The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 03012005 - D.4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ,;.. �� County cou DATE: MARCH 1, 2005 SUBJECT: Hearing on an Appeal by Joe and Alice Quigley of the County Planning Commission's Decision to Grant Approval of a Proposed Tentative Map by Davni Development, LLC (Applicant), James Farr (Owner) to Subdivide 3.66 Acres into 16 Single Family Lots (Muir Ranch II), with Variances to Lot Width of Lot 16 to be 56.4 Feet Where a Minimum of 70 Feet is Required, and a Reduction to the Rear Yard for Lot 2 from the Required 15 Feet to 10 Feet, and an Exception to Subdivision Ordinance Section 92- 4.018 to Allow a Cul-De-Sac Length Greater than 700 Feet. The Property Fronts on the Western Terminus of Emshee Lane, 390+/- Feet West of Blum Road, in the Martinez Area. County File #SD048839 (District II) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATIONS A. OPEN hearing and accept public testimony; B. ACCEPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for the project as adequate and find it to be consistent with State and County CEQA Guidelines; CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S): ACTION OF BOARD O APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER ' J04 I VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND OX' UNANIMOUS(ABSENT&IrCORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND YES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Michael Henn (925) 335-1204 ATTESTED cc: Joe and Alice Quigley - Xe�;, �� Davni Development Co. JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF James Farr SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#SD048839 Page 2 C. DENY the appeal of Joe and Alice Quigley, and UPHOLD the County Planning Commission's approval of SD048839 subject to conditions; D. ADOPT the findings of the County Planning Commission contained in Exhibit I as the basis for the decision; and E. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. II. FISCAL IMPACT The developer is responsible for the cost of processing the development permit request. III. BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The applicant proposes to subdivide a 3.66 acre parcel into 16 lots on Emshee Lane (private). One single family residence is currently located near the east end of the site and is proposed to remain. As proposed the existing house would be on the future Lot 15. One proposed lot (Lot 16)would be east of the existing dwelling on Lot 15. The other fourteen lots would be west of the existing house. An abandoned walnut orchard occupies the western two-thirds of the subject property. This area is currently fenced and used for horse pasture. This matter was heard by the Zoning Administrator on November 29,2004. Attached is a copy of the staff report from the Zoning Administrator's hearing. The Zoning Administrator took the matter under submission, closed the public hearing and rendered her decision on December 13, 2004. That action was appealed by Joe and Alice Quigley, neighbors to the north, citing concerns with various impacts of the project on their abutting property, but particularly emphasizing their loss of view of Mt. Diablo and other distant views. The letter also cited concerns with sidewalks, parking, construction nuisances, and park deficiencies. Conditions of approval imposed on the project by the Zoning Administrator were designed to address the project's impacts and especially mitigate the impact of the project on the Quigley property. This appeal was heard by the County Planning Commission on January 25, 2005.At that time, the Commission took testimony both in support of and in opposition to the project and determined, by a 7-0 vote, that the required findings could be made and adopted Resolution No. 7-2005 (attached) conditionally approving the subdivision. The Commission found the subdivision to be consistent with the General Plan's Land Use designation for the site and not in conflict with any applicable General Plan policies affecting the project. The Planning Commission found that there were mitigations already included in the conditions of approval that provided added protection for surrounding properties. This position was supported by the fact that the majority of the area residents have indicated support for the project. Mr. and Mrs. Quigley appealed the Commission's action by their letter dated February 3, 2005 (attached). March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#SD048839 Page 3 IV. APPEAL ISSUES: The appellants have raised a variety of issues that are summarized as follows: A. The approval would cause damage to the Quigley's property because of loss of views, and not just for the existing house but for the future houses that the Quigleys plan for their property. Staff Response: The appellant neighbors do not have a view easement over the subject property, and the County does not have a specific policy requiring that pre-existing views must be maintained. New construction on previously vacant property frequently affects pre-existing views for numerous properties in many locales. Nevertheless, the County has imposed a significant amount of mitigation to protect the distant views for the Quigley property. Lots 1, 2, 13, and 14 were lowered so that the resulting ridgelines would not exceed 104' above MSL, a height determined to not encroach into the distant views from the existing Quigley residence or front yard. The appellants are now raising the issue that they may someday subdivide their 2-acre property and the future residents' views need similar protection as is now being required for the existing Quigley house. The Planning Commission found that there is no inherent right to subdivide, and the design, orientation and view loss for any future houses on the Quigley property would be speculative. Additionally, as the Davni property upslopes to the west,the 104' above MSL standard would become prohibitively difficult to accomplish. For example, the house on Lot 5 with a 92' pad elevation would be limited to only 12 feet in height. Given that the Quigley's own house plus existing trees would block views for potential house sites west of the Quigley's house, combined with the fact that the area west of the Quigley's house slopes gently in the opposite direction, it is likely that some potential home sites on the Quigley property would not have Mt. Diablo views in any case. The Planning Commission found the mitigations being imposed to protect the Quigley's view of Mount Diablo to be satisfactory. B. Emshee Lane may be extended into a large undeveloped parcel to the west causing a great increase in traffic on a small private road. Staff Response: The applicant has stated that the adjacent property has no access rights to use Emshee Lane and they also do not want such traffic to occur. Condition of Approval No. 18 prohibits an extension and requires a deed restriction prohibiting any road connection to the west. C. The 20' width of the Emshee Lane would cause parking problems endangering lives of future inhabitants because emergency vehicles could not pass. Staff Response: The Planning Commission determined that this point has been adequately March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#SD048839 Page 4 addressed by several mitigations requiring additional on-street parking, additional off-street parking and larger than minimum garages so that the garage space could potentially be used for storage in addition to parking. The Fire Protection District is satisfied with the project as conditioned and with the street width and emergency vehicle access being provided to the west. It was incorrectly stated by staff at the Planning Commission appeal hearing that the Fire District did the enforcement, but that is principally only correct in regard to the original installation and approval. Parking restrictions in fire lanes are enforced by the Sheriff's Office. D. Sidewalks should be provided throughout the project. Staff Response: The County's adopted private street standards do not require