits final architectural detailed floor plans, elevations, and color schemes shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. The height of each home (including roof- line) shall be limited to 35-feet in height as described in the Contra Costa County Code for the R-15 standards. The design of the home shall be compatible with the immediate surrounding neighborhood. (Mitigation Measures) Prior to the submittal of architectural plans to the Community Development Department the applicant shall submit plans for review and comment to the Stevens Court residence, the Bettencourt Homeowners Association, and the Shadow Creek Residents Association. Height Limitation and Residential Design for Parcel One 20. The final development plan shall be modified to require residential development on Parcel One with a height limitation of 28-feet. 21. Side-Entry Garage Design Required for Parcel One - The architectural design or Parcel One shall incorporate a side engya�rage design. The final floor plan, site plans and elevations shall be submitted for the review and gpproval of the Zoning Administrator. (Also note requirement to provide evidence to the Community Development Department of the referral of architectural plans to the specified private entities prior to issuance of a building permit contained in Condition#19.) Electrical Vehicles 22. All garage floor plans shall provide an extra electrical outlet for recharging electrical vehicles. Tree Removal 23. The removal of trees shall occur from September through December 1, outside the breeding season. (Mitigation Measures) If the removal of trees or shrubs is to occur during the nesting season for passerine or no passerine land birds, February 1 to August 31 or the nesting season for raptor species, December 1 to August 31, a nesting bird survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist that includes ground nesting bird species within 45 days prior to the removal or disturbance of nesting trees or shrubs. The survey shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval prior to tree removal, if removal is to occur during nesting seasons. If trees with active nest are identified the proponent shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and ensure that all trees with active nests shall be flagged and a non disturbance buffer zone shall be established around the nesting area. Buffer zones shall be within range of 50 to 90-feet for land birds and 200 to 500 feet for raptors. 9 Active nests shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to determine when the young have fled and are feeding on his or her own. CDFG shall be consulted for clearance before resuming construction-grading activities. Required Restitution for Approved Tree Removal 24. The following measures are intended to provide restitution for the trees that have been approved for removal. A. Tree Restitution Planting/Irrigation Plan- Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree planting and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall provide for planting of at least 16 native trees, minimum 15 gallons in size. The consulting arborist shall recommend the particular species of trees. The plan shall be accompanied by an estimate prepared by a licensed landscape architect or arborist of the materials and labor cost to complete the improvements on the plan. B. Required Security to Assure the Completion of Plan Improvements- Prior to the issuance of grading/building permits; the applicant shall submit a security (e.g., bond, cash deposit) that is acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. The bond shall include the amount of the approved cost estimate, plus a 20% inflation surcharge. Until evidence is submitted that the applicant has satisfactorily installed the required improvements, the County may hold the security for up to a year following the installation of the trees. C. Initial Fee Deposit for Processing a Security—The County ordinance requires that the applicant pay fees for all time and material cost of$100 for processing a landscape improvement security. Contingency Restitution Should Altered Trees Be Damaged 25 . Trees to be Preserved but Altered- Pursuant to the conclusions of the arborist report, proposed improvements within the root zone of trees noted on the site plan to be preserved have been determined to be feasible and still allow for preservation provided that the recommendations of the arborist are followed. (Mitigation Measure) Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, to address the possibility that construction activity nevertheless damages these trees, the applicant shall provide the County with a security (e.g., bond, cash deposit) to allow for replacement of trees to be preserved that are significantly damaged by construction activity. This security shall be provided prior to the applicant receiving building permits for the property and it shall be based on: A. Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements- The planting of up to 20 native trees, minimum 15-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees, or equivalent planting contribution, subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator; r 10 B. Determination of Security Amount — The security shall provide for all the following costs: • Preparation of a landscape/irrigation plan by a licensed landscape architect or arborist; • A labor and materials estimate for planting the potential number of trees and related irrigation improvements prepared by a licensed landscape contractor; and • An additional 20% of the total of the above amounts to address inflation costs. C. Acceptance 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. The applicant shall not pay a second processing fee however both security deposits are required. The security shall be retained by the County up to 24 months following 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, then the Zoning Administrator may require all of the security be used to proved for mitigation of the damaged trees. CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS Arborist requirements 26. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading and or building permit the applicant and its successors are required to provide evidence of compliance with the arborist report prepared by HortScience dated December 2002.No trenching for utilities, drainage irrigation etc. shall be allowed in the Protection zones. Tree preservation notes during construction and pre-construction recommendations as specified in the arborist shall be noted on the front of all plans particularly the grading plans. (Mitigation Measures) Geolo�y 27. At least 45 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit or a building permit a geologic report that includes a detailed geotechnical exploration for the construction of improvements on site and the foundations of the homes planned shall be submitted and subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and County Geologist. (Mitigation Measure) Grading and Erosion Control 28. At least 30 days prior to issuance of grading permits,a Construction permit shall be obtained and a SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program) shall be prepared for the proposed project grading. The approved NPDES construction . 11 permit and SWPPP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Zoning Administrator. The grading plans shall be accompanied by an erosion control plan that shall provide for the following measures: (Mitigation Measure) A. Cover all trucks hauling construction and demolition debris from the site; B. Water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily; C. Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement; D. Provide daily clean up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site E. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles and F. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways Fences/Retaining Walls 29. At least 30 days prior to issuance of grading permits,the design, location, color and type of materials for retaining walls and fences shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The applicant should be prepared to submit material samples upon request. The applicant is also advised that the maximum height of a retaining wall structure cannot exceed 3 feet without building permits and compliance with the respective district setbacks. Archaeology 30. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 31. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Debris Recovery 32. The project proponent shall participate and comply with the Debris Recovery Program. Construction 33. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction noise, dust and litter control requirements: A. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and federal holidays, and Saturdays and Sundays. 12 _ B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers that are in good condition. C. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. D. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and is prohibited on state and federal holidays, including Saturdays and Sundays. E. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. F. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited. G. Developer shall notify all adjacent neighbors of construction schedule. H. At least one week prior to commencement of grading,the applicant shall post at the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site, notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall also be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles and the 24-hour emergency number shall be expressly identified on the notice. 34, Construction Tree Damage: The development's property owner or developer shall notify the Community Development Department of any damage that occurs to any tree during the construction process. The owner or developer shall repair any damage as determined by an arborist designated by the Director of Community Development. No trees are approved for destruction or removal, except those listed within the arborist report prepared by HortScience on December 2002 with the exception of trees located on the property line of the Steven's Court Homeowners and according to the requirements of condition of approval 24.B. If any trees along the Steven's Court property line are to be removed the developer shall obtain written approval from the property owner prior to removal. These trees shall be replaced by the developer with trees of species that are native to the Bay Area, and is in addition to the number of trees called out in Condition 24.B. 35. Construction Period Restrictions: No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line 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 an arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the drip line of a tree to be saved, an arborist is required to be present during grading operations. The arborist 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 arborist expenses shall be borne by the developer and applicant unless otherwise provided by the development's conditions of approval. 36. Arborist Expense: The expenses associated with all required arborist services shall be borne by the developer and/or property owner. 13 PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 04-0020 COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP General Requirements: 3 7. 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 October 5, 2004. 38. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted 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 (Oakgate Drive): 39. Applicant shall construct curb, sidewalk,necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage and street lighting to provide a full, standard cul-de-sac at the terminus of Oakgate Drive as shown on the tentative map. These improvements will include removal and reconstruction of existing temporary off-site facilities on the adjacent southern parcel. 40. Applicant shall install safety related improvements on all streets (including traffic signs and striping) as approved by Public Works. Roadway Improvements(Private Road): 41. Applicant shall construct a 20-foot wide private road within a 25-foot wide private access and utility easement, including necessary longitudinal and transverse within the project as shown on the tentative map. The turn-around shall conform to Public Works and Fire District standards. 42. Applicant shall install safety related improvements on all streets (including traffic signs and striping) as approved by Public Works. Road Dedications: 43. Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right of way necessary for the planned public roadway cul-de-sac improvements shown on the tentative map. 14 44. Applicant shall obtain an offer of dedication from Lot 13 of Subdivision 8104 for off-site cul-de-sac improvements at the terminus of Oakgate Drive. The right of way dedication and frontage improvements shall conform to those shown on the tentative map. Should the applicant be unable to acquire said right of way prior to filing the final map, the applicant may, as an alternative, execute an acquisition of off-site right of way agreement with the Public Works Department and post all fees and security so the County can initiate acquisition proceedings. Access to Adjoining Property: Proof of Access 45. 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. 46. Encroachment permits from the County are required for all construction activity within existing County right of way including,but not limited to Oak Gate Drive. Parking: 47. Parking will be prohibited along the proposed private road. "leo Parking" signs and pavement markings shall be installed along these streets subject to the review and approval of Public Works. Maintenance of Facilities: 48. 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. Utilities/Undergrounding: 49. All new and existing utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Annexation to County Street Lighting District 50. Property owner shall apply for annexation to County Service Area L-100 Lighting District by submitting a letter of request; a metes and bounds description; and, pay current LAFCO fees. Annexation shall occur prior to filing of the Parcel Map. The applicant shall be aware that this annexation process must comply with State Proposition 218 requirements that state that the property owner must hold a special election to approve annexation. This process takes approximately 4 to 6 months to complete. Annexation to County Lighting/Landscaping District 51. The applicant annex the subject property to Zone 48 of County Landscaping District AD 1979-3 (LL-2) for the future maintenance of public landscaping 15 including median islands, border strips fronting public roads, parks, on and off- site pedestrian paths, etc., prior to fling the Final Map. The applicant shall be aware that this annexation process must comply with State Proposition 218 requirements that state that the property owner must hold a special election to approve annexation. This process takes approximately 4 to 6 months to complete. Traffic Signal Fee: 52. Pay$380/parcel to the Town of Danville as reimbursement for traffic signals installed along Camino Tassaj ara serving this area. Pedestrian Facilities: 53. 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. Open Space: 54. Applicant shall convey the "Open Space Remainder Parcel" to the homeowners association, or other acceptable entity. 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. Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey 55 . Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires that all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property shall be conveyed,without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility,to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility that conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. 56. 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: 57. Storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s). 16 Annexation to Drainage Area 101OA: 58.- The applicant shall apply for annexation to Drainage Area 101 OA for maintenance and operation of the area's drainage facilities, prior to filing the Final Map. The applicant shall be aware that this annexation process must comply with State Proposition 218 requirements that state that the property owner must hold a special election to approve annexation. This process takes approximately 4 to 6 months to complete. Creek Structure Setback 59. Applicant shall relinquish "development rights" over that portion of the site that is within the setback area of Alamo 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. A request for an exception shall be made in writing. An exception from the structure setback requirements will be allowed for the proposed private road construction subject to the review of Public Works based on a hydrology and hydraulic study and geotechnical analysis of the soil,which shows that the creek banks will be stable and non-erosive with the anticipated creek flows. The hydrology and hydraulic study must be based upon the ultimate development of the watershed. If the creek bank supporting the proposed roadway is determined to be unstable or subject to erosion, corrective action must be taken to assure the bank's stability Floodplain Management: 60. Portions of this project are located in a Special Flood Hazard Area as designated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 99-35)as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. 61. As the site is to be elevated above the 100-year flood elevation, the applicant shall submit a CLOMR-F application with FEMA to revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map and eliminate the residential lots from the Special Flood Hazard designation prior to issuance of the grading permit. Concurrence and issuance of the CLOMR-F must be complete prior to issuance of building permits. 62. After completion of fill operations and installation of storm drain improvements, the applicant shall submit a LOMR-F application with FEMA to finalize the FIRM revision process. The application must be submitted prior to occupancy of the residential units. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Requirements: 17 63. 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—Region II) 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. • Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area • Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins. • Provide options for grass pavers or other semi-pervious paving systems for walks, drives and patios. • Slope driveways and weakened plane joints to sheet flow 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 NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to'a 90- day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication,reservation,or other exaction required by this approved permit,begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules,regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards(San Francisco Bay—Region II). 18 C. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources,per the Fish and Game Code. D. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required,and if it can be obtained. E. Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the Tri-Valley, South County and SCC Sub-Regional and Regional AOB as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permits. F. Comply with the Drainage Fee Ordinance for Drainage Area 10 1 A prior to filing the parcel map. G. A portion of this project lies within the 100-year flood boundary as designated on the Federal Emergency Flood Rate Maps. The applicant shall be aware of the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Flood Plain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2000-33) as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. H. Comply with the requirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. I. Comply with the requirements of the East Bay Municipal Utility District. J. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. K. Comply with the requirements of the County Office of the Sheriff. L. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Permits are required prior to grading and construction. The fees include but are not limited to the following: Park Dedication $7,873 per residence. Child Care $400 per residence. Police Services $1000 per residence An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by contacting the Building Inspection Department. M. 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 October 4, 2004, 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. GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\MSO40020 coa final-b.doc Lcc Rev. 2-17-05 -rd SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JANUARY 19, 2005 Community Development Agenda Item# Contra Costa County SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2005 I. INTRODUCTION OAK GATE PROPERTIES, LLC, STEVE BEII,4KE (Applicant and Owner), County File #MSO40020, RZ033122 and DP033009: The project consists of the following related development applications: A. File RZ033122—A request to rezone 5.55 Acres from General Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1). B. File MSO40020—The applicant requests approval for a vesting tentative map to subdivide 5.55 acres into four(4)parcels and one (1) remainder parcel. C. File DP033009— The applicant requests preliminary and final development plan approval for four(4) custom home sites, open space and construction of a private access street and utilities. The project site is located at 157 Oak Gate Drive in the Danville area. (Zoning: A-2; Zoning Atlas: U-19; Census Tract 3551.03; Assessor Parcel Number: 220-080-023) Il. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant applied to subdivide a piece of property into four parcels, A", " B", "C", and" D", with an Open Space Remainder Parcel. Included with this application to subdivide the property is a request to change the existing zoning, which will allow for consistency with the surrounding neighborhood, and maintains consistency with the general plan. The applicant has worked with the existing neighbors to the south to develop this Minor Subdivision and Development Plan. The result of these discussions changed the original submittal of a five-lot residential subdivision (Subdivision 8711) to the four-lot Minor Subdivision (MS 040020). This change is classified as a procedural change whereas the content remains the same. Subdivision 8711 has been officially rescinded by the developer and replaced by MS 040020. The plan before you includes a "Landscape Easement" on parcel A to maintain neighbor views of surrounding open space, building envelopes that maintain appropriate setbacks from the portion of the west branch of Alamo Creek, and a public-use access driveway designed to provide County Fire and Flood Control District access to the creek and homes. In addition, the creek and open space in the northwest portion of the property is located within an"Open Space Remainder Parcel". This Remainder Parcel is contiguous to large open space areas, maintained by the Bettencourt Ranch Homeowners Association (Common Area Tract 7280). The applicant will record a grant deed of development rights for the area designated "Open Space Remainder Parcel" and the "Landscape Easement"which County Files MS 040020,#RZ033122,&#DP033009 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission—November 17,2004 ultimately limits the ability to develop this property is a private agreement that will record as a restricted development easement for the property owner with exceptions such as construction of a pool or vineyard. The area will be maintained likewise by the future Homeowners Association for the four lots. The decision before the Commission is to determine if the creation and subsequent development of parcels A,B, C and D is consistent with the development within the surrounding neighborhood, and within the Danville/Tassajara area. III. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a motion to: 1. Find the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis; that on the basis of the whole record before it; determine that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; and that the material which constitutes the record of proceedings may be found at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA; 2. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as adequate for purposes of compliance with CEQA requirements; 3. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors: Adopt the proposed Rezoning from General Agriculture (A-2) to Planned Unit District; A. Approve the proposed Vesting Tentative Map for four parcels plus remainder contingent on final Board approval of the proposed P-1 rezoning and Final Development Plan B. Approve the Final Development Plan for four(4) custom home sites, open space and construction of a public access driveway and utilities; 4. Adopt the recommended findings; and 5. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program IV. SITE DESCRIPTION: The prof ect site is in the general shape of a rectangle comprising 5.5 5-acres, which is occupied by an existing single-family residence, a barn, and several small outbuildings. The site is currently being used in a residential capacity, with a small remnant orchard. The west branch of Alamo Creek flows through the northwest portion of the site. The topography of the parcel is characterized as flat south of the creek, and moderately sloping north of the creek. The terminus of Oak Gate Drive defines the southeast boundary of the site. The southwest portion of the right—of-way required for the off- S-2 County Files MS 040020,#RZ033122,&#DP033009 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission—November 17,2004 center cul-de-sac was dedicated on Lot 13 of the previous project(Subdivision 8104, Steven's Court). The proposed project, MS 040020, proposes to complete the cul-de-sac in this configuration, and extend Oak Gate Drive into the site as a 20-foot roadway, within a 25-foot easement. This access is similar to many of the existing surrounding access ways off of Oak Gate Drive. Trees are found throughout the property, some trees associated with the natural creek, and the balance as orchard plantings. Approximately 60% of the site lie outside of the creek bed (above top of bank). The site is located at the terminus of Oak Gate Drive, north of Camino Tassaj ara. It is surrounded on all sides with existing residential development and with HOA maintained open spaces. The neighborhood is typically two-story homes that include landscaped yards with mature trees on lots ranging in size from a minimum of 6,000 square feet to 15,800 square feet. Because Oak Gate Drive terminates at the subject property, and there is no further connection planned, there is less traffic that flows through the neighborhood. V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to subdivide 5.55-acres into 4 residential parcels and one open space remainder parcel. Rezoning the site from General Agriculture (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1) is required to allow for the division of land and reservation of the creek area. Parcel A is 43,774 square feet and allows for more than 50% of the lot area to be landscaped easement. This is a mutually agreed upon approach between the property owner and the adjoining neighbors to the south. Parcel B is 15,681 square feet, Parcel C is 16,012 square feet, and Parcel D is 17,003 square feet. Currently, an existing residence with orchard plantings exists within a portion of the proposed boundaries for parcels A. C D, and the access roadway. An existing barn exists on parcel B. The Preliminary and Final Development Plan delineates building envelopes on each residential parcel and shows how these parcels might be developed. The proposed parcels have the potential to be designed up to the community standards of development(i.e. deck, Pool, 3-car garage) while at the same time complying with all relevant ordinance standards. All four proposed residential parcels have approximately the same building area as the other properties in the neighborhood that conforms to the zoning. S-3 County Files MS 040020,#RZ033122,&#DP033009 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission—November 17,2004 VI. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: (OS) Open Space and Single-Family Residential Low-Density(SL). The allowed density is 1.0 to 2.9 dwelling units per net acre. This proposed project density is 1.39 units per net acres,which is consistent with the General Plan standards. B. Zoning: A-2—General Agriculture. Parcel sizes are a minimum of five (5) acres. The A-2 zoning would yield one (1) lot since the subject site is 5.55-acres. The applicant proposes to rezone the property to a Planned Unit District with R-15 Standards, which would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, and the underlying General Plan. C. CEQA Status: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted May 11, 2004 with the comment period ending September 13, 2004, due to applicants request for extension of time. Identified Impact: Trees/Aesthetics: Approximately 61 trees subject to the Contra Costa County Tree Protection Ordinance are proposed for removal. Specifically the majority of trees proposed for removal are Monterey Pines and Almond Trees the largest being 12 inches in diameter and the only two Valley Oaks that are 29 and 31 inches in diameter that are classified in good health will not be removed. Hort Science, certified Arborists obtained by the applicant, has identified recommendations to allow for these impacts to be considered less than significant. Staff has incorporated Mitigation Monitoring measures requiring restitution for trees proposed for removal and preservation. Aesthetics: Final architectural plans for the proposed single family homes within this area of the county has the potential to be incompatible with the surrounding planned unit neighborhood. The County has incorporated standard mitigation in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program to minimize this impact. County Staff and the surrounding Homeowners Associations will review the house plans. Biological: Seventeen special status animal species are considered to have at least some potential to occur within the region or have been recorded historically in the project vicinity. None have been recorded on the site, within the proposed residential lot areas. All birds, their nests, eggs, and young are protected from direct "take" under Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. Monk and Associates representing the County and Sycamore Associates representing the applicant have identified mitigations to allow for these impacts to be considered less than significant if the following Mitigation Monitoring Program is adhered to. S-4 County Files MS 040020,#RZ033122,&#DP033009 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission—November 17,2004 Mitigations are particularly directed towards protection of potential Red-legged frog and habitat,passerine and non-passerine land birds, and nesting seasons for raptor species. Geology and Soils: The site requires grading and development of structures that would need implementation of geotechnical recommendations. The soils on the project site are considered to have a moderate to high expansion potential. Darwin Meyers,the County's certified geologist and ENGEO, Inc, certified geologists, have identified mitigations to allow for these impacts to be considered less than significant if the following Mitigation Monitoring Program is adhered to. In addition the project has the potential for drainage to enter a natural watercourse. The preliminary grading and access road design submitted for will collect the residential site drainage to the existing public storm drain system, which conveys storm water southward, away from the creek. The County has identified conditions of approval to allow for these impacts to be considered less than significant if the following project is approved. To review the Mitigation Monitoring Program, see CEQA Attachments. The applicant has reviewed this program and stated in a signed letter(CEQA Attachment)that they are agreeable to these terms. D. Creation of Lot/Previous Applications 1. MS 166-77: In 1977, the County approved the minor subdivision that created three five-acre lots, "A", "B" and"C". The subject site is Lot"C" and is known as APN 220-080-023. The other lots (Lot"A", previous APN 220-080- 034) and Lot"B", previous APN 220-080-022) have been rezoned and subdivided into similar Low-Density Single Family Residential cul-de-sacs with an R-15 zoning designation. 2. MS92-69: In 1969, the County approved a Minor Subdivision of approximately 27 acres into 2 parcels; the other parcel was to the east (10.5 acres). E. Regulatory Programs: A portion of this project lies within the 100-year flood boundary as designated on the Federal Emergency Flood Insurance Rate Maps. This area is entirely within the banks of the portion of the west branch of Alamo Creek, which is entirely within the proposed "Open Space Remainder Parcel" on MS 040020. The property owner shall be aware of the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Flood Plain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2000-33) as they pertain to the future construction of any structures on this property. S-5 County Files MS 040020,#RZ033122,&#DP033009 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission—November 17,2004 VII. AGENCY, GROUP AND PUBLIC COMMENTS F. Health Services Department: In a memorandum dated March 3, 2003, the District indicated no comments. G. Public works—Engineering Services: See attached memorandum dated June 22, 2004. H. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District: See attached memorandum dated March 20, 2003 I. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District: In a memorandum dated received March 175 2004, Standard District requirements apply to this project. J. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District: No comments were received prior to the preparation of this report, though capacity for three additional residential units has been verified with staff. Standard District requirements apply to this project. K. East Bay Municipal Utility District: See attached memorandum dated March 20, 2003. L. San Ramon Valley Unified School District: In a memorandum dated received march 55 2003, the School District stated due to overcrowding it is possible students in the subdivision may be diverted. (See attached memo). Standard District fees in effect apply to this project. M. Steven's Court Residents David and Chrissy Lewis: The project has addressed these comments dated June 1, 2004 and February 4, 2004, in the submitted MS 040020 plan. Staff has addressed these comments in the "Staff Analysis and Discussion" section of this report. N. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCQ)-. The site does not require annexation or approvals by LAFCO. O. County Geologist Review Consultant (Darwin Meyers Associates): See attached memorandum dated February 23, 2004 and revised memorandum dated October 7, 2004. P. Archaeological Reconnaissance Consultant (Holman &Associates): The attached memorandum dated November 18, 2002 states that no evidence of either historic or prehistoric cultural resources was noted in the archaeological literature review and field inspection. California Historical Resources: In a memorandum dated March 5, 2003, the report #14036 identified no historical resources. However, the recommendations provided by Holman State, "due to the fact that archaeological materials could exist buried S-6 County Files MS 040020,#RZ033122,&#DP033009 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission—November 17,2004 under silt(especially along the drainages) it is recommended that any person involved in future earthmoving activities be alerted to the possibilities of uncovering archaeological materials." L. Bettencourt Homeowners Association: In a memorandum dated February 26, 2003, the Association thanks the County for notification of this project and wants to be kept informed (see attachment) No comments were received from the following agencies: California Native American Heritage Committee, Department of Fish and Game, Shadow Creek Homeowners Association and the Town of Danville. VIII. STAFF ANALYSIS &DISCUSSION Q. Consistency with General Plan Policies • Land Use Element—General The four-unit proposal is consistent with the density range of the Single- family low-density designation. The residential lots would range in size from 15,681 to 43,774 square feet, which is also consistent with the limitation of the single-family(SL) land use district. The proposal is consistent with the following general Land Use Element policies: Policy 3-8.