sidewalks, although General Plan policies encourage pedestrian access where feasible. The applicants are providing an unusual amount of off-site walkway construction including 780 +/- feet of paved walkways on Blum Road for Phases I and II in addition to 490+/- feet of paved walkway on Emshee Lane for Phase II. The area of Emshee Lane without sidewalks has the least available street width for sidewalks and is the area with the least traffic. Explorer Way, the private street in Phase I did not provide for any walkways. E. The construction of the project would cause temporary dust and debris problems during construction. The County has not been responsive to the Quigley's complaints during the construction of Phase 1. Staff Response: Mr. and Mrs. Quigley who reside at the end of Explorer Way have complained about the construction activity that has affected them during the construction of Phase I. They have stated that they have been subject to excessive dust particularly during the grading phase of Phase I. While these concerns are also addressed in their appeal of Phase ll, it would seem that Phase II would not have as much of an affect on them due to temporary construction activity as compared to Phase I. Emshee Lane is not an access road for Mr. and Mrs. Quigley. Dust control during grading is regulated by the Grading Ordinance and enforced by the Grading Division of the Building Inspection Department. The name of a contact person in that Department has been given to the Quigleys. The Building Inspection Department has diligently worked with the applicant and the Quigleys to achieve compliance with dust control requirements and will continue to do so. F. The area is deficient in neighborhood parks and the future residents would have insufficient places to play. Staff Response: The appellants suggest the use of one of the lots to be a park for the area. Generally, provisions of the Government Code pre-empt this subject. Under the Quimby Act, local jurisdictions are limited to the imposition of an in-lieu fee that has been set under applicable formulas. Under the existing County Park Dedication Ordinance, $2000 per lot is collected to off-set the project's impact on parks. March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#SD048839 Page 5 G. A Homeowners association should be provided to maintain a park and the private streets. Staff Response: The private street will be maintained by a road maintenance agreement required by the Public Works Department. A park is not warranted for a 16-lot subdivision. H. While a condition of approval was added to require notice for planned utility outages, that condition would not address accidental interruptions, and that the appellants have had to endure numerous utility disruptions. Staff Response: It is unlikely that there will be accidental utility disruptions; however, if this does happen, it is less of an impact on the appellants for Phase II, as compared to Phase I, because the appellants' utilities are in Explorer Way not Emshee Lane. Furthermore,the Commission added another condition requiring 24-hour notice to neighbors if utilities are to be cut off because of construction. I. The developers have brought in large amounts of dirt onto the Phase 11 site ahead of any County approval to make the property higher. Staff Response: The Grading Division has reviewed this information and determined that the temporary stockpiling of dirt in advance of approval was not a violation. Bringing in fill would not allow the houses to be taller because the height restrictions contained in the conditions of approval are based on heights above sea level, and also because of how building height is measured under the Zoning Ordinance, measuring from the pre-existing grade. The bringing in of additional fill would not allow these maximum heights to be increased because building heights are measured from the pre-existing grade under the Zoning Ordinance. V. STATUTORY TIME LIMITS TO ACT Caution Should be Exercised Prior to Closure of Public Hearing if the Matter May be Continued to a Future Board of Supervisors Meeting Government Code Section 66452.5 of the Subdivision Map Act imposes time limits in the Board of Supervisors' processing of this appeal of a subdivision action by the Planning Commission. Once the Board closes the hearing, within 10 (calendar) days the Board is required to render its decision on the appeal and declare its findings. Findings may be based upon the testimony and documents produced before the Board, Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, and must include findings required by the Map Act. The Board may sustain, modify, reject or overrule any recommendations or rulings of the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, and may make any findings which are not inconsistent with the Map Act or Subdivision Ordinance. If the Board does not act upon the appeal within the 10-day time limit of the Map Act, the tentative map, insofar as it complies with applicable requirements of the Map Act and the Subdivision Ordinance is deemed approved as last approved by the County Planning March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File##SD048839 Page 6 Commission, provided it complies with all applicable requirements of the Map Act and Subdivision Ordinance. Further, it is the duty of the Clerk of the Board to certify or state that approval. Therefore, if the Board of Supervisors does not render a decision on the appeal within the 10- day time limit of the Map Act, the Board is prevented from applying modifications to the Planning Commission action it might deem to be appropriate based on the testimony and evidence presented at the appeal hearing. By contrast, there is no time limit(and no risk of automatic approval)associated with the Board continuing the appeal to a future Board meeting date provided that the hearing is kept open. VI. CONCLUSION: The Zoning Administrator and County Planning Commission have found the project to be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and any related General Plan policies that apply to the area. They also determined that the findings could be made for the two minor variances and the exception to cul-de-sac length. An unusual amount of effort was given to addressing the impacts on abutting properties. Staff recommends that the Board sustain the County Planning Commission's approval of S D048839. GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\SD048839BdOrder3-1-1.doc ADDENDUM DA 03/01/05 On this day, the Board considered the appeal of Joe and Alice Quigley of the County Planning Commission''s approval of a tentative map (Subdivision 048839)to subdivide 3.66 acres into 16 single family lots located near the western terminus of Emshee Lane in the Martinez area. The staff report was presented by Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Department. The Appellant, Alice Quigley, and legal representative, Bonnie Johnson, Esquire, provided testimony for the Board's consideration. The Chair invited the public to comment on the matter. The following persons presented testimony: David Margen, 18 Hillside Court, Berkeley; James Marieiro, Blum Road Alert, 13 8 Clipper Lane, Martinez; Edward Leigh, 4610 Blum Road, Martinez, Mike Cladwell, 109 Clipper Lane, Martinez; John Padlo, 4630 Blum Road, Martinez, Troy Carloch, 40 Austen Way, Martinez; Bret Mapson, 150 Hill Side Lane, Martinez. Supervisor Uilkema requested that staff comment upon concerns including the appropriateness of 24 hour notification of electrical and water utility service interruption, passage for emergency vehicles on the access road, parking along the access road, and monitoring of the construction site to ensure compliance with all of the Conditions of Approval; in particular,the observance of proper work hours. The Supervisor also inquired about the levy of fines for infractions. Ms. Kutsuris noted that Condition of Approval No. 18 addresses the issue of access by emergency vehicles, and suggested it would be possible to add permit conditions to prohibit parking along the access roads and require deed-disclosure for all of the lots to ensure future purchasers were aware of the restriction on parking. Ms. Kutsuris also observed that because the road is a private road, enforcement responsibility would rest with the Sheriff's Department. She further indicated that it would be possible to add a permit condition to address monitoring of the site for compliance with the conditions of approval, and though levy of fines may or may not be possible, violations could be subject to a stop work order, and notice under the County code for possible revocation of the permit. The Community Development Department and County Counsel concurred that the hearing could be closed, and desired changes incorporated on this date. Having held a public hearing and considering the matter, the Board took the following actions; 1. CLOSED the public hearing; 2. ACCEPTED the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for the project as adequate and found it to be consistent with State and County CEQA Guidelines; 3. DENIED the appeal by Joe and Alice Quigley and UPHELD the County Planning Commission's approval of Subdivision 048839 subject to conditions; 4. ADOPTED the findings of the County Planning Commission as the basis for the decision; 5. DIRECTED that permit conditions be implemented to: a. prohibit parking along the access road b. require deed notification for all of the lots of the restriction on parking c. upon the finding by the County Zoning Administrator that there are a specified number of verifiable or confirmed violations of an permit condition of the subdivision, the applicant is responsible for paying all County costs to retain a monitor to ensure that work hours and other restrictions are adhered to for the duration of the project; 6. AMENDED Condition of Approval#27 to alter the requirement for 24 hour notice of interruption of utilities to be 48 hours notice; 7. and DIRECTED staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. ADDENDUM D.4 03/01/05 Page 212 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS Resolution No. 7-2005 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE APPEAL OF JOE AND ALICE QUIGLEY OF SUBDIVISION 048839, DAVNI DEVELOPMENT, LLC (APPLICANT), JAMES FARR (OWNER) FOR A 16-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON EMSHEE LANE NEAR BLUM ROAD IN THE MARTINEZ AREA. WHEREAS, on April 15, 2004 Davni Development, LLC filed an application with the Community Development Department for a 16-lot residential subdivision on Emshee Lane in the R-7 district in the Martinez area, and WHEREAS, staff has determined that based on an Initial Study the proposed project could have potentially significant impacts on the environment but that mitigation measures were incorporated into the project approval and agreed to by the developer so that the impacts would be reduced to less than significant. A notice regarding the proposed adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and distributed in conformance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15072, and; WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing having been lawfully given, the Zoning Administrator held a hearing on November 29, 2004 which was continued to December 13, 2004 at which time the Zoning Administrator after finding that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was adequate found the proposal to be consistent with the General Plan and that the required findings for the two variances and an exception to the cul-de-sac length restriction could be made, approved SD048839 subject to modified conditions, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator's action was duly appealed by Joe and Alice Quigley on December 23, 2004, and that matter was then scheduled for action by the County Planning Commission, and WHEREAS, notice of the hearing having been lawfully given, the County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the appeal on January 25, 2005, and during the public hearing the Commission considered comments from the appellant who was a project neighbor, as well as from the applicant and from members of the public who wished to speak both for and against the appeal, and WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated all the testimony, evidence and comments submitted in this matter; and whereas the County Planning Commission determined that the required findings could be made as follows: 1 A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated 15 additional AM and PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. 2. Drainage and Flood Control: The project's conditions of approval require that the applicant collect and convey all storm water entering or originating within the project to an adequate storm drainage facility. A storm drainage agreement is being worked out by applicant to allow drainage from this development to discharge into a roadside ditch system prior to crossing Blum Road in two existing culverts, and discharging onto property owned by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD). The applicant will need to obtain drainage releases from the downstream property owners, including CCCSD and a private property owner, as a condition of approval for this development. The Final Map cannot be filed until the collect and convey requirement have been met. 3. Water and Waste Disposal: The project site is within the Contra Costa Water District and Mountain View Sanitation District service areas. The applicant is required to comply with the requirements of these service districts. Prior to filing the final map, the applicant is required to supply "will-serve" letters from these districts to ensure that capacity exists to support the development. 4. Fire Protection: The site is in the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and must comply with requirements of the District. The closest fire station (Station 9) at 209 Center Avenue is 1.7 miles away from the subject site (4510 Blum Road). Because the project site does not lie within the 1-1/2 mile requirement sprinkler systems shall be required. 5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station per 1,000 population. The small population increase associated with this project is not significant. Prior to filing the Final Map, the applicant is required to establish a police services tax district to mitigate the impacts of the development on police services. 6. Parks & Recreation: The proposed project will have a minor cumulative effect on demand for park and recreation facilities, and is subject to payment of park dedication fees in the amount of$2,000 per residential parcel to mitigate impacts. 7. Schools: The proposed project will have a minor cumulative effect on the school district. Prior to issuance of building permits, school fees must be paid to mitigate impacts to the school district. B. Subdivision Findings 1. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design 2 and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. Protect Finding. The project is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan. The land use designation is SH, which calls for Single-Family Residential High- Density development with an allowed density of 5.0 to 7.2 dwelling units/net acre. The tentative map provides for 16 residential lots on a 2.97-net acre parcel or 5.38 units per acre, which complies with the density requirement. The project is consistent with the policies for the Pacheco area. With the mitigation measures required the project would not cause significant impacts to the environment. 2. Required Finding The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Proiect Finding Public Works requires that the project comply with collect and convey regulations and design standards for construction of private roads. Frontage improvements including a walkway and piped drainage system are being provided along Blum Road. Creek structure setbacks are not required because there are no creeks on the property. 