-Infilling of already developed areas shall be encouraged...In accommodating new development,preference shall generally be given to vacant or underused sites within urbanized areas, which have necessary utilities installed with available remaining capacity, before undeveloped suburban lands are utilized. Policy 3-28: New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where it will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment and upon the existing community. • Conservation Element The project is consistent with the policies for new development along natural watercourses. Conditions of approval have been established for compliance with the creek structure setback requirements. Policy 8-89: Setback areas shall be provided along natural creeks and streams in areas planned for urbanization. The setback areas shall be of a width adequate to allow maintenance and to prevent damage to adjacent structures, the natural channel and associated riparian vegetation. The S-7 County Files MS 040020,#RZ033122,&#DP033009 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission—November 17,2004 setback area shall be a minimum of 100 feet; 50 feet from the centerline of the creek. • Land Use Element—Policies for the Alamo/DiabloBlackhawk Area This project does not conflict with any of the outlined policies in the specific Alamo/DiabloBlackhawk Area land use element of the General Plan. R. Site Plan: The proposal is for four parcels and a remainder. Access to parcels 1,2,3,4 and the remainder would be from Oak Gate Drive. The existing home, barn and small out structures will be demolished. S. Development Rights & Creek Structure Setback: Generally the process for relinquishing development rights on a piece of property would happen after an approval of the entitlement and would be implemented with the conditions of approval. The applicant has recognized this impending requirement, and has calculated the structure setback on the Minor Subdivision MS 040020 according to County Ordinance. The applicant will provide a legal description of the area based upon the approved Minor Subdivision. The development rights will be deeded to the County. T. Consistency with Zoning Regulations: The project proposes 4 residential lots with building envelopes that are consistent with the proposed P-1 district and development guidelines of the single family residential standards. No variances are requested. Parcel "A" Landscape Easement and Side-Yard Setback: The intent of the P-1 zoning district is to create a low density of single family residences,while at the same time creating a functional and desirable neighborhood. To preserve the existing private views and soften the impact of a new home in the area, the applicant and the Steven's Court neighbors have agreed on the following two items: 1. Parcel "A" will record a restrictive development easement also referred to as the "landscape easement" on the west side of the parcel, which will prohibit structures,but allow landscaping including vineyard plantings. 2. In addition, Parcel "A"has a structure setback from Subdivision 8104 boundary line would be expanded to 40-feet, an additional 25 feet from the 15-foot minimum required in the R-15 Zoning District. This expanded setback applies to the house structure only, and allows pools and landscaping within this 40-foot area. Parcel "A" has the same functionality as the other lots located within the neighborhood; meaning that there is adequate space to site a residence and for that residence to adhere to the required R-15 zoning standards. The increase of this setback and easement caused the loss of one potential future home lot (originally anticipated on the initial Subdivision 8711 submittal), but the setback and easement S-8 County Files MS 040020,#RZ033122,&#DP033009 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission—November 17,2004 on parcel "A" are mutually agreed upon with this application. A condition of approval has been placed on the project that provides for a deed disclosure that will communicate with future prospective buyers that parcel "A"has this additional easement and structure setback required and what that entails. U. Preliminary and Final Development Plan: The applicant proposes an un-gated,private access roadway, four residential lots for future custom home sites, and an open space remainder parcel to be owned and maintained by the project HOA. The building envelopes are designated on MS 040020, and are within the range of the existing homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. In order to ensure that architectural plans in the future are compatible with the homes in the surrounding planned unit neighborhood, detailed floor plans, elevations, site plans, color schemes are required to be submitted for the final review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Prior to submittal to the ZA, the developer is required to provide plans to the surrounding HOAs for comment on design. In addition, the height of the structures is limited to 35-feet. For trees to be preserved, the recommendations in the arborist report are required to be complied with, (including trenching for utilities within established protection zones), and tree preservation notes will be noted on the front of all plans including the grading plans. This is included in the project approval as a mitigation measure. V. Trees: There are many trees on the site and 61 within the residential lots are proposed for removal in this application, and require a tree permit. All trees within and adjacent to the residential parcels have been identified in compliance with Chapter 816-6 The Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. However, trees along subdivision 8104 will remain, if any trees along the Steven Court homeowner property line is removed the developer must first obtain written approval from the property owner prior to removal. All trees within the open space parcel are proposed to remain. IX ROAD AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Roads: Oak Gate Drive is shown to terminate at the southeast corner of the subject property. The applicant proposes to construct a standard cul-de-sac bulb at the end of the road, partially encroaching into Parcels "A" and "D". Right of way for the balance of this cul-de-sac must also be obtained from lot 13 of Subdivision 8104. A private easement exists over a portion of this property for a turn-around and the homeowner acknowledging this future cul-de-sac has constructed fencing, but the County did not require dedication. At the time, it was unknown if the road was going to terminate at the property line as currently proposed, or if the public street would be extended further north, thus no dedication requirement was included as part of the adjacent subdivision. The applicant will be required to remove the temporary pavement and asphalt berm constructed as part of Subdivision 8104 and install curb and sidewalk to conform to the adjacent improvements. S-9 County Files MS 040020,#RZ033122,&#DP033009 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission—November 17,2004 Parcels "A"through"D" and the remainder parcel are to be served by a private road from Oak Gate Drive. The proposed access will be a 20-foot road within a 25-foot wide easement with a hammerhead turn-around at the terminus. Due to the narrow pavement width, parking will be prohibited along the private road. The applicant is proposing a hammerhead design that is in conformance with County Fire District and Flood Control District equipment needs. A condition of approval has been included that requires the $380/unit fee to the Town of Danville as reimbursement for traffic signals installed along Camino Tassaj ara serving this area. Drainage: All the drainage from the project must be collected and conveyed in an adequate storm drain system to a natural watercourse or adequate man-made facilities. As noted, Alamo Creek traverses the site. Sheet flow into the creek is not allowed, and additional outfall structures are discouraged. There are existing storm drain facilities in Oakgate Drive, but their adequacy must be verified prior to being allowed to connect to them. Flood Control District issued a memo dated March 18, 2003 after reviewing the prof ect. This property is within benefit assessment Drainage Area 1010. The proj ect can connect to existing storm drain facilities in Oak Gate Drive but their adequacy must be verified prior to being allowed to connect to them. The creek structure setbacks limits shown on MS 040020 meet the setback requirements set forth in the County Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed private road encroaches into this restricted area. The road must be relocated outside the setback. An exception to allow the encroachment will only be considered based on a detailed engineering analysis and construction of improvements to assure the stability of the creek bank and roadway foundation. However, a portion of the hammerhead of the access road encroaches into this setback, the reason for the location of this hammerhead was discussed with Paul Detjens at the Flood Control District. The justification for this encroachment is to provide Flood Control improved access to this portion of Alamo Creek. Cross-Sections that show the creek top of bank and the existing and proposed improvements and other features within the easement area were submitted to County Staff as requested. This information is also provided on MS 040020. Detailed engineering analysis will be provided in the project improvement plans that ensure the stability of the creek bank and roadway foundation. The future HOA property owners will be responsible for maintenance of this access road, and as mentioned previously, parking will be restricted on this access road. A condition of approval has been placed on the project that provides for a deed disclosure that will communicate the purpose, HOA maintenance responsibility and parking restriction. Flood Hazard: A portion of this project, the top of bank of Alamo Creek and entirely within the "Open Space Remainder Parcel" is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone A) as designated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The area has been the subject of a detail study, according to the Rate Map, and both the 100-year and the 5 00-year floods are contained in the channel. The construction of future structures within the Remainder Parcel is highly unlikely, due to the open space designation and deed disclosure. The portion of the property proposed for residential parcels "A", "B", "C" and "D" are not located within Zone A. and have S-10 County Files MS 040020,#RZ033122,&#DP033009 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission—November 17,2004 elevations per County Standards appropriately above the flood elevation. These elevations were confirmed with the Flood Plain Management Division in April 2003. The applicant should be aware of the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 99-35) as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. If the proposed site grading will elevate the subject property above the 100-year Flood Plain, the applicant should apply to FEMA to amend the Flood Insurance Rate Maps accordingly. A CLOMR-F application should be submitted to FEMA prior to issuance of building permits. The Zone A limits must be accurately plotted on the tentative map. X. Public Works Background Information The applicant proposes to subdivide this parcel into four lots, each exceeding 16,500 square feet, with a 3.5-acre remainder. The subject property is located at the terminus of Oakgate Drive in the Danville Area. Oakgate Drive is a public street and was recently improved up to the subject property as part of Subdivision 8104. The "Bettencourt Basin" lies to the southwest of the subject property. Alamo Creek traverses the site. All existing structures are to be removed. The 3.5-acre "Open Space Remainder Parcel" north of Alamo Creek is proposed to be accessed by the new private roadway. The applicant proposes to create a homeowner's association to own and maintain this parcel. XI. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION Oakgate Drive is shown to terminate at the southeast corner of the subject property. The applicant proposes to construct a standard cul-de-sac bulb at the end of the road, partially encroaching into parcels B and D. Right of way for the balance of this cul-de-sac must also be obtained from Lot 13 of Subdivision 8104. A private easement exists over a portion of this property for a turn-around, but it was not dedicated to the County. At the time, it was unknown if the road was going to terminate at the property line as currently proposed, or if the public street would be extended further north, thus no dedication requirement was included as part of the adjacent subdivision. The applicant will be required to remove the temporary pavement and asphalt berm constructed as part of Subdivision 8104 and install curb and sidewalk per County standards to conform to the adjacent improvements. Parcels A through D and the open space remainder parcel are to be served by a private road from Oakgate Drive. The proposed access will be a 20-foot road within a 25-foot wide easement with a hammerhead turnaround at the terminus. Due to the narrow pavement width, parking will be prohibited along the private road. The creek structure setback limits shown appear to meet the setback requirements set forth in the County Subdivision Ordinance. However, the Code prohibits anything from being constructed within the setback area except drainage structures and landscaping. S-11 County Files MS 040020,#RZ033122,&#DP033009 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission—November 17,2004 XII. CONCLUSION The applicant is creating the opportunity to have four residential home sites consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and General Plan. The four Parcels and Remainder Open Space Parcel meet the required density for this site. The zoning Standards for the R-15 district are generally intended for properties to have 15,000 square feet of area, which all four parcels meet, with building envelopes that are conducive to single family residential, low density. The zoning standards for the OS designation are generally intended to maintain creek property in an open space designation. With the Mitigation Monitoring Program proposed, this project would not result in environmental impacts and would further the goals of the General Plan. The applicant has coordinated with the surrounding property owners and propose a plan that is consistent with the neighborhood therefore staff recommends approval of County File #RZ 033122, #DP 03300%, and MS 040020 based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. S-12 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM /&0 Dennis M.Barry,AICP CQ mmunity aOn= I pment Director FF Development F! ` `�' � CostaI ; - I Department dun ty County Administration Building Ave M A)f 1 2004 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Z00� Martinez, California 94553-0095 MAY W E 1", ;.:0; .T C L E R. COUNT Phone: co r -- , -1 1 1 ...All DEPUTY ` (925) 335-1210 th: may 17 0 04 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County File ##SD03 8711 & R.Z03 3122 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the"Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date,this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the following project: OAKGATE PROPERTIES,LLC(Applicant)—TODD&LINDA OLESON(Owners).County Files #SD038711 & RZ033122: A proposal for subdividing one 5.5-acre lot into 5 single-family residential lots on 2.01 acres and a 3.49-acre "remainder" parcel; removal of existing structures (house,barn and shed), and the removal of 53 trees onsite to allow for residential development on the southern portion of the site. In addition,the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from A-2 to P-1. Subject property is addressed 157 Oak Gate Drive in the Danville area.(A-2)(GP: SL&OS) (ZA: U-19) (CT: 3551.03) (Parcel#220-080-023) The proposed development will not result in any significant impacts. A copy of the negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration maybe reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and Application and Permit Am Center at the McBrien Administration Building, North Wing, Second Floor, 6-5.1 Ping..:.. Street Martinez, during normal business hours. Public Comment Period-The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the envirom-rental documents extends to 5:00 P.M.,June 11,2004. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Lashun Cross Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,, North Wing,2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Office Hours Mondav - Fridav: 8:00 R.m - .r)-nn n m W � U p o U � o00 Z c O H pZ o �i oR W 7 d ?01 � A P � W 7 N U r O O c� N 0 Pink tan U U A V 'z � v ... tan-t� � '� O •� y O't7 c C 43CZ CL cz 2 GL O CA v b aj c c 3 U C cc ca .c Qn c 4'^ O 0 o c 4� c .� c CL a cz lie EL ca ,L O U v1 O cd = c CL U GJ > cz O O C U C cn cdcu ct � r fl. r.. ry... Q 3 U cz ^�"- «- GCS U.� : O ..... c C Occ U-0 � � � EO by Co U CL cis d d va Q bn GLS U (M d fi .{ �t U U o O cz •-- O .c. -a C M 0-0 cz — a,.— _ O U SZ U U .r r-�'-' �"' � +U- �•� iZ cz > co *'' C O � � C c�d cd •�, C� O O U � C � O U � � � � � cn U U •, (n - pC '- U o... O c O a� p C U U O tan QCL uC U O- i cry C LL U U O +--• t1A > v�'C7 c p c� — � c tan U� s:1,_O c = � •-- = cn-���� ,� U U p � c ^r, C c Occs c cn C U �•.-'in Q-cUn ,_ W cz Rr O II. cd Cz U cn a� +- O"C7 v 4) c •— O ._. CC 'C3 cn i.., cC U +r Cc U O ca En cu c cz O �._. c O o'n u : ct cz cz . U U �.+ — � z � ,� O t�...v ,� vi� C i.. �CU �'t7 bn C1...c j-- cu ••c a? _ U �-' -� �-- j �.. C p cn cn 'cis C ' oo a.> U y �.. ' kn a.� O O �t 2 0 �. U °G ccs -- _ o LL)... cd 0 cry �, � w CJ^p 4-1 y O.p C C L 0 0 CL chi, OM U U U d co +--� cd C CZ QJ 4-6 _c 3 cco CZ 0 cz CL a > �►1 � ►-� i2 i �-' L � v � �'� •c � U fl.. En u LZ CL EEO CLo.n U II Z cn Cl. UO �. C = O CL-- cz ce a O O s..."0 c :� o s... tan C CL Q O W .� a� O �,•, c p O U a� O c, _ r O U � O O N +fid Q. G� cz a� cd Ct U O O 4) U v rn a� En cz cn crcn bA U U') C,3 ,.r cd C13 • aA UO O O L 1„1,O Li.. •� 4 En ._. O GJ U O U N � � � � U :.... :. U U U �- U C.• a� O o � o O � E— cn .. .� 3 CL[z U o.. U cd cd U C/).= C L cd o U r � O dt o cn C O En U .., > p �.., 'Os.. CL �.. U C CL ,� cd O CL cCL cn-0 Q rn . O U U G p _� cz N cid �. bA•-• O O cd O cz QJ cdCZ � U p 3 Gd •U � ..O �•U tin O- �_ pG ._ +� cn rn CL-p Ute.. cd cn o .a cn C O CL y U o ,..r C� ,Ur U VCKI C O U CC i- cOd .D O C� cn RS a. U U ..... +.. r s•- «s CL CL r O• CL O cdCU z O +� C'C7 N O CID UGj O Cl. cd U o CJ a? cd +..+ �+-- ni M co CL cn O p- i- O U N .O O O z �O U U U 00 cn +=� U s.. CL 0 � CZ CL cin (UZ.�- 2 E-" UO i O bA E- cz u H > ce z p LL) �.. U. C) cn o 0 u. cn c LLI cd LLJ OC 0—V) r-,..... U tet• i 0 0 N f:fi.•i f .y�x Lo ct O O : 'L7 v C Z►=+ 3 C ct O O < � UN Q•�' �N U ... cry p O cn p Ri En cC L a c ° a Q c cn C4 cc S , w+ a c co bA Q C C cd 4, '� .� c c 't7 C C 4� C s N...:. CEn C C cC c > ct3 En c cts Q U L�'cn O U Q Q Q 't7 s +-• cd O ca4-6CzO 4-6 '� c c� .� cyi)m En >, � C 3 _ �'' O = p � U cz •=z -� � �,� o � � � OU � cu �..� .�� O two M � -�,n � ..o c-� U � � o c � ``�' .� � ° L 3�.° O ° �'-C-�� c o '� c 'b '~0 4••.-c �•-'t7 a� .� a� .� C]. cC ¢, U O �-' C-p N iZ carn U 0- C C CCI U.� L y O C Q c a...c bd)rL.'fl c O U 't7 'in cd"L7 _ � cd cn U U cn X C CL O i- �.. U r.. cn L bn O CJ U cn GJ 4u U) 0. ►,� ,_ ¢ cd G c�.t 3 °- b0�--A 3 a3) En cin b0 ` y +) OU `•� t]., En � U �o o c o c U c c�° c '� •_ �� �. ° ° <� �, o •v �, s c•� v c cd .._ U O ,' c �° -� a�U c�-v-o o •° o c c �-' • a� 4-, U -v c en o o "' �-' V II N Qj O 2 0° U >'U > ° c U '- - o c �. �t N c 4-6 C c LLC.._ C ° O QC, ' m ° 'U Q, L c o ►r. c o L C �, C C c ccs v) > cn L,� �. -- .c O O Cd b0 c U C� O C U L]....._ p O cn L [n Qu o z c 3 =s'° �'.o`�.' U00 O.� n. p °°�° "-o o �, -0 4-. .� `� o En U O O O O' -- C.� O ccs U a m cz Rs 't7 cd Lcd C LCZ V U O cd w ... 0 2 CL U U ,� cd O ci ccn O SZ bU0 �, 4� 3 O.. C Q _ L U._. a� O '< LZ c co �b•U L' p p.. �.� cn LUC4o. cn C. .� c > U••o a� V) c = II NA z O oo Cis D a>►•-� cd .� �'LZ' En n- ZA U O O 4O Y ., .......: CL i� .L .. �Y W Q C c+., C cd'L7 U 'Z7 C C ca s o n sem.. a j cz c��n c� CFJ GZ. cz a� a� U �. 4. O �. ^p cn X �.. CU cd M - �.. b4-o -� U cts.� cd a.) G1,c0 C �►-� �, O 't7 bA U c+... a� U U ct3 C E"' a� ,.r L.C. by aU p rn U U � rC 4., cd • ° 4 c VCL c 4, a) T7 b0�''C N U cu _ t1, U U y O C cc3 �. bA,,., U D bn �, C U w 'L7 O i O U V O >, U O O r- �.., O �-• C U e.. U.,� U a)-- ,> CL c� U cc U D.�.. _ "� L1 .O O C �-' vi s.. M �, O O -- > cn cd CU 'U -•}= a) U C .� +.. �. U ._. c�.. U U�' cz "D W bq O Q �- c O _ �, 3 O u c .� L -- p c� a, a, �, a, �, c ••� v c c 0 3 o c co a� ccz Y o c bo o o o c � > b`0 U cd U > U O °..0 � m o U n'C O U cn bA �•' O•� U ,� Q) U Cl, C U C O U 'CJ U ^•U cz Q),O ti-. U = �" U � C � �—4-. D. �- Q C a� a,4-' f•- O p ..r cn O a �-- p �•. O cd c�+ = a� O 3 y,� c v c`'' ,�-o ° En`*-, > a� O .._...o II 3oas.o.� c �•_ �.s-vc _ �, � bA � � 0� 3 ... � �' � E,.v ° U-v � > �. a, Ca o O +rcz `''.O Q. bA W.- cc� v) p ¢� � � a y^... U p� U n C s�U U U � U O M m n '<7 U U bA V) O c+ •-- cc O > C U U > �- c,� a�. c.�'-•- c c cn cz .^ CL o bn L- w U bo p = c +:, bn.n-u U En p z a, ;- > �--o' c'" �' ?-Y c•c °:= c ^ �;'�,o U c u = �, '' °r •-- _ o � En 4C.,-ao " a, a� c c xcc° ..r " mu �. con- ° �, co'� o'A- �, '> CL 00 aj ..c a� °`*� °� O O U .� x c o•.-•• CL,C .= a� ° cit �. n.N o F- U ._ cc rn (n (u -v U.� c� a, n_ (n..0 cC�. .^ +.. �. Q E-cn o �, o u g w r14 `� 11 w a� 00 c � D c U v 0 0 N N rli u `C CL ... +ny A b V) {ro .ago: c� ;.::._....: D ..0 U cccz O O C cu ..O C,3 U _ to cc co Ln M co t= cn p„ Cl L- U cn L- O U N cn .D .� rn 0: a.r U rn En cti G� 'O a. rJ- s.. v � � O-G � C'fl � > r' s— -- .� � '� U �•'t7 cd C as 2 y O �Q Q O D En U sLn cmc "' •a4� U U z a.. ,� _ o o•_ > CU En O + a� �. o s 3 ° -vPL 'v -- cc `+' cn cc N cn p L- cn =s s= Q z ++ .� �' cn bo II. U o o n.._. „� -D >, im O �.. U to cc cc U * cd �-•' U cc m �' C G1 v cc U cn = o �.. E— cc LU z � o LLL - cn Q � rn It] N .+ u. o uj a0 00 `�..► 0 0 r4 a� a� •� cl ccz c� c v (n tw Ena4 •-'.^ c c cz LIZ En 3 cz L L UK) Cd U � U 0 0 to Cfs U cz `O aA .p O p i �r<' •^ O cci U C i1 C fl.. cd Qa� Q U C U cz cz Lo) C U t 0 ss, 'n E U o " o=-04.1 Lij a 0 CJaQ �N D �•� O >`'" a. .-o o a, C cd U a� U0.' O >o•_ `,,° cn 0 0 TJ p•• L m C C 4� �... 3 Q. +•� cn L O n U nom.. 03 CL w% cz 0 z 0 U U O "G U p.� O 7) LZ.s v �.. a� O o O z O n. n. -' a-r o 3 c n.� `� a� o -� c U`{-' ca �v-0 � 3 Q � 0 > 2 cd C V) . .., , cz cz cn �¢ bAta to ccd 0.. �U.. Q � 0.. 0 0. GAU.O � Q N cn "' U o CU cn C13 W- �] p .r.,> o w cd w " O °�' i U °' cz p v (n C �.,> CL O Q C) p Z � o p N .t7�A; Q '[7 U U cr i O CL M CL _ CCS L•' p �, cd O z _QN Q U a� �, U O C C z 4� OCL UO � U C Oa +.+ R. W U -ty O'l7 U p C� D O -� C U U C i e- OAK GATE PROPERTIES, LLC R . .. . 3820 Blackhawk Road Danville, CA 94506 925-736-1571 phone 925-736-0309 fax May 5, 2004 Lashun Cross, Senior Planner County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 9455.3-0095 RE: Letter of Agreement: Mitigation Monitoring Program Relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance Proposed Residential Five Lot Subdivision 157 (talc Gate Drive, Danville Area of Unincorporated Contra Costa County County Files" SD871 1, RZ033122, and DP033009. APN#220-080-023 Dear Lashun, This letter is to confirm that we have read the Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for the Oleson Property dated April 22, 2004, and revised on May 4, 2004, and agree that if the project is approved as proposed, we will implement the mitigation measures listed in these documents. The Initial Study concludes that, once implemented, these measures ensure that the project's construction and development will not have a significant effect on the environment. The potential envirom-nental factors being Mitigated are Aesthetic, Air Quality, Biological, Cultural Resources, Geology and � Soil, and Noise. Sincerely, Stephen P. Beinke Oak Gate Properties LLC Environmental.Checklist Form 1. Project Title: A proposal for subdividing one 5.5-acre lot into 5 single- family residential lots on 2.01 acres and a 3.49-acre 4cremaindet" parcel; removal of existing structures (house, barn and shed), and the removal of 53 trees onsite to allow for residential development on the southern portion of the site. 1n addition, the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from A-2 to P-1 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street,North Wing—4th Floor Martinez, Ca 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Lashun Cross, (925) 335-1229 4. Project Location: 157 Oak Gate Drive,Danville, Ca. APIA: 220-080-023 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Oak Gate Properties LLC 382.0 Blackhawk Road. Danville, Ca 94506 6. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential-Low(SL) /Open Space(OS) 7. Zoning: A-2 (General Agriculture)—existing zoning P-1 (Planned Unit District)—proposed zoning 8. Description of Project: The project is proposed to complete the northwest extension of Oak Gate Drive with a five (5) lot residential subdivision on 2.01-acres and a 3.49-acre "remainder" Parcel that includes the portion of Alamo Creek within the County's existing drainage easement. The intent of the residential subdivision is to create an extension to the existing neighborhoods. An existing house, barn and detached garage on the project site would be demolished. All trees within the remainder parcel would remain. Most of the trees within the 2.01-acre site proposed for residential development would be removed. Most of these trees are previous orchard plantings, and a number of Monterey Pines and Eucalyptus trees with moderate to poor suitability for preservation. All Oak trees onsite would remain on the site. A Tree Removal Permit is requested with the proposed project. Future homes would incorporate new trees and landscaping, compatible with the neighborhood and location next to the creek. The project is proposed to be similar in density, access, and appearance to the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed lots are 15,100 square feet (0.35 acres) to 19,821 square feet (0.46 acres) in size. Five new homes are expected to generate 11 additional residents (minus the existing house). Access to each parcel, as well as the remainder parcel, would be provided via an ungated, private 20-foot paved roadway. The access is proposed to include a "hammerhead" turnaround designed according to the San Ramon Valley Fire District specifications and would accommodate fire and flood control service vehicles. The project would receive water service from EBMUD facilities, sewer service from Contra Costa County Central Sanitation District facilities, and storm drain collection service from Contra Costa County Flood Control District. The three agencies have indicated they have the capacity/ability to serve the new lots. Construction-related erosion control measures, including storm drain protection would be part of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SVTPPP) and Best Management Practices required by the County for the development. Maintenance of private facilities and open space in the northwest comer of the site would be the responsibility of the future homeowners, but public maintenance of the creek, and Oak Gate Drive would continue to be under the control of the County. This is similar to the surrounding subdivisions. The proposed project is intended to complement the surrounding uses with a quality design that"fits" in with the current development. The project would be consistent with the General Plan in that it proposes residential development only south of the creek, and formally establishes the open space use north of the creek. The project would be similar in density and layout to the existing neighborhood, and would connect to existing public facilities in existing streets. As part of project approval, this subdivision would be required to pay it's fair share for community parks, childcare, sewer, water, storm drain hook-up fees, and other community facilities. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: 1-n The project site is located in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County near the Town of Danville. The location is approximately 2.5 miles east of Highway 680 at the terminus of Oak Gate Drive,north of Camino Tassajara. A concrete driveway in the southeast corner of the site leads from Oak Gate Drive to an existing house, barn, horse corral, and garage. The west branch of Alamo Creek flows through the north of the site in a northeast to southwest direction. The area of the property where the creek passes through is already dedicated to Contra Costa County Flood Control, who maintains the drainage easement. The five residential lots would be created on the southern side of the Open Space Remainder Parcel, which includes the portion of Alamo Creek and drainage easement. The topography is generally level to the south of the creek, where development is planned. Land on the northern side of the creek, proposed as open space, is moderately sloping. There are many trees on the site,both naturally occurring and remaining from past orchard plantings. The project site is surrounded by suburban residential development to the south, east, and west. Immediately to the north of the property is an open space area maintained by the Bettencourt Ranch Subdivision. The property has a General Plan designation of Single Family Residential Low, 1.0 to 2.9 units per net acre, and a portion of the site is designated for open space. One residence, a detached garage and a barn are located on the property. The 5.55-acre parcel was originally created in 1978. The subdivisions south and adjacent to this property along Oakgate Drive have been developed as small subdivisions, with up to 13 lots at a time, at an approximate density of 3.28 dwelling units per net acre, and an average lot size of i/3 of an acre(or approximately 14,500 sq. ft.). While the site has the possibility to include sensitive environmental issues frequently found around natural water features, proposed development on the balance of the site is not unreasonable. The project's Biological Assessment and Wetland Jurisdictional Determination for the Property, prepared by Sycamore Associates LLC, concludes that no state- or federally-listed Endangered, Threatened, Rare or Candidate plant or animal species were detected during the survey. In addition, no impacts to USACE jurisdictional waters of the US or waters of the State are proposed. Mitigation measures to address the potential for some species to occur were recommended in the reports and are in this environmental document. 10. Other public agencies whose Contra Costa County Public Works Department, approval is required (e.g.permits, Building Inspection, and Sanitary Department, financing, approval, or Contra Costa County Water Conservation and Flood participation agreement): Control District, and the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning _ Transportation/ _ Public Services Population&Housing Circulation X Utilities & Service X Geological Problems X Biological Resources Systems Water _ Energy & Mineral X Aesthetics X Air Quality Resources _ Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of _ Hazards r Recreation Significance X Noise 4 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. X_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL BAPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment,but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL RAPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature Date Print Name Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 5 SOURCES In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation, the following references (which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street 4th Floor-North Wing,Martinez)were consulted: 1. Contra Costa Resource Mapping System—Quad Sheet Panels -, CA. 2. The Contra Costa County General Plan 1995-2010 and EIR on the General Plan (January 1991). 3. Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map 2002, California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,2003. 4. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Preliminary/Final Development Plan Tract 8711,Prepared by Carlson,Barbee, and Gibson, Sept. 18, 2003. 5. Preliminary Tree Report-Oleson Property,Prepared by Hort Science, December 2002. 6. Biological Assessment and Wetland Jurisdictional Determination for the Oleson Property, Danville, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by Sycamore Associates LLC. December M 2002. 7. Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Study. Prepared by ENGEO Inc. December 17, 2002. 8. Geotechnical Exploration, Oleson Property, Tract 8711. Prepared by ENGEO Inc. July 10, 2003. 9. Public Agency Responses (Darwin Meyers, County Geologist and Mario Consolacion.,Public Works Department). 10. Project Application Materials/Site Visit/Project Description 11. Cultural Resources Evaluation(Letter Report),Holman&Associates Consulting Archaeologists, November 2002. 12. Zoning Maps/Flood Rate Insurance Maps 13. Bay Area Air Quality management District. 14. Public Agency Comments 15. 2002 List of hazardous Sites (Cortese List) 16. Contra Costa County airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted December 13,2000. 17. Supplemental Biological Assessment Clarification dated received March 31, 2004 prepared by Sycamore Associates LLC. 6 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Inmact Incorporated Impact Impact I. 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 state scenic highway? (Source: 1, 10) X c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?(Sources: 10) X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources: 10)) x SUMMARY: (Less Than SiQnificant With Mitigation Incorporated) The portion of the site that is proposed to be developed lies at the bottom of a moderate slope that rises towards the north. Low- and medium-density neighborhoods exist to the south, east, and west of the site. The site is not visible from any scenic vista,nor would it be considered, a scenic vista. The portion of the site proposed for development is relatively flat and does not contain any visually significant topographic or geologic features. There are approximately 53 trees that are subject to the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance that are proposed for removal to allow for construction of 5 single- family homes, related structures, landscaping and the access roadway. The trees are associated with the existing homestead on the property. The trees generally have a trunk diameter of 20 inches or less. However, approximately five Eucalyptus (Blue Gum) trees would be removed with a trunk diameter in excess of 40 inches. The majority of the trees proposed for removal have moderate to poor suitability for preservation according to the Arborist Report prepared by Hortscience. All trees within the Open Space Remainder Parcel, including the Alamo Creek Drainage Easement Area are proposed to remain. No Oak trees are proposed for removal. The adjoining neighbors have requested the project developer to remove a number of the larger Eucalyptus trees on the property's southern boundary, due to fire danger, the tree's age, and their dwindling health. Although these trees are not considered a scenic resource to the public,they do provide scenery for the neighborhood. Removal of these trees would be considered a potentially significant impact. The following mitigation measure would reduce the effect to scenic resources to a less than significant level. Prior to the issuance of grading permits on the site, the project proponent shall receive approval from the Contra Costa County Community Development Department for a Tree Permit for all trees indicated on the Tentative Map to be removed on the site. The applicant will be subject to place a bond for trees recommended for preservation and a landscaping plan for tree replacement within the subdivision. 7 The visual character of the site is largely defined by the surrounding medium- to low- density single- family residential neighborhoods and the backdrop of Alamo Creek. The proposed project would create single-family home sites for five custom homes on approximately 2 acres at a density that would be similar to that found in the surrounding neighborhood. Without final architecture plans for the proposed single-family homes,the potential exists for the design of the proposed homes to be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and, therefore, the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact. In order to assure design compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and in order to reduce the potential visual impact to a less than significant level,the following mitigation measure will be applied: Prior to the issuance of building final architectural detailed floor plans, elevations, and color schemes shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. The height of each home (including roof-line)shall be limited to 35 feet in height as described in the Contra Costa County Code. The design of the homes shall be compatible with the immediate surrounding neighborhood. Although one single-family home and accessory buildings currently exist on the site, the development of five homes would result in 'increased sources of light and glare on the project site. Lighting would be consistent with typical residential land uses and would be imperceptible beyond what is currently generated throughout the surrounding neighborhood. The project's contribution to new sources of light and glare would be minimal and,therefore, a less than significant impact would result. H. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? (Source: 3, 12) X b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?(Sources: 3, 12) _X c. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Sources:3, 12) X SUMMARY: o impact,) According to the Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map (2002), the proposed project site is shown not to be located in an area designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The site is located in an area of interface between lands designated as Urban/Built-Up land and Grazing Land and, therefore, no impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance would occur. 8 Potentially Significant _ Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No t=act Incomorated I=ac IMpact III. AIR QUALITY a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 13) X b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 10, 13) X c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 13) X d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Sources: 10, 13) X e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?(Sources: 4, 10 13) X SUMMARY: (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated) The proposed project site is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQNM). The applicable air quality plan would be the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan (CAP), which updates to the '91 Clean Air Plan. The development of five home sites on the proposed project site would not conflict with or result in the obstruction of the CAP. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated as being in nonattainment for ozone, carbon monoxide, and suspended particulate matter (PM,o). The project would not contribute substantially to the existing nonattainment conditions in the long-term. The project would add five new households that would contribute slightly to air pollution through mobile sources (i.e., vehicular emissions). The addition of automobile trips generated by five additional households would result in minor contributions of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NOx), and reactive organic gases (ROG) to the air basin. However, the project's contributions to the existing air quality violation In the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin would not be substantial and,therefore, a less than significant impact to air quality standards, cumulatively considerable net increases to criteria pollutants, exposure of sensitive and receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would result. The project can result in temporary increases in vehicle emissions and particulate matter associated with construction on the project site. Impacts could result from the generation of airborne dust and particulate matter during site grading and emissions from construction equipment. Implementation of the following condition of approval will be added. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the proposed project, the project proponent shall prepare an Erosion Control Plan and Dust Control Measures shall be a part of the project's SWPPP. The plan shall be followed by the project's grading contractor and submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department, which will be responsible for field verification of the plan during construction. The plan shall comply with the County's grading ordinance and shall include the following " 9 _ Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Iml2act Incorporated Impact Inmact control treasures to the extent possible and other measures as determined by the Community Development Department to be necessa73)for the proposed project: •'• Cover all trucks hauling construction and demolition debris from the site, •`• Water all exposed or disturbed soil sui faces at least twice daily; ❖ Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement; ♦'• Provide daily clean up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site,• ❖ Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, et cetera); •'• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways, •'• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible, •'• Suspend excavationand grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts exceed 25 mph); ❖ Unnecessary idling of construction equipment shall be avoided; •'• Equipment engines shall be maintained in proper working condition per manufacturers' specifications; and •`• Where feasible, the construction equipment shall use cleaner fuels, add-on control devices and conversion to cleaner engines. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? X b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1,4, 6, 17) x c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Sources: 1, 45 65 17) x d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 1,4, 6, 17) x e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?(Sources: 1,4, 6, 17) x 10 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated I act Impact f. Conflict with the Provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1,4, 6, 17) X SUMMARY: (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated) The proposed project would result in the development of approximately 2 acres of land comprised primarily of non-native annual grassland and an orchard. The remaining 3.6 acres, including Alamo Creek, would remain in its current state, as open space. The 2.01-acre site south of Alamo Creek is currently developed with a single-family home, a garage, and a barn. According to the Biological Assessment prepared by Sycamore Associated LLC for the project, a total of 11 special—status plant species are considered to have at least some potential to occur within the region or have been recorded historically in the project vicinity. Based on a reconnaissance-level survey and habitat assessment conducted by Sycamore Associates, LLC,no special-status plant species were detected within the project area. Based on the limited amount of marginally suitable habitat present onsite,` the potential for the occurrence of special-status plant species on site is considered low. Therefore, no impacts to special- status plant species are expected to occur. Seventeen (17) special-status animal species are considered to have at least some potential to occur within the region or have been recorded historically in the project vicinity. These species include the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle, and Alameda whipsnake. In addition, a number of special-status raptors, migratory birds, and bats also could utilize the site for nesting or roosting due to the presence of trees and shrubs on the site. As described on page 12 of the Sycamore report, Alamo Creek is a potential movement corridor for California red-legged frog, and one occurrence of California red-legged frog was reported to the California Natural Diversity Database in 2001 within the West Branch of Alamo Creek 1.5 miles upstream of the project area. This is the only known occurrence within the West Branch of Alamo Creek. The West and East branches of the creek converge approximately 4 miles downstream of the site. With the exception of this hydrological connection, occurrences in the East Branch of Alamo Creek are isolated from the site due to residential development. Numerous California red-legged frog surveys conducted along the West Branch of Alamo Creek by Sycamore Associates and others have resulted in negative findings. Several projects have been permitted and constructed within the past five years with an allowed set back of approximately 50 feet. Among these is the Focus Realty Parkview Subdivision project in Danville along Sycamore Creek. Habitat within the on-site portion of the creek is characterized by dense Central Coast riparian scrub vegetation. However, the riparian vegetation is restricted to within the creek channel and does not extend beyond top of bank. The project development footprint is set back from the top of bank on the south side of the creek. According to the July 10, 2003 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (Carlson, Barbee & Gibson), the portion of the site planned for the home sites is proposed with a 45-foot minimum structure setback from the top of the creek bank as required by Contra Costa County Ordinance, with a 50-foot setback throughout the majority of the site. The access roadway encroaches within this setback (as allowed by ordinance) along approximately 80 linear feet of creek and is set back 10-feet from the top of bank at the closest point. The creek channel, riparian area, and the entire portion of the site north of the creek will be left as open space. The area proposed for development south of the creek is already partially Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incoryorated I=act l=ac developed and includes an existing house, barn and garage. The undeveloped area within the development footprint includes a small orchard and horse pasture characterized by bare soil and patchy ruderal vegetation. Due to past and current land uses the soil is compacted and most of the vegetation has been removed. Shrubs and tall grasses are lacking in the area within the proposed development footprint south of the creek, therefore this area does not offer refugia habitat for California red-legged frog. In addition, California red-legged frog are not expected to disperse through this area due to the close proximity of residential development and lack of suitable habitat on the remainder of the site. Immediately to the west and the east of the project site,residential lots extend to within approximately 20 feet of the south side of the creek. Although the Alamo Creek riparian corridor(the area below the top of the bank) provides potential movement habitat for California red-legged frog, the area within the proposed development footprint south of the creek is of little habitat value and California red-legged frog are not expected to occur within the project development area. Therefore the project is expected to have no effect on California red-legged frog. To further ensure that there is no effect on California red-legged frog mitigation measures have been added: The special status raptor species with potential to roost in the mature pine, eucalyptus, and oak trees on the site include Cooper's hawk, white-tailed kite, and Northern harrier. The special status passerine bird species with a low potential to occur on the site 'include the California yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, California homed lark, and the loggerhead shrike. The California yellow warbler and yellow- breasted chat nest in dense riparian habitats similar to the habitat found along Alamo Creek. Loggerhead shrikes potentially nest in orchard trees and within bushes and scattered trees similar to those found around the residence. California homed larks nest on the ground in grassland habitats, including disturbed agricultural sites and grasslands similar to those found around the site. The special status passerine species are considered to have a low potential of occurrence on the site. Three special status bird species were identified as potentially occurring throughout the region,but are not considered as having a potential to occur on the project site. The golden eagle occurs in the vicinity,but due to a lack of suitable nesting habitat, lack of prey base, and close proximity to human habitation this species does not have the potential to occur on site. The tricolored blackbird also occurs in the general region,but require ponds for nesting. No burrowing owls are expected to occur on the site, as no suitable habitat is present due to a lack of ground squirrel activity. Three special-status bat species are considered to have a very low potential to occur on the site due to marginally suitable habitat in the trees in the project area for the pallid bat, long-eared bat, and Yuma myotis bat. The project's Biological Assessment and Wetland Jurisdictional Determination for the Property prepared by Sycamore Associates concludes that no state- or federally-listed Endangered, Threatened, Rare or Candidate plant or animal species were detected during site surveys. In addition,no impacts to USACE- jurisdictional waters of the US or waters of the State would occur with the proposed project. Since the potential for special status wildlife species to occur within the development area remains, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would avoid project related impacts to potentially nesting birds and reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The removal of trees shall occur front September I through December 1, outside the breeding season. If the removal of trees or shrubs is to occur during the nesting season for passerine or nonpasserine I2 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less-Than Significant Mitigation Significant No LMpact Incorporated I act Impact land birds, February 1 to August 31, or the nesting season for raptor species,December] to August 31, a nesting bird survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist within 30 prior to -the removal or disturbance of nesting trees or shrubs. The survey shall be provided to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of tree permits (if removal is to occur during nesting seasons). If trees with active nests are identified, the project proponent shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and ensure that all trees with active nests shall be,flagged and a non-disturbance buffer zone shall be established around the nesting tree. Buffer zones shall be within the range of 50 feet to 90feet for passerines and nonpasserine land birds, and within,200 feet to 500feet for raptors. Active nests shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to determine when the young have fledged and are feeding on their own. CDFG shall be consulted for clearance before resuming construction or fo grading activities. If the removal of trees or shrubs is to occur during the nesting season for passerine or nonpasserine land birds,February I to August 31, or the nesting season for raptor species,December I to August 31, surveys shall he conducted for ground nesting bird species by walking narrow transects throughout the grassland by a qualified biologist at least 30 days prior to the initiation of constructioii or grading activities. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would avoid project related impacts to potentially occurring special-status wildlife species and reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Two weeks prior to the initiation of construction activities, the project applicant shall conduct pre- construction surveys following the protocol outlined in the Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red-Legged Froaprepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1997). At the same, time field surveys shall be conducted for western pond turtles and California tiger salamander. If evidence of the species is found, the appropriate state and federal ageitcies shallbe contacted to determine what actions need to be taken. The following avoidance measures shall be taken regardless if evidence of the California red-legged frog is identified: Construction will occur during the non-rainy season (April 15 —November 1) when California red- legged frogs are less active. Contractor education will be conducted for all on-site personnel prior to the onset of construction. Training will include identification and avoidance of California red-legged frogs and their aquatic habitat. Contractors will be provided with photos depicting California red-legged frogs and clear instructions to stop site work and notify the county biological monitor if the animal is encountered. The county biological monitor will notify USFWS within 24 hours and has the authority to stop construction if the project is out of compliance with adopted mitigation measures or permit conditions. Pre-construction surveys will be conducted according to USFWS protocols by a qualified biologist prior to lite onset of construction activities to ensure no California red-legged frogs are within the construction area. 13 Potentially Sig Tnificant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact If no California red-legged frogs are found within the construction area, exclusion fencing (made of -114-inch mesh hardware cloth at least four feet in height with the top six inches bent inward toward the creek, buried or fastened to the ground all along its base) will be placed around all project construction areas to keep California red-legged frogs from potentially moving onto the construction site. Exclusion fencing will be placed along the riparian area if deemed necessary by the biologist. Placement of the exclusion fencing shall be shown on lite grading plans, to be verified by the community Development Department,prior to the issuance of grading permits. Text shall be included in the contractor's notes on the grading plans informing lite contractor that no grading activities, site disturbances, or stockpiling of construction materials or spoils shall occur within this setback area. The exclusion fencing will remain in place during the duration of all grading and constrit ction-related activities. The biologist will routinely inspect the site throughout the course of construction to ensure that construction fencing is intact, no California red-legged frogs are present in the construction area, and sensitive habitats are avoided. The biological monitor will provide an anticipated schedule to the County defining the frequency of the necessary site inspection visits. The proposed project site is bisected by Alamo Creek and its associated riparian corridor. Proposed site development would occur only on the south side of the site. All jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are defined by a clear and obvious ordinary high water mark, which is indicated by sediment deposits, drift debris, and exposed roots. Sycamore Associates delineated the ordinary high water (OHW) within the project area and the Potential U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Jurisdictional Central Coast Riparian Scrub within the OHW. The USACE verified the determination on April 29, 2003 (revised 6/25/03), with a total jurisdictional area of 0.21-acres of Jurisdictional Waters (within the OHW) and 0.29-acres of Jurisdictional Wetlands. Total USACE Jurisdictional Wetlands and other Waters is 0.50- acres. The riparian areas along Alamo Creek's banks fall under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The stream channel supports a well-developed contiguous stand of willows with scattered patches of cattails and other aquatic vegetation. The entire streamside area below the top of the bank is expected to fall under regulation of the CDFG as waters of the state. No construction activities are proposed within the streambed and/or riparian area. Special-status natural communities are those that are considered rare in the region, support special-status plant or wildlife species, or receive regulatory protection. Central Coast riparian scrub is considered a special-status natural community and is found onsite. The Central Coast riparian scrub is limited within the limits of ordinary high water within Alamo Creek. The proposed project would result in the development of five home sites on approximately 2.01-acres south of Alamo Creek. Approximately 3.49 acres including Alamo Creek would remain in its current state,, as open space. The portion of the site planned for the home sites is proposed with a minimum structure setback from the top of the creek bank as required by Contra Costa County Ordinance. In all cases, this structure setback is at minimum a total of 45 feet, with a 50-foot setback throughout the majority of the site. The access roadway encroaches within this setback as allowed by ordinance, and is set back 10-feet from the top of bank. The grading and construction areas are proposed to be limited to areas outside of the OHW mark and would maintain the minimum setback from the top of the creek bank. Although no disturbance to the 14 _ Potentially Significant _ Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact creek, the associated riparian corridor, and the Central Coast riparian scrub is anticipated,the proximity of grading and construction activities has the potential to substantially impact biological resources. Mitigation Measure N (Biological) would reduce the potential to impact biological resources to a less than significant level. 