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, which includes provisions for special interior noise reduction, which is made necessary by proximity to Buchanan Field. C. Approval of Variances 1. Required Finding That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Project Finding: Lot 16 - 56-feet Average Lot Width Requested: The granting of this variance is not a special privilege. The average lot width formula, when strictly applied to flag lots nearly always produces a result that does not conform to the minimum average lot width requirement. However, with the removal of the `pole))portion of the flag lot the functional portion of the parcel would provide a buildable area consistent with many of the lots in the area, being about 60 feet in width. Lot 2 - Consideration of Reduced Rear Yard of 10 Feet: The intent of the R-7 zoning district is to create a high density of single-family residences, while at the same time creating a functional and desirable neighborhood. Allowing a reduced rear yard for Lot 2 would create the design flexibility to allow aone-story house which reduces the impacts on an existing adjacent parcel. The variance would not grant a special privilege to the lot but rather allow the subject lot to be developed with a house size similar to other lots in the vicinity and zone. 3 2. Required Finding_ That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Project Finding.• Lot 16— 56 -feet Average Lot Width Requested: The special circumstance is the shape of the existing parcel because it creates a pole or handle" effect with the division of the property. This "handle" or `flag lot" creates an unusual shaped lot. Staff could find no other design alternatives that would allow elimination of this variance. The provision of road access to the subdivision creates this unique shape and that is why staff recommends granting of this variance. The average lot width of Lot 16 is adequate to accommodate a house similar to those in the vicinity. The location of the existing house on Lot 15 creates a special circumstance that unusually limits the ability to create a fully conforming Lot]6. Lot 2 -Consideration of Reduced Rear Yard of 10 Feet: Because of the location of this lot in relation to the location and orientation an adjoining lot to the north, a special circumstance is created whereby subject lot, if developed in a conforming manner would be unusually disadvantaged by its topography and gradient. Without granting a variance for Lot 2 it will be deprived of the opportunity to develop in a manner similar to what other lots in the surrounding neighborhood already enjoy. The purpose of this variance is to provide a mitigation to an adjacent property owner. 3. Required Finding: That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Proiect Finding: Lot 16 - 56-feet Average Lot Width Requested: The intent of the R-7 zoning district is to allow for single-family residential development that provides compatibility with the surrounding uses. The functional area of the proposed parcel does substantially meet the intent of the zoning district because the parcel is able to site a residence and comply with setbacks. All other applicable zoning standards that are required will be met. The requirement for a Small Lot Review will provide an additional opportunity to assure neighborhood compatibility. Lot 2 - Consideration of Reduced Rear Yard of 10 Feet: The intent of the R-7 zoning district is to create a high density of single-family residences, while maintaining a suburban residential feel. The granting of the reduced rear yard will provide the design flexibility to enhance the usable open space on the subject lot and will benefit the adjacent lot to the north by allowing aone-story house where atwo-story house would adversely impact the neighboring property. 4 D. Allowing aCul-De-Sac Loner Than 700 Feet and Allowing More Than 16 Lots to Be Served by the Cul-de-sac per Section 92-6.002 1. Required Finding: That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property; The Blum Road area was historically cut off by the Contra Costa Canal to the west and railroad tracks to the north, resulting in several cul-de-sac streets that exceed 700 feet in their existing condition. 2. Required Finding: That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; If the 700 foot maximum were strictly enforced the property which extends over 1000 feet in from Blum Road would be deprived of substantial property rights. Since there are four existing houses presently on the cul-de-sac, the subject property would be limited to 12 houses unless an exception was granted to the number of lots to be served by a cul-de-sac. This result would be inconsistent with General Plan policies promoting infill development and with the land use designation for the subject property. 3. Required Finding; That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. A principal purpose of a cul-de-sac maximum length is to promote improved emergency vehicle access. This purpose is being achieved by the provision of an emergency vehicle access to the west and by requiring additional fire protection being built into the development such as an automatic residential fire sprinkler system. The existing homes on Emshee Lane will benefit from improved access. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission, at its meeting January 25, by a 7-0 vote, denied the appeal and sustained the Zoning Administrator's action in approving SD048839 subject to conditions of approval as modified during that hearing. 5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the County 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, AYES: Commissioners- Clark, Battaglia, Gaddis, Mehlman, Terrell, Snyder, and Wong NOES: Commissioners- None ABSENT: Commissioners- None ABSTAIN: Commissioner None Marvin Terrell, CHAIRMAN Chair of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California On February 3, 2005, the Community Development Department received an appeal of the County Planning Commission's action on the project from Joe and Alice Quigley. ATTEST: DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa County, State of California StaffReports:SD048839Reso7-2005 6 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVA L FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE SD048839 AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON JANUARY 25, 2005 A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated 15 additional AM and PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. 2. Drainage and Flood Control: The project's conditions of approval require that the applicant collect and convey all storm water entering or originating within the project to an adequate storm drainage facility. The Public Works Department finds that applicant's proposed drainage improvements to be acceptable subject to the conditions of approval requested by that department. 3. Water: The project site is within the Contra Costa Water District service area. The applicant is required to comply with the requirements of the water districts. 4. Sanitary Sewer: The project site is within the Mountain View Sanitary District service area. The applicant is required to comply with the requirements of the sewer district. 5. Fire Protection: The site is in the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and must comply with requirements of the District. The closest fire station (Station 9) at 209 Center Avenue is 1.7 miles away from the subject site. Because the project site does not lie within the 1-Y2 mile requirement sprinkler systems shall be required. 6. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station per 1,000 population. The small population increase associated with this project is not significant. Prior to filing the Final Map, the applicant is required to establish a police services tax district to mitigate the impacts of the development on police services. 