0.29-acres of Jurisdictional Wetlands occurs on the project site within the limits of ordinary high water associated with Alamo Creek. Two soil units occur on the site, Conejo Clay and Diablo Clay. Conejo Clay is considered to be a hydric soil when unnamed inclusions in depressions are present. Hydric soils are one indicator of wetlands. During site visits, strong hydrophytic vegetation and an obvious boundary with wetland hydrology beyond. This would indicate that potentially jurisdictional wetlands are present within the banks of Alamo Creek. As described in the above biological resources discussion no grading or construction activities would occur within the area of ordinary high water of Alamo Creek. A setback would be maintained, beyond which no earthmoving activities would be permitted. Mitigation Measure IV would maintain a barrier to restrict construction activities to areas outside of the riparian and wetland zones and the project proposes a sufficient setback and, therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. The area proposed for development south of Alamo Creek has little to no value to function as a wildlife corridor or as a wildlife nursery site. This area is approximately two acres and is surrounded by suburban residential development. The site is relatively small, provides little habitat on site, and is isolated from larger patches of suitable habitat, and is therefore not likely to be used as a wildlife corridor or nursery site. The riparian corridor directly within the top of bank of Alamo Creek would, however, have the potential to serve as a movement corridor for wildlife species. The proposed project would not directly impact this corridor as it is proposed to maintain a minimum 45-foot structure setback from the top of the bank of Alamo Creek and no grading or construction activities other than the access road are proposed that would encroach within this setback area. The 3.49-acre area of the project site (the Remainder Parcel) to the north of the development site and including Alamo Creek, is proposed to be maintained in its current open space state. Since no construction activities would occur within the riparian corridor and the area proposed for development has little potential to be used as a wildlife corridor, a less than significant impact is expected to occur. The removal of trees proposed by the project would be subject to the Contra Costa County Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. There are 53 trees that are proposed to be removed that would be sub j ect to the ordinance and require a permit for removal. A tree permit for removal of the trees on the project site would constitute adherence to the ordinance. Mitigation Measure I(Aesthetics)would require the project proponent to receive a tree permit for the removal of trees on the site and, therefore, the project would adhere to the Contra Costa County Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. There are no Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans that are applicable to the project site. 15 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No IMpact Incorporated In act Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 x b. 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 resource or site or unique geological feature? x d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources:4, 10, 11) x SUMMARY: (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated) An Archaeological Report, including literature review and a field inspection, were performed on the proposed project site by Holman & Associates in November of 2002. No evidence of historic or prehistoric archaeological resources was discovered anywhere on the project site. The site currently contains three structures: a house, barn, and a garage. These structures would not be considered historic based upon their age, which is considerably less than 45 years. There are no prehistoric or archaeological sites recorded inside or immediately adjacent to the project area. There is no indication of historic and/or prehistoric resources located on the site and, therefore, development of the proposed project is not expected to result in any impacts to cultural resources. The potential remains, however, that during grading activities that previously undiscovered resources could be uncovered. The following condition of approval shall be applied. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. 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. 16 _ Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS—Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Source:4,7, 8, 9) X 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? (Source: 7, 8, 9) X 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source: 7, 8, 9) X 4. Landslides? (Sources: 7, 8,9) X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? X d. Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1998), creating substantial risks to life or property?(Source: 7, 8, 9) X e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Source:4,7, 8,9) X SUMMARY: (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated) The area of the project site proposed for development (south of Alamo Creek) is relatively flat and underlain by Quaternary alluvium. That portion of the site north of Alamo Creek is characterized with late Tertiary non-marine sedimentary rocks. The alluvial deposits generally consist of layers of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. Several landslides have been identified along the southern side of the creek, with the top estimated at the creek bank. The soils consist of Conejo Clay in the southeast portion and Diablo Clay in the northwest portion. Conejo Clays have moderately slow permeability, low to moderate shear strength, susceptibility to piping, moderate shrink-swell potential and moderate corrosivity to uncoated steel. Diablo Clays are described as having slow permeability, low strength, high shrink-swell potential. No known active faults are located on the property. The nearest known active faults are the Calaveras fault, located approximately 5 miles to the west and the Greenville fault, which is located 6 miles to the east. The residential structures that would be developed on the site would be required to adhere to the Uniform Building Code requirements. Through application of current building code requirements, structures are considered to be able to resist minor earthquakes without damage, resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, and resist major earthquakes without collapse or life-threatening structural damage. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects associated with landslides. The project is proposed on a relatively flat area and would not involve grading in the area 17 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incomorated Impact Impact identified as containing several small landslides located along the top of the creek bank. The project proposes a minimum structure setback of 45 feet from the top of the creek bank. The landslides are localized and not of a size that would result in a substantial risk to life and/or property. Furthermore,the landslide movement would occur away from the proposed building lots and would, therefore, not pose any risk to the proposed project. Based upon boring drilled on site, the liquefaction and lateral spreading jo Clay, are not considered to be potential on the site is considered to be low, Diablo Clay and Cone susceptible to liquefaction. A less than significant impact is expected. The following geotechnical condition of approval is included to ensure that the proposed project would not expose structures or people to substantial adverse geological effects, and, therefore, a less than significant impact would result. The recommendations of the detailed Geotechnical Exploration prepared by ENGEO for the construction of improvements onsite shall be included in project implementation. The condition of approval under Air Quality requires the preparation of an Erosion Control Plan with Dust Control Measures that would effectively incorporate measures to prevent soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the conditions of the Contra Costa County region-wide National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit and receive approval under that permit for a General Construction Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB). The Construction General Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (S'VNTPP). The SWPPP must list Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the project proponent would use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program and a chemical monitoring program for"non-visible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BUTS. To further ensure that the proposed project would adhere to the existing regulations and permit programs in place requiring preparation of a SWPPP the following mitigation measure shall be applied. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Construction Permit shall be obtained and a SWPPP shall be prepared for the proposed project grading. The approved NPDES Construction Permit and SWPPP shall be reviewed and approved by the Contra Costa County Public Works Department prior to tile issuance of grading permits. The soils on the project site are considered to have a moderate to high expansion potential. Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture changes resulting in heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. Due to the presence of, and proposed development on, expansive soils, a significant impact could result. In order to reduce the level of impact to less than significant,the following condition of approval shall be required. The foundations of the homes planned for the site shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the detailed Geotechnical Exploration prepared by ENGEO, as approved by the .A County Building Official. The proposed project would connect to municipal wastewater systems and would not require the development of a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system and, therefore, no impact would occur. 18 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated I act Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?(Source:4, 10, 15) X b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source:4, 10, 15) X c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 4, 10, 15) X d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65862.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?(Source: 4, 10, 15) 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. (Source: 4, 105 15, 16) X f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 16) X g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 4, 10, 14, 15, 16) X h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources:4, 10, 15) X SUMMARY: (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed development of five home sites on a 2 acres site would not result in any significant hazards or hazardous materials risks. The site is not listed as a hazardous waste site. The project would not involve the transport or storage of hazardous materials. No substantial hazardous emissions would occur through residential use of the site. The site is not within two miles of an airport. The project would not impair implementation or physically interfere with an emergency response plan. The proposed project is located in a suburban area and is surrounded by mid-to low-density neighborhoods and would not expose people or structures to substantial risks associated with wildland fires. The proposed project is development of five home sites for residential development. These homes would not interfere with existing emergency response plans. There are no aspects of the project that would raise hazards and hazardous material concerns except for the gasoline use to power equipment on site related to on-site temporary construction activities. Therefore a less than significant impact is expected to occur. 19 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated Impact impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 4, 14) X b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (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)? (Sources: 4, 14) X c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? x d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner that would result in flooding on-or off-site? (Sources: 4, 14) X e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources: 4, 14) x f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?(Sources:4, 10, 12, 14) h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 14) X i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 4, 14) X j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Sources: 4, 14 X SUMNLARY: (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project includes the development of an onsite storm drainage system that would connect to the existing municipal storm drainage system within Oak Gate Drive. The project would utilize municipal water supplies and, therefore, no depletion of groundwater would occur. The project is being developed at a relatively low density. Consequently, groundwater recharge is not expected to be substantially affected by the project. 20 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Inmact Impact Project drainage would be conveyed south to the storm drainage system and, therefore, no on- or off-site flooding, erosion, or siltation is anticipated. No runoff would be conveyed into Alamo Creek. The amount of impervious surface created from the project is expected to be the minimal necessary for development of the home sites. Runoff from the residential sites would not exceed the capacity of storm drainage facilities and would not carry a substantial amount of pollutants with the potential to degrade water quality. The proposed home sites are not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. A portion of the site immediately adjacent to Alamo Creek is within Zone A of the Flood Insurance Rate Map, however, the home sites are proposed to be developed at an elevation that is above the flood elevation, as required by ordinance. The site is not susceptible to significant risk from dam or levee failure, seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or the regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 4, 10, 12) X c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source: 4, 10) 12, 17) X SUMMARY: (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan rezoning proposal of P-1 (Planned Unit Development) for the development area and Open Space for the remainder parcel including Alamo Creek. The subdivisions south and adjacent to this property along Oakgate Drive have been developed in similar small subdivisions, with up to 13 lots at a time, with an approximate density of 3.28 dwelling units per net acre, and an average lot size of a third of an acre. The project would result in the development of home sites of a similar density and character as the surrounding neighborhood and no physical division of an established community is expected to occur. The property is not subject to any applicable open space easements, habitat conservation plans, and/or natural community conservation plan. The project does not propose to divide an established community, nor does it conflict with applicable land use and open space plans, policies or regulations. Therefore, a less than significant impact would result. . 