7. Parks & Recreation: The proposed project will have a minor cumulative effect on demand for park and recreation facilities, and is subj ect to payment of park dedication fees in the amount of$2,000 per residential parcel to mitigate impacts. B. Approval of Tentative Map • Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it finds 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 Proiect Finding. The project is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan. The land use designation is SH, which calls for Single-Family Residential High- Density development with an allowed density of 5.0 to 7.2 dwelling units/net acre. The tentative map provides for 16 residential lots on a 2.97-net acre parcel or 5.38 units per acre, which complies with the density requirement. The project is consistent with the policies for the Pacheco area. With the mitigation measures required 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: Public Works requires that the project comply with collect and convey regulations and design standards for construction of private roads. Frontage improvements including a walkway and piped drainage system are being provided along Blum Road. Creek structure setback are not required because there are no creeks on the property. 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, which includes provisions for special interior noise reduction, which is made necessary by proximity to Buchanan Field. C. Approval of Variances • Required Finding: That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Project Finding: Lot 16 - 56-feet Average Lot Width Requested: The granting of this variance is not a special privilege. The average lot width formula, when strictly applied to flag lots nearly always produces a result that does not conform to the minimum average lot width requirement. However, with the removal of the pole"portion of the flag lot the functional portion of the parcel would provide a buildable area consistent with many of the lots in the area, although only about 60 feet in width. Lot 2 - Consideration of Reduced Rear Yard of 10 Feet: The intent of the R-7 zoning district is to create a high density of single family residences, while at the same time creating a functional and desirable neighborhood. Allowing a reduced rear yard for Lot 2 would create the design flexibility to allow aone-story house which reduces the impacts on an existing adjacent parcel. The variance would not grant a special privilege to the lot but rather allow the subject lot to be developed with a house size similar to other lots in the vicinity and zone. • Required Finding: That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject 3 property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Proiect Finding: Lot 16—56 -feet Average Lot Width Requested: The special circumstance is the shape of the existing parcel because it creates a pole or handle" effect with the division of the property. This "handle" or `flag lot" creates an unusual shaped lot. Staff could find no other design alternatives that would allow elimination of this variance. The provision of road access to the subdivision creates this unique shape and that is why staff recommends granting of this variance. The average lot width of Lot 16 is adequate to accommodate a house similar to those in the vicinity. The location of the existing house on Lot 15 creates a special circumstance that unusually limits the ability to create a fully conforming Lot]6. Lot 2 -Consideration of Reduced Rear Yard of 10 Feet: Because of the location of this lot in relation to the location and orientation an adjoining lot to the north, a special circumstance is created whereby subject lot, if developed in a conforming manner would be unusually disadvantaged by its topography and gradient. Without granting a variance for Lot 2 it will be deprived of the opportunity to develop in a manner similar to what other lots in the surrounding neighborhood already enjoy. The purpose of this variance is to provide a mitigation to an adjacent property owner. • Required Finding: That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Proiect Finding.• Lot 16 - 56-feet Average Lot Width Requested: The intent of the R-7 zoning district is to allow for single-family residential development that provides compatibility with the surrounding uses. The functional area of the proposed parcel does substantially meet the intent of the zoning district because the parcel is able to site a residence and comply with setbacks. All other applicable zoning standards that are required will be met. The requirement for a Small Lot Review will provide an additional opportunity to assure neighborhood compatibility. Lot 2 - Consideration of Reduced Rear Yard of 10 Feet: The intent of the R-7 zoning district is to create a high density of single-family residences, while maintaining a suburban residential feel. The granting of the reduced rear yard will provide the design flexibility to enhance the usable open space on the subject lot and will benefit the adjacent lot to the north by allowing aone-story house where atwo-story house would adversely impact the neighboring property. 4 D. Allowing aCul-De-Sac Loner Than 700 Feet and Allowing More Than 16 Lots to Be Served by the Cul-de-sac per Section 92-6.002 (1) That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property; The Blum Road area was historically cut off by the Contra Costa Canal to the west and railroad tracks to the north, resulting in several cul-de-sac streets that exceed 700 feet in their existing condition. (2) That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; If the 700 foot maximum were strictly enforced the property which extends over 1000 feet in from Blum Road would be deprived of substantial property rights. Since there are four existing houses presently on the cul-de-sac, the subject property would be limited to 12 houses unless an exception was granted to the number of lots to be served by a cul-de-sac. This result would be inconsistent with General Plan policies promoting infill development and with the land use designation for the subject property. (3) That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. A principal purpose of a cul-de-sac maximums is to promote improved emergency vehicle access. This purpose is being achieved by the provision of an emergency vehicle access to the west and by requiring additional fire protection being built into the development such as an automatic residential fire sprinkler system. The existing homes on Emshee Lane will benefit from improved access. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Administration 1. This application is approved, as generally shown on the Tentative Map received June 11, 2004 by the Community Development Department for 16 lots on a 3.66-acre (gross) parcel, and as shown on the Lot 15 detail dated April 19, 2004, which demonstrates that Lot 15 shall have yards and setbacks conforming with the R-7 regulations. 2. This approval is based on the exhibits received by the Community Development Department listed as follows: A. Soils Report prepared by Cal Engineering and Geology dated April 5 2004. B. Environmental Noise Survey prepared by Armin Wright dated April 12, 2004. C. Arborist's Report prepared by National Tree and Garden Company dated received April 27, 2004. 5 3. Approval is granted to allow variances that meet the requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as follows: • 70-foot average lot width required. Parcel 16-- 56 foot average lot width granted • 15 foot minimum rear yard required. Parcel 2, 10 foot rear yard granted. 4. This application is subject to an initial application fee of$8533.00, which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If additional fees are owed, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. 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 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. Design Guidelines 6. Because Lot 16 does not meet the average width standard of the R-7 zoning district, Lot 16 shall be required to obtain approval of a "Small Lot Design Review" prior to the issuance of building permits pursuant to the Small Lot Ordinance {Ord. Code Section 82-10.002 (c)J. This application requires a fee and then sends a notice to the neighbors that are within 300-feet of that parcel. 7. An evergreen landscaping screen shall be provided along the common property line between Lots 2, 3, and 4 and the adjacent parcel to the north (APN 159-170-028). At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lots 2, 3 & 4, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. The landscaping shall consist of 5- gallon drought tolerant shrubs, five feet on center and shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. The landscape screen shall be maintained by the new owners of Lots 2, 3 & 4. A deed disclosure shall be 6 provided for Lots 2, 3, & 4 requiring the maintenance of the landscape screen. The deed disclosure shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to recordation of the final map. 8. The developer shall provide and install at least two 15-gallon minimum tree of a species acceptable to the Zoning Administrator to the buyer of each house (Lots 1 through 14). The developer shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the trees were installed prior to the release of a final inspection on the last lot of Lots 1-14, or post a bond if the houses are fnalled and not sold (Mitigation Measure) 9. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Lots 1 or 14, the developer shall provide to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval a tree planting plan for these two lots near the Emshee Lane right-of-way. The plan shall provide for at least five replacement trees which shall be 24- inch boxed trees or larger, and of a species acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. The trees shall be placed at locations acceptable to the Zoning Administrator to provide a sense of entry to the project. The developer shall be responsible for providing an automatic irrigation system for the trees. The developer shall provide a bond guaranteeing the survival of the trees for two years after final inspection of the last building permit for Lot 1 or 14. These larger trees are in addition to the two trees per lot requirement of Condition of Approval No. 8. 10. Except for the existing house on Lot 15, there shall be provided at least one additional parking space per dwelling unit, in addition to the minimum two spaces required by the R-7 zone. These spaces shall be provided either on the street on either side of Emshee Lane by widening the pavement to 28 feet, or off-street by providing a third space on a lot. Of the 15 additional spaces required by this condition, the number to be provided on-site shall be reduced by the number provided on-street. Those spaces that are provided on-site shall be independently accessible (non-tandem). The Zoning Administrator shall receive a parking plan for review and approval prior to recording the final map. The purpose of this plan is to provide the off-street parking spaces to the lots that are the more distant from the on-street spaces. (Mitigation Measure) 11. The two-car garages provided for the new homes on Lots 1 through 14 shall contain at least 450 square feet of interior space with a minimum dimension of 20 feet. (Mitigation Measure) 12. A 4'-6" wide A.C. or concrete walkway the design of which shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department shall be provided on Emshee Lane between the Blum Road walkway and the eastern boundary of Lot 1. (Note: Since the walkway, on-street parking and tree planting may all occur on the north side of Emshee Lane within the portion with a 40 foot wide right-of-way, the centerline of the 20 foot wide paved section may be located south of the centerline of the right-of way to allow more space on the north.) CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF THE FINAL MAP Condition of Approval Compliance 13. 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. Airport Noise 14. A deed disclosure for each new residential parcel shall be recorded with the Final Map. This disclosure shall indicate that the development is near an airport and located under, or in close proximity to, the airport's traffic patterns. The statement shall also indicate that the area is subject to aircraft overflights and associated noise. The disclosure shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval prior to filing. (Mitigation Measure) 15. Buildings shall be designed to comply with the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments standards outlined in the General Plan. Structural design shall be based on the recommendations of an acoustical study of the site by an acoustical engineer to assure that interior noise levels do not exceed a DNL of 45 dB. Prior to issuance of building permits, an acoustical engineer must certify that the final design meets these interior noise standards. (Mitigation Measure) Police Services District 16. The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain and augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by this subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per parcel annual amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) then 8 established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to filing the Final Map. The property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of holding the election, payable at the time the election is requested by the owner. Allow a minimum of three to four months for processing. Fire Protection District 17. A deed disclosure for each new residential lot shall be recorded with the Final Map. This disclosure shall indicate that "The proposed structure has been designed with an automatic interior fire- suppression sprinkler system that meets the design standards of the Contra Costa Fire Protection District. This provision is required at least in part so as to allow a plan consistency determination associated with the approval of the Muir Ranch II subdivision." 18. A gated emergency vehicle access meeting the requirements of the Contra Costa Fire Protection District shall be provided from the western terminus of Emshee Lane to the adjacent property to the west. Other than said emergency vehicle access, there shall be no through street connection between subject subdivision and the abutting property to the west. This prohibition shall be recorded in a deed restriction on Lots 7 & 8 prior to filing the final map. Deed Disclosure for Height Limit on Lots 1, 2, 13 & 14 19. At least 30 days prior to filing a Final Map, the applicant shall submit a deed restriction for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that limits the maximum height for the highest ridgeline of a residence on Lots 1, 2, 13 & 14 to 104 feet above Mean Sea Level (assume Contra Costa County benchmark # 3472, elevation 46.04 feet). The height of the house on Lot 2 shall be limited to 20 feet from finished grade to ridge of roof. Additionally, prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall provide certified pad heights combined with construction drawings showing building elevations that verify the height of the proposed homes, for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS Grading and Erosion Control 20. At least 30 days prior to issuance of grading permits, grading plans shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The grading 9 plans shall be accompanied by an erosion control plan that shall provide for the following measures: A. Temporary silt fences and straw bales; B. Performing maintenance during the winter rainy season, as necessary; C. Regular inspections by the project engineer during the winter rainy season; D. Spot inspections during/immediately following severe storms. Fences/Retaining Walls 21. 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 fencing between units (located within the drainage easement) shall be designed so that it can easily be removed in the event that maintenance work is necessary within the easement. 