21 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Irrmact Incorporated In act Invact X. MINERAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1,4, 10, 12) X b. Result in the loss or availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan, or other land use plan? X SUMMARY: (No Impact) The Contra Costa County General Plan has not identified any mineral resources on the proposed project site. The geologic material on the site consists of alluvium and is not a mineral resource of value. XI. NOISE—Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of'standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 10, 12) 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? (Source: 10, 12) X d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?(Source: 10, 12) 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 10, 12) X f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 10, 12) X SUMMARY: (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated) The project would result in the development of five home sites adjacent to existing suburban neighborhoods. The permanent noise increases at the site would be typical of residential neighborhoods and would not be considered a substantial increase. Temporary construction noise however could result in temporary noise increases. The following conditions of approval will be incorporated into the project. 22 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:30 PMMonday through Saturday. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and State and Federal holidays. These criteria shall be included in the grading plan submitted by the developer for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of grading permits. Exceptions to allow expanded construction activities shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as determined by the Community Development Department. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate adjacent to any occupied residence during construction hours, unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier acceptable to the Community Development Departntent. These criteria shall be included in the grading plan submitted by the developer for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of grading permits. The project is not located within an airport land use plan area or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 1, 10) X b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?(Source: 1,4, 10) x c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 1,4, 10) X SUMMARY: (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project is the development of five "infill" home sites consistent with the General Plan designation of(SL) Single Family Low Density. One house would be removed. The proposed project will generate approximately 11 additional people on site (in addition to the existing home generation). The displacement of substantial numbers of people or housing would not occur and the project would not induce substantial population growth,therefore a less than significant impact is expected to occur 23 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No In act Incorporated Impact Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 2, 4, 9, 12) 1. Fire Protection? x 2. Police Protection? X 3. Schools? X 4. Parks? x 5. Other public facilities? x SUMMARY: (Less Than Significant Impact) The development of five home sites would have a minimal effect on public services (police, fire, schools, and parks)will not cause the need to provide new or physically altered facilities. The proj ect is consistent with the General Plan designation for the site. -The project would be served by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, which operates a fire station within 1.5 miles of the site. The project would not generate a population In excess of 1,000 people and therefore would not create the need for new capital improvements for police services. The number of students generated by the project would not cause the need for new school facilities. In order to fund it's fair share, the project would be required to pay the school facility fees park dedication fees and a police mitigation service fee will be required prior to filing of a final map and issuance of a building permit. The project would have minimal effect on public services, and therefore a less than significant impact is expected to occur. XIV. RECREATION a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source: ) X b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 2, 10) X SUMMARY: (No Impact) The parks serving this project site are located in the Town of Danville. As a standard condition of approval, The County will require that "in-lieu" park fees are submitted at time of buildingp ermit. The proposed project would not substantially increase in the use of existing parks nor would it require the 24 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact construction or expansion of recreational facilities and, therefore, a less than significant impact is expected to occur. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? X b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source: 2, 4, 10) X e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 2, 4, 10) X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Sources:) X SUMMARY: (Less Than Significant Impact} The proposed development of five new home sites is not expected to result in a substantial generation of traffic. Contra Costa County requires preparation of a traffic study if more than 100 trips are generated during peak hours. This project would generate less than 100 peak hour trips with the four new homes (with credit for the one home being removed) and therefore a traffic study is not required. The project would contribute a minimal number of trips in the immediate vicinity, and would have a very minimal effect on regional traffic patterns. However,residential development in the area is required to make a fair share contribution to the Town of Danville for the installation of traffic signals along Camino Tassaj ara serving the area at the time of building permit. The project would not have any effect on air traffic patterns. The project proposes an access easement of 25 feet wide with a 20-foot wide paved roadway that is consistent with the Fire District standards for emergency vehicle access. Parking would be prohibited along the road and both residential and guest parking would be accommodated on the individual home sites. There are no incompatible design features and the project would not conflict with any alternative transportation plans,policies, or programs. Consequently, a less than significant impact would result. 25 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 4, 10, 14) X c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X d. Have sufficient water supplies available serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 4, 14) X e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 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?(Source: 4, 14) X f Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's waste disposal needs?(Source: 4, 14) X g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?(Source: 14) X SUMMARY: (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project includes the development of five single-family homes that would require the installation and necessary extension of all utility lines for water and wastewater. Water service to the site would by provided by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMCTD). The proposed project site is included within the EBMUD service boundaries and is consistent with the General Plan designations and forecast land use for the site. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District would provide wastewater treatment services to the site. The addition of five single-family residences would not result in the generation of wastewater flows that would exceed treatment facility capacities or require the expansion of facilities. The proposed project is consistent with the type of development identified in the General Plan. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District possesses adequate capacity to serve the development. The proposed project would require the construction of new and extended storm drain lines that would connect to the main storm sewer system in Oak Gate Drive. The construction of the storm drain is included as part of the total project construction and the plans would be submitted to the County for approval before building permits are issued. Fees are charged to new development by the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District to offset increased drainage needs and the site would be annexed into Drainage Area 101A. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. The project proposes to connect to existing municipal systems in Oak Gate Drive. Standard connection fees are required at building permit. Therefore, a less than significant impact to utility and service systems is expected to occur. 26 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated In act Impact The proposed project consists of the development of five single-family dwellings at a density that is consistent with the General Plan. The solid waste generated by the development would be consistent with the levels that have been anticipated for the site. The development of five single-family homes would not result in the generation of solid waste that would exceed disposal facility capacities. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project would be less-than-significant. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? X c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X SUMMARY: Less Than SigLifficant Impact} The project site is currently developed with a single family home, a garage, and a barn with non-native grasslands and ornamental landscaping interspersed throughout the site. The area of the site proposed for development has little value as wildlife habitat and adequate setbacks would be maintained from Alamo Creek. Therefore, the project would not contribute substantially to a cumulative loss of biological resources, the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. As described herein, the site is not a wildlife corridor, nor will grading or construction activities be permitted in a manner that would effect the existing condition of Alamo Creek. Moreover, a SWPPP is required to ensure that the project would not result in adverse water quality effects. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. The proposed project would not have the potential to achieve short-term goals, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. The project site is designated for low density Single Family Residential development under the Contra Costa County General Plan. The project would be required to implement General Plan goals and policies, as applicable that have been developed for environmental protection. 27 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Tmpact The project would not result in cumulative impacts and does not have environmental effects, which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project would result in no significant and unavoidable impacts. It would result in a few potentially significant impacts that would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation included in this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project would result in a residential density level that is consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan. The project would not result in excessive demands on fire,police, schools or parks that could otherwise result in adverse effects on human beings. Sufficient utilities and service systems exist on the site or could be accessed to serve the proposed project upon Contra Costa County approval of improvement plans. No hazardous conditions are known to exist on the site that could not be controlled with normal engineering practices. Therefore, the proposed development would result in a less than significant cumulative impact and would result in less than significant impacts on human beings. t EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT June 9, 2004 04 JUN 14 PM 4; 24 i.. Lashun Cross, Senior Planner Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Ms. Cross: Re: Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration -- 157 Oak Gate Drive Danville East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project located at 157 Oak Gate Drive in Danville. EBMUD has the following comments: EBMUD's Scenic Pressure Zone, with a service elevation range between 650 to 850 feet, will serve the proposed development. A main extension, at the project sponsor's expense, will be required to serve the proposed 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 the costs and conditions for providing water service to the proposed development. Engineering and installation of water mains and services require substantial lead time that should be provided for in the project sponsor's development schedule. If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact David Rehnstrom, Senior Civil Engineer, Water Service Planning, at (510) 287-1365. Sincerely, WILLIAM R. KM-KPATRICK Manager of Water Distribution Planning WRK:OAH:sb sb04 ]88.doc cc: Oak Gate Properties LLC 3820 B l ackh awk Road Danville, CA 94506 8V Y E A R S 375 EL FVENTI J,STR!"F.T, OAKLAND . CA 94607-4240 . (5]0) 835-3000 1923.2003 o� op rwV,p� STATE OF CALIFORNIA • Governor's Office of Planning and Research m Wo State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Arnold San Boel Schwarzenegger Acting Director Governor June 14,2004 Lashun Cross Contra Costa County : t�~ 651 Pine St.,North Wing, , �r 2nd Floor 01 Ln n r Martinez. CA 94500 � �./_ Subject: RZ033122/SD038711 Residential 5-Lot Subdivision SCH#: 2004052050 Dear Lashun Cross: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The revieNv period closed on June 10, 2004, and no state agencies subnutted 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(916)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. Sincerelv. Terry Roberts Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL(916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov Jun 11 04 05: 14p Kathy Brillheart 5104823306 P- 1 Barry Brillheart 1082 Cheshire Circle Danville,CA 94506 Lashun Cross County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 40'Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553-0095 Dear Lashum Cross, These comments are intended to address concerns within a negative declaration(County File#SD038711 &RZO33133). It is the opinion of several residents within Bettencourt Ranch,which borders the property in question,that the environmental impact of the proposed rezoning and development would have a greater impact than the filing would indicate. Specific areas of concern would be the effects of tree removal and land development 011existing wildlife.It is a:daily occurrence to see and hear hawks,eagles,owls,dears,and rabbits in the 5.5 acre site behind our property. There is mention in the report that there are no burrowing owls on the site due to lack of ground squirrel activity.This is not true.not only do we hear and see owls on a regular basis;there is certainly no shortage of ground squirrels in the area.The removal of 53 trees would drive the existing hawks,owls, eagles and other wildlife to other areas. In addition,there was no mention of what would happen to the 20+peacocks that are currently on the property.Will they be removed from the site or forced into the remaining open space? sm, c,pe y:1 �r any llhA f CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 255 GLACIER DRIVE, MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DATE: June 7, 2004 TO: Lashun Cross, Project Planner, Current Planning, Community Development FROM: Steve Wright, Associate Civil Engineer, County Watershed Program ' SUBJECT: SD038711 AND RZ033122, COMMENTS ON PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FILE: 20-32-530, Comments on Development Projects Thank you for submitting your Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for County File#SD038711 and RZ033122.We have looked at the information submitted, but need a tentative map in order to see if additional storm water quality mitigation is being included. Since this project will exceed one acre of disturbed surface, the applicant will be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan before beginning any construction on this site. In addition to mitigation of construction phase storm water quality impacts, the applicant should be required to show Public Works and Community Development how he intends to mitigate long-term storm water quality impacts to the maximum extent practicable.Mitigation of storm water quality impacts to the maximum extent practicable is a requirement of Division 1014 of the County Ordinance Code. If you, or the applicant, need additional references to evaluate permanent long-term storm water mitigation measures, you should look at: ❑ Start at the Source by BASNL A ❑ using Site Design Techniques to Meet Development Standards for Stormwater Quality by BASMAA. ❑ Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook,New Development and Redevelopment by the California Stormwater Quality Association, ❑ Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Project Planning and Design Guide by CalTrans, and ❑ Other current storm water quality publications Please make sure that the applicant has included reasonable storm water quality mitigation to the maximum extent practicable. For a project like this, it may require limiting the area of impervious surface,putting in grassy swales to treat the storm water runoff before it enters a storm water system. Other mitigation may consist of: ❑ Requiring that all future homeowners be provided information on storm water quality, integrated pest management and native plant gardening. ❑ Areas could be provided for car washing that drain tograssy areas or grassy swales before entering the storm drain or creek system. ❑ Driveways could be designed to direct storm water to grassy areas prior to entering the storm drain or creek system. ❑ Native vegetation could be retained. ❑ Concrete curbs could be eliminated, and graveled shoulders and a grassy swale could be constructed. ❑ The use of copper roofs or chemically treated roofs, that could harm aquatic life, could be restricted. Also, although the drainage easement traversing this property has been dedicated to Contra Costa County, it has not been accepted for maintenance. It will be the homeowners' responsibility to maintain this facility. SJW:sjw:cw G:1GrpData\FldCtllswright\COMMLJNITY DEVELOPMENT\,SD038711 and RZ033122 ND 05-13-04.doc c: G.Connaughton,Flood Control R.Lierly,County Watershed Program E.Whan,Engineering Services C.Lau,Engineering Services K.Hoey,Engineering Services 2 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 04 HAY 2f"a AM 10*, ?STD WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT y - DATE: May 25,2004 TO: Lashun Cross,Senior Planner, Community Development Department FROM: Mario A. Consolacion,Senior Engineering Technician,Flood Control SUBJECT: Subdivision 8711 (Oleson Property) 157 Oakgate Drive,Danville, APN 220-080-023 FILE: 1002-8711 We have reviewed the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study for Subdivision 8711, and submit the following comments: 1. There were statements in the Project Description of the Environmental Checklist Form that claimed that the project would receive storm drain collection service from Contra Costa County Flood Control District (CCCFCD), and that the CCCFCD has indicated it has the capacity/ability to serve the subdivision. CCCFCD does not own the existing drainage facilities on the public streets in this area and therefore, the claim that CCCFCD would provide storm drain collection service for the project is not correct. Moreover, it is not the practice of CCCFCD to state that it has the capacity/ability to provide service to any project or development. Please amend the statements to remove any reference to Contra Costa County Flood Control District. 