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, unless approved by the Zoning Administrator and a building permit is issued for the wall. 22. For fence/retaining walls that occur within a required setback or yard, wherever a pad elevation differential between two adjacent lots or between any lot on the subject subdivision with an abutting property, produces the need for a retaining wall two feet high or greater, a one and one-half foot minimum horizontal separation of plantable soil shall be provided between the retaining wall and any fence taller than four (4) feet. CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS Child Care 23. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay a fee of $400.00 per lot/unit toward childcare facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. Park Dedication 24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of$2,000 per residential unit. 10 CONDITIONS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Archaeology 25. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 26. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Construction 27. The applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator, for review and approval, a plan relating to the disconnection and reconnection of the utilities for the existing houses on Emshee Lane as well as any other properties that may be affected by utility disruption. { :...::.::..,::...:..:......................... hk �A ....,..,...,.....,,.,....:....,........................ t ? w el n h.F.......{h................................................... :.... „ ..♦-.-.-.v -v,-.,:.:v::.v:,v v:. .: ......... ......v.. ...ty#v. ......n.v.....,.,...............v....ti r.......t......v%,m..h...,»: ........v...4n 4 v v -y. .4 vv ..h W .\♦ w-.vnn.::n•:.vv:.v.-::::nv w:::::::-:.+v:w:::.v vtr:h••v..:.?Y.v ??•}:?vi..?;?vv� ........................:........................ >:\.:.....hv...»..............,.+.......................,.....................n............v....,.»R,n\,.»$v h\v.rii,.»..�,.?•.i\�,.,.,.tr..\.�.,..�C4\..... ..\ ?....v..... %• ...4.::....Lt":i{v..... ......:.........:..::vw.v..t ..v....,..v....n.,.,..v v.v...,,t r.n.n.............,.n.v........... 2 � .h ............. ..,.vn:..,.,.v,.v:.:v.,.♦...v,v»{v.i••. r.v:-.v:?-r.,........v... ..........., p .,}}>N?^.::>.:v% r.Q.n .;.. ......... }.v k.... ....v....... .r................w::::.v:.v.......v.... .. ,.. 4, \..., ...?v. v-,i•:.'•'J: .,.fir i:.::::::•.::,•:::;.,..:.:},.>...»,.:..a't.:.?„\....,..,...,.., .;h........r.tr.,.,..r.,,.,......a...................�.-.............. ..,...... .�h4,»,..4,a4.,.,,,r<+.,k.•.�..2..i: ..4 .:,. .�::d.,e:.,;.}::{`,wa.:•:...:?\:.: .............v.,....{........ .... ..r. h .......v...................................v ,.v{..v.$�...try vv nv.,r it .? ....by}.�`{n. .. ................::.Y-v:...............v..4+\•:vv,..a$ v4v .......,%.the-, ,.:,,.♦v r...:v ,14,-v.....v,v •..ii{{::i V�,ham`y.•: y ,:Y4:•> �. '::�.$:,::'.;;�•{ -...2E?,;?;>':.•': N.., w:•: ........................... .......... .... .4...... .,- ....r..................:... .....,,......2.r...,»?.....„-..,, ♦`C,?,;?,. ,:?C ,?C.,.,a,'�•...d:...,,x,.,:h..,...h,,....,...,.,.... ,:-..hh,...?:.,r .4:. .,..»,.,.....\..,.+.,£.\,.,,�.,::?.,.....,.ra.\,..♦.,.?......,.,,....., 4 , 5..4.x-r•;{• ..4..>::{,w:••.,•u.�::•::::?+::{.:y:.:....�:. , „ ::: .....v r............»..r.......................,.....r.....,?+i?:.h'{h,'�,'� , .�� .:-...:. ... .. .. �..... .....................................................................}w}.....{w{v.. `nv�. .,?•.l'•\4:;{i•i4;;?•}:?�??•:{vn.nhv..v.n.....,....:..>.t ..;h•:...,..n....n.\-}:r:>.•4..?C•{.?•}.v•4}:♦:.?••.vt{-4•, ........:>.:.:..,,{»,.v.4 tvv.•,v,. ......... . . .v > �yS ....... .......{.... ..... ...............4.......v.•. v v nt.\. .+ ':'' .,":tiCvri t{ �......v.?:4.h2v,:. M ..�-n. h,$v�hJn. >> r:4'•%4 vv4w•:.n}v.•.}vY,;-x}v%m}}iC,,:n:{{^?r;.?:tr:{{{.i?r''.;ri:i}'w:v•.:4:•}ib.,+...r.v..v ......>.:..v.: .::.vv.... .. ..:.:a>.y......v.....•.......•:.v...h.nv}h:;.}: .,:.:.....v.n%.>.h»ilvvr.,`u$v.,»,, .??•., ?� �. �?..Sn.?v n 4.v.».,.v.J,».v.?v.v.hv.h........».,..:. v0.»A?v......,w.,�:. :•.+'{ ,\:}:�„{r{r;: } •:::::::,:.a.....:}..vyw:,. h. :{S-{:.:♦n v. \v..,n....n�.:.?•::.vr.»»..:.r... :}?:::::::..:.::x:.v.•....•:.-v.?,..4i:�:,a v� •b%', .4ar..> ..�'... \. . . ..v.v v� h\�+l{ n.....?..�L .?^,........v... .v....,..,.... ..... .. ..v..?.. vl'kv,.v\♦,.?.\.. � .}?. :4:5:•..:.::,vn:.}:4}};{.}}ym'w:}:.};},:{^?:^::{4:••} :•ti+•i%{4'•}:., .4.T,?�:4}i... v^$} ......v.n4 hv.'�.v.•...?n...4.i?vv n.., .,............ ...............................:.:.::.v...:.w:::Av v::•:•:v.,-+:.v:v..Y......... \ ..v ...y�.. 4\?.1 }i•>. �??:iC?Y:ti$:v,?+}.:;:%?.t?:_„iii:;:•,:v,•'i,:0: ......:....:...v...........:v.%.?:.:•:tb;.•A:•w:.:.%.F.?}F•.F.Y.{:....... 28. 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. The Zoning Administrator may modify the construction hours upon prior notification to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property. 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. 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. 11 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. I. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances may require a work stoppage. Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted. The Dust program will include measures (e.g. watering active grading areas, onsite wheel washing) to ensure Blum Road is kept free from soil debris that might be carried from the site. J. The applicant shall provide an equipment and construction parking site plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. This area shall not restrict access to any residence not a part of the subdivision. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUBDIVISION 04-8839 Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9, and Title 10 of the County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the tentative parcel map submitted to Community Development on June 11, 2004. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP. General Requirements: 29. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions there from must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the Tentative Map dated June 11, 2004. 12 30. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this Subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division. Roadway Improvements (Blum Road): 31. Applicant shall construct a street type connection with 20-foot radii returns in lieu of a standard driveway depression at the intersection of the proposed private road with Blum Road, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. 32. Applicant shall construct a 5-foot wide asphalt concrete path and a 3-foot wide roadside swale along the west side of Blum Road extending south from the private road connection for Subdivision 8738 to the Type "B" inlet constructed by Subdivision 8738. Roadside swales along this length shall be paved with asphalt concrete at driveway locations along Blum Road. All improvements will be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Access to Adjoining Property: Proof of Access 33. Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. Encroachment Permit 34. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center, if necessary, for construction of driveways or other improvements within the right of way of Blum Road. Private Road: 35. Applicant shall construct the private roadway system to current County Private Road Standards with a minimum traveled width of 20 feet within a minimum 25-foot easement and additional 5-foot public utility easements. 36. Applicant shall construct a paved turnaround at the end of the proposed private road. 13 Sight Distance: 37. Provide sight distance at the intersection of the private road and Blum Road for a through traffic design speed of 30 miles per hour. Landscaping, walls, fences, and signs must be placed to maintain adequate sight distance. 38. Provide sight distance at the driveway intersections along the private road for a design speed of 25 miles per hour. Parking: 39. "No Parking" signs shall be installed along the private road subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Underground Utilities: 40. All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Maintenance of Facilities: 41. 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. Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey 42. The applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating on this property without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. 43. The applicant shall convey storm drainage from the project site along the west side of Blum Road to the Type "B" inlet to be constructed by Subdivision 8738. Alternately drainage may be proposed on the east side of Blum Road in a manner acceptable to the Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain drainage releases from the downstream property owners—the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) and the private property owner located at 47 Austen Way. 44. The applicant shall identify how storm water entering or originating on Lots 15 and 16 will be collected and conveyed in accordance with Division 914 of 14 the Ordinance Code. 45. A 10-foot wide private drainage easement in favor of the upstream property owner(s) shall be created over any lot conveying private storm water runoff from another lot or parcel. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 46. The applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the Ordinance Code and Public Works Design Standards. 47. Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES): 48. 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, or Central Valley—Region IV). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMP's) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate, wherever feasible, the following long-term BMP's in accordance with the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage: - Trash bins shall be sealed to prevent leakage, OR, shall be located within a covered enclosure. - Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. - Stencil all storm drain inlets - Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing runoff to landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter. - Filtering inlets. - Shallow roadside and on-site grassy swales. - Bio-retention basins. - Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to buyers. - Other alternatives, equivalent to the above, as approved by the Public Works Department. 15 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 660005 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). C. This project maybe 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 Martinez Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permits. F. Comply with the requirements of the Mt. View Sanitary District. The Sanitary District has submitted the following. 1. Each building shall be served with a separate side-sewer connected to the new main. The side-sewer to any existing buildings to remain shall be replaced. All side-sewers shall be fitted with standard backwater prevention devices. 16 2. If the existing building is to be removed the developer shall obtain an abandonment permit from the District prior to demolition and the existing lateral abandoned at the main. A credit for this unit will be applied to future connection fees. 3. Any sewer main not located within a public street must have a 15-foot minimum easement dedicated to the sewer district. Structures and trees are not permitted within District easements. The easement may be non-exclusive provided no storm drains or utilities are constructed within five feet of sewer mains. 4. The developer shall submit plans prepared by a registered engineer to the District Engineer for review for all new sanitary sewer construction required by this development. Plans shall conform to the District's Standard Specifications. 5. The developer shall obtain a sewer construction permit, post mainline security and pay plan review, mapping and inspection fees prior to recording the Final Map. 6. The developer shall enter into the District's standard sewer improvement agreement and construct all improvements necessary for the development of the project at no cost to the District. 7. The developer shall pay permit fees for trunk sewer, plant capacity and connection prior to connecting each dwelling unit to the District's system. The District will not issue individual connection permits until after the Sanitary District Board has accepted mainline improvements for maintenance and building foundation have been constructed. 8. Fees shall be charged pursuant to the Ordinance in effect at the time that the permit is issued. Fees are subject to revision by the District Board without notice. G. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa water District. H. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District. The Fire District has submitted the following: 1. The developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 1000 GPM. Required flow shall be delivered from not more than one hydrant flowing while maintaining 20 pounds residual pressure in the main. (903.3)CFC. NOTE: This includes the reduction for the installation of automatic fire sprinklers. 2. The developer shall provide three hydrants of the East Bay type. Hydrant locations will be determined by this office upon submittal of three copies of a tentative map or site plan. (903.4.2)CFC 3. Provide access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20 feet unobstructed width, and not less than 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance, to within 17 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 42 feet, and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus i.e., 37 tons. (902.2)CFC 4. Note: Access roads of 20 feet unobstructed width shall have NO PARKING signs posted and curbs painted red with the words "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" clearly marked. Access as shown appears to comply with these requirements. 5. The developer shall submit three copies of site improvement plans indicating fire apparatus access and turnaround area for review and approval prior to construction. (902.2.2.1) CFC. NOTE: This may be the same submittal as the Hydrant location(s) if necessary. 6. The developer shall provide a computer-aided design (CAD) digital file copy of the subject project upon final approval of the site improvement plans or subdivision map. CAD file shall be saved in an AutoCAD® 2002 file format or DFX file format. Contact this office for current acceptable AutoCAD® version. 7. Access roads and hydrants shall be installed, in service and approved prior to construction. (8704.1) CFC 8. Approved premises identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall contrast with their background and be readily visible from the street (901.4.4) CFC. 9. The homes as proposed shall be protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system complying with NFPA 13D. Submit two sets of plans to this office for review and approval prior to installation. (1003.1) CFC, CCC General Plan. 1. Submit plans to: Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 2010 Geary Road Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 I. Comply with the requirements of the County Office of the Sheriff. J. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Permits are required prior to grading and construction. The fees include but are not limited to the following: Park Dedication $2,000 per residence. Child Care $400 per residence. An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by contacting the Building Inspection Department. 18 K. Police Service District Costs and Necessary Processing Time The applicant is advised that the tax for the police services district is currently set by the Board of Supervisors at $200 per parcel annually(with appropriate future Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments). The annual fee is subject to modification by the Board Of Supervisors in the future. The current fee for holding the election is $800 and is also subject to modification in the future. The applicable tax and fee amounts will be those established by the Board at the time of voting. The applicant is advised that the election process takes from 3 to 4 