2. The Environmental Checklist Form also indicated that the public maintenance of the creek, and Oak Gate Drive would continue to be under the control of the County. We wish to clarify the part of the statement that pertains to the maintenance of the creek. The County would provide maintenance only if it has accepted an easement over the creek, and the easement specified that the easement holder(County)is responsible for creek maintenance. Maintenance of the creek would continue to be the property owner(s) responsibility if the County has not accepted the maintenance easement. G: GrpData`FIdCtl�CurDev�CITIES�Danville�Sub 8711�3rd Memo,Mitigated Neg Dec.doc c: Paul Detjens, Flood Control Eric Whan,Engineering Services Rob Tavenier,Maintenance Page 1 of 1 June 1, 2004 04 AN- PM Lashun Cross Community Development Center Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,North Wing, 2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: County File 4SD03 8 711 & RZ03 3122 Dear Lashun, We are in receipt of your May 12 letter regarding modifications to the Oakgate Properties owned by Todd and Linda Oleson addressed at 157 Oak Gate Drive in the Danville Area. As a resident of 612 Stevens Court,which is one of the properties adjacent to 157 Oak Gate Drive and shares a common fence line with the property,we are writing this letter to express several concerns: 1) Your letter references the removal of 53 trees on-site of 157 Oak Gate Drive. I would appreciate a better understanding and notification of exactly which trees are to be removed. My property currently has two large pine trees and one extremely large eucalyptus tree that borders the common fence line with 157 Oak Gate Drive. Are these trees going to be removed? What will be the impact from removing these trees to the adjacent fence and underlying landscaping? 2) Your letter mentions that with the re-zoning of the property, it will be subdivided into 5 single-family residential lots. I would appreciate a greater understanding of exactly how and where these lots will be located on the property. Where will the associated road to access these homes be located? Where will the homes be located in relationship to the existing fence line? What size will these homes be and how will they impact the view which I currently enjoy? How will these properties be landscaped and how will this impact the drainage on the adjacent properties? Are the existing fences located on the property line? Are there any plans to move the current fences? 3) The entire property at 157 Oak Gate serves as the primary breeding ground for a large group of peacocks. These animals wander the property regularly and roost in a large oak tree near the creek on the current 5.5 acre parcel. In addition, we quite often observe deer and quail on the property. How will the peacocks and additional wildlife be impacted by the construction of these new homes? Will the peacocks be relocated or exterminated? If the disturbance of these animals results in their relocation to the adjacent neighborhoods and damage is caused by these Page I of 2 birds, how will home owners be compensated? Is the large oak tree used by the peacocks for roosting one of the 53 trees to be"removed"? Based on your letter,we are supposed to provide written comments to the county's determination that"the proposed development will not result in any significant impacts." This letter serves as our initial comments regarding the adequacy of this determination. Please note that we do not have a particular issue with new development on the 15 7 Oak Gate property. However, we would greatly appreciate an answer from either the County or the Developer of the property to all of the questions and issues we have expressed in this letter. Th u, I David & Chrissy Lewis 612 Stevens Court Danville, CA 94506 Phone: 925-964-0789 Page 2 of 2 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2004052050 Project Title RZ033122/SD038711 Residential 5-Lot Subdivision Lead Agency Contra Costa County Type Neg Negative Declaration Description A requested proposal for subdiving one 5.5 acre lot into 5 single-family homes on 2.01 acres and a 3.49 acre "remainder" parcel; removal of exising structures and the removal of 53 trees. In addition, the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from A-2 to P-1. Lead Agency Contact Name Lashun Cross Agency Contra Costa County Phone 925-335-1229 Fax email Address 651 Pine St., North Wing, 2nd Floor City Martinez State CA Zip 94506 Project Location County Contra Costa City Danville Region Cross Streets Camino Tassajara Parcel No. 220-080-0� Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways Waterways Schools San Ramon Unified Land Use Existing Zoning is A-2 General Agriculture I Currently residential/Open space and single-family low-density Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Air Quality;Archaeologic-Historic; Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Wetland/Riparian; Other Issues '—f—alng Resources Agency; Regional W@ter Quality Control Board, Region 2; Native American Heritage 1%cvicv.A.i Agencies Commission; Department of Conservation; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Department of Water Resources; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation Date Received 05/12/200_4 Start of Review 05/12/2004 End of Review 06/10/2004 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. 40 FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT 699 Old Orchard Drive, Danville, Callfornla 94526 (925) 552-5986 FAX (925) 552-0598 04 MAY 24 PM 3: 1 yV D May 21, 2004 Lashaun Cross,Planning Division Contra Costa County County Administration Building 651 Pine Sreet 4'hFloor,North Wing Martinez CA 94553-0095 RE: County File Number SD 038711 &RZ 033122,Assessor's Parcel Number 220-080-023 Lashaun, Thank you for allowing the District the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned project. The project located at 157 Oakgate Drive,Danville,CA,is within the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. The resident schools for this project are Tassajara Elementary,Diablo Vista Middle, and Monte Vista High School. Due to overcrowding in the District it is possible that students residing in this subdivision may be diverted to other schools. The project will be subject to higher developer fees as a result of the impact of Senate Bill 50(Greene) on new residential developments. SB50 states that if the District conducts a School Facilities Needs Analysis report and meets certain other requirements it may impose a statutory developer fee that may be significantly higher than those previously permitted Level I fees of$4.24 per square foot of residential and$0.34 per square foot of commercial development. On June 24, 2003,the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 102/02-03,Establishing School Facility Fees in Accordance With The Provisions of Senate Bill 50. Based on the School Facilities Needs Analysis Report, dated May 8,2003,the District is justified in collecting Level II Developer Fees of$4.62 per square foot of construction for single-family housing and$2.20 per square foot for multi-family housing. This report was unanimously approved by the Board of Education on June 24,2003, and became effective immediately. Therefore, the above-mentioned profaciC su-i it iect to the'h;.g er fPPC Should you have any questions or require additional information,please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 401 Cheryl Harton Facilities Technician MAPS �Y �?Y a� k k M.: r., t, 6 »S �x- - APN # 220=080=023 APN=220080023 OLESON TODD&LINDA �Y AR k k IF s„ ; Map created 2/17/2005 by Contra Costa County Community Development,GIS Group 651 Pine Street,4th Floor—North Wing,Martinez,CA 94553-0095 37:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W N Some base data,primarily City Limits,is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas.While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for its accuracy.This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited.Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa 0 75 150 300 Feet disclaimer of liability for geographic information. - APN # 220=080=023 . 2 1. 9.., e i f 2 / I 3 Vii. i i' y', ± F + �* s3 i i }} l I OS 3 � 1. c 4 E j SMg ,. 3 r..„. .. ,... ,. - SLI. I'll F 1. OS11 I 11 11 .1 I ".. . � I'll, I I -- I I.. � I , I I . � I A=2 I � 11 1\ .11 11 . .� � 1. � .1 I � I � .1 � I . I I 1. . , , I I '.. I . I � I \ 1 I I �. I � � , .. I I .1 . �, I ., I I . ,, , I ,�/ 11 �� I ., . I I I I . I I . 1. , I 1/1 � . � I / I I . 11 I I — I I I — I . I I I � 11 I 11 , 11 — 11 1 I . , I I I / 11 I — . � I , � 11 � I' ll , I .1 I I -- 11.”, M I — 11 1 , — � I � I I I e � I I ,. I — I � � . . I . I I 1. - 1,1. 1: - 'I.:.A=220080023 I 1.11 SON TODD&LINDA I I�::�. . !: �� � .. ': -I . 1. - 1. I I I--- 1-.1,:., -- .11 , . . I I I - I 1. --. - I - SL 1. 11 11 I ,1:-�...,� ��,.:i�.:�,������:,i��:.�:��:!������..- P I 11, h 3 1.111.1 ll..�"il-,�j�,�.�-.-'.�.,': w I I A-2 Zoning Designation nation Map created 2/17/2005 by Contra Costa County Community Development,GIS Group 651 Pine Street,4th Floor—North Wing,Martinez,CA 94553-0095 SM 37:59:,W.455N 122:06:35.3MW Some base data,primarily City Limits,is derived from the CA State General Plan N Board of Equalization's tax rate areas.While obligated to use this SL data the County assumes no responsibility for its accuracy.This Designation map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered.It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited.Users OS of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa 0 75 150 300 Feet disclaimer of liability for geographic information. R �✓ y � l � �' � guy�//�' ! �7 tf r DRi/f 0 44 --�� 0000 11 J j d 800 M. 1 1 000 / .. l..I '• co 80 00 a 11110,100 oWOTA AJ RA '11110100 do II � � ■ I O qy4 0 ! j o ?/ M 726 r 640 * S r � • "► 46 • JI _� Q see - � ■ • t ! + s i Itr ■ list r V / ts.ss.• 1 i _ ..:� tr►: =iii .: • N now -L ♦ . - _ :;, ., - _ - - _ _.. _-� X11 MAVO �- �: _ !:���`-�i.."'w�•,.A='y��, � L`it i.-. : 37 11 IN �1 .. PO LIM � ' r•.moi', � -. � � ,. : ♦ I� r � ■ t � - r ■I 1 !� f ♦ 4 in tp tG fi C> to too "Of tA —4 SSVI lii A- I It s$J VA *of" YR HANS sotA 014 t to t % a .............. *of es OD ag r. MOW NIL-We 14 s • ps C:> v Z- TO sD lo R mow. pt j ,, tv Wx CP ov if U tp .y 0 O'A 0 co =z G �f-0� W nG00 G� Gia IPAN o GnoN� 2,�yv m 20000 0 , 4� y► v �2 ?, AoG©moo 2 �,w 2 ox a � °�o a�'�0' N � �v a° OZ t't1 K. ' :.,• Y ,. 2 �' c3--.a may. � .{• y► -a Alaot 4A Al V � p►pK � 00% �' /,,� '' MSR Z, C? � p ,�o 0 2 s0,0mob CIO 113 r4 Will • 3 N cn.�� c�c� -� r. 'Z �m 90 G F4 Oyo so r � o 00 d o� •��' .. .4 `�. � ,,,,. ped Ct' 0� c 4g a„5 a m 1p 01 tS 0 a o%r �, y y . ► 00 4 r o ^r m ;°' r 9�OD Or G tD� 4 1 f vim" LL: - J ,..rl � 00U O (� t W 1-- a CL 0 • '�,ck: C> Q _X N� , ii. m z CL ci �z .i • i ---------•---------------------------------- f V i _�•:._ �,4-�c-r:._i--�•=�..z.:=x'-- �Zr�` __.^8� i`v;':;' �5' '` ._ ....`",`i .-:,..`irit-�';•:.--=•�*�.f} ."�t?� ! W iv .n :� V21 eali f r co Ln coco la Ir rrj ie H o t t BS 9 N 60' a►t •a•o >+ f tat y at'c6 i Dy!lMAOa nl.030UJ Sii{: LJ A a9t it to L► 69'61c .}• +• ► �`" `'d o rA 1 �j ^k Ln N 16' r�rL6 �rii Q cQ °1 N .1+ , to Lo co In IV Nto L ac•a9L '.*t +,�_ -__ _ _____ ___ ___-----�_ _ _ __-_ ` r.,l. � �^�J `� \\� +. +/ C) Q N !— I In plc_ :�•� m 1`; Via= Cv cc co M-9G.aS.DS ,n '. O i r,..- Q to a6I {- CNJco n C7 Q7 -J-4, ' '�I CS,C3'r -, C r , y4 CL CL r) CL CL CL CO m, cC%j C6 cx csf � 1 ' d +!w'=t44:crt:s'�� t'�.+-.•.' -;.r;►ss= - n3i:T�-• _ .-•,j.y s 1'ei i � •i Pi Of -1= Md-1 i N i r— i 00 N ^' 1- � u{/•) J V �a— 'I�r� � � t•.iuJ' 2ov o= 3y,�"�wvm • S I y � W CL', < = 1 Z � © o o , p-• O co CD 0 (J •t A N ,,,,,, r t ro 1 CQ 4A tx On N 00 a -43 1i-. \ ✓ / ` 4A a co rc,—rI Ln CO mom •00 _ 1 Pt C1a � j LL1 cn Petf �N Wim, L) cPTAi� LQ CD .--- 1 Q 1 � 1 ...r--- — "'""'� a zz . - _ .. dWP 1 NOTIFICATION LIST 220 070 012 L 220 070 014 220 080 033 Flood Control&Water Cons Ccc Dame Construction Co Inc Glen&Virg M' is Tomek 25.5 Glacier Dr 315 Diablo Rd#221 165 Mrack Rd Martinez,CA 94553 Danville,CA 94526 Danville,CA 94506 220 080 033 220 391 008 " 220 391 045 -- Glen&Virginia Tomek Jon&Donna Wagner Daniel&Denise Basso 165 Mrack Rd 125 Mrack Rd 310 Amelia Ln Danville, CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 220 '391 046 --- 220 391 047� 220 391 048 Martin&Karyn Fislunan Tom&Josefina Jindrich Christopher&Lisa Murad 314 Amelia Ln 318 Amelia Ln 319 Amelia Ln Danville,CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506 220 391 049 220 391 050 � 220 391 051 Michael&Sabrina Hughes Donald&Susan Rodich Douglas&Monique Perry 315 Amelia Ln 311 Amelia Ln 307 Amelia Ln Danville,CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 220 391 052 - 220 401 013 220 401 014 -- James&Susan Birkenseer Stevens Danny&Dana Stevens 303 Amelia Ln 603 Stevens Ct 609 Stevens Ct Danville, CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 220 401 015.. 220 401 016- 220 401 017 L Santia James&Tanya Fuhrman Dybuncio 615 Stevens Ct 621 Stevens Ct PO Box 521 Danville, CA 94506 'Danville, CA 94506 New York,NY 10274 220 401 018 '120 401 019 220 401 020 Michael&Janet Polanchyck Andrew&Roxanne Wolfe Steven&Stephanie Brandel 633 Stevens Ct 636 Stevens Ct 630 Stevens Ct Danville, CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506 220 401 021 220 401 022 220 401 023 Scott&Harriet Merritt Darrell&Marilyn Bolognesi David&Christine Lewis 624 Stevens Ct 618 Stevens Ct 612 Stevens Ct Danville,CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506 220 401 024 220 401 025 , 220 725 006.- David 06.David&Pattie Minton Mark&Tanya Lojacono Peter Yau-Chung&Pik-Chee Lam 606 Stevens Ct 600 Stevens Ct 3480 Shadow Creek Dr Danville,CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506 220725007, 220 725 008 220 725 009 -. Robert Bowed Mark Taylor&Con Lightfoot-Taylor James&Lee Ann Bowers 3476 Shadow Creek Dr 109 Shadow Creek Ct 117 Shadow Creek Ct Danville, CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506 725 010 220 725 011 220 725 012 -- 220 kussell Valenti R. &Pamela Rogers James&Lisbeth Carter Ronald&Carol Roach 125 Shadow Creek Ct 133 Shadow Creek Ct 140 Shadow Creek Ct Danville,CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 220 725 013 .:) t- 220 725 014 220 725 015- Howard Rolf Hilderbrand Richard&Janine Millitello Ali Noorbakhsh&Panichehreh Borghei Heather Hilderbrand .124 Shadow Creek Ct 116 Shadow Creek Ct 132 Shadow Creek Ct Danville,CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 220 725 016 4 220 725 017 4 220 725 018,,, John&Maria Grace Gomes Teresa Murphy Michael&Janice Kance1jak 108 Shadow Creek Ct PO Box 772 305 Sun Stream Ct Danville, CA 94506 San Ramon, CA 94583 Danville, CA 94506 220 725 019 - 220 725 020 %, 220 725 021 -, Kelvin&Cathy Heard 'Carl&Cora Pagtakhan Jeff&Elaine Neeley 309 Sun Stream Ct 313 Sun Stream Ct 317 Sun Stream Ct Danville, CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 220 725 032 — 220 725 033- 220 725 034 -. Michael&Velma Schnoll William Brunette&Patricia Brunette John&Lily Chen 141 Shadow Creek Ct 148 Shadow Creek Ct 321 Sun Stream Ct Danville.,CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 220 810 014 220 810 015 220810016— Nader&Mitra Garschi Poonam Parjan Ranjan&Renu Bhasin 1051 Cheshire Cir 1057 Cheshire Cir 1063 Cheshire Cir Danville,CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506 220 810 017 220 810 018 220 810 019 Edward&Janet Kennedy M R&Kousalva Ranganathan Javier&Sarah Espinosa 1069 Cheshire Cir 1075 Cheshire Cir Yvonne Quan Danville, CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 116 Blackpool Ct Danville,CA 94506 220 810 027 220 810 028 220 820 006 Area-Tract 7280 Common Flood Control&Water Cons Ccc Wellington&Lyana Choi Lim PO Box 555 255 Glacier Dr 228 Chatham Ter San Ramon') CA 94583 Martinez, CA 94553 Danville,CA 94506 220 820 007 61' 220 820 008 220 820 020 Lionel&Diann Gross Francis&Melanie Carbrey Barry&Susan Thompson 11828 Dublin Blvd#A 236 Chatham Ter 346 Newcastle Ln Dublin,CA 94568 :Danville,CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506 220 820 021\- 220 820 037 \­ 220 820 056 �,, Ronald&Susan Thomas Frank&Nancy Gilbert Aerni Rao&Ramadevi Sunkara 350 Newcastle Ln 1123 Cheshire Cir 1118 Cheshire Cir Danville, CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 220 820 057 220 820 058- 220 820 059 �- 15avid Yeong-Sian Chang Robert&Christine Nicoles Hung&Fang-Yuan Hsi Sophia Fang Chang 1106 Cheshire Cir 1100 Cheshire Cir 1112 Cheshire Cir Danville,CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 220 820 060 220 820 061 220 820 0621- John Becketti, Ravi&Durgamai Appiah Barry&Kathy Brillheart 1094 Cheshire Cir 1088 Cheshire Cir 1082 Cheshire Cir Danville, CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506 220 820 063✓ 220820064 / 220 820 065 Bradley&Jane Maker Area-Tract 7280 Common Area-Tract 7280 Common 1076 Cheshire Cir PO Box 555 PO Box 555 Danville,CA 94506 San Ramon, CA 94583 San Ramon, CA 94583 APN 220-725-035-4 APN 220-810-020-2 APN 220-810-021 RANCIS S & SUZANNE PECORARO SAID NAJAFI SITYAMALA T& GANDI RAJENDER 318 SUN STREAM CT 112 BLACKPOOL CT 108 BLACKPOOL CT DANVI LLE CA 94506 DANVI LLE CA 94506 DANVI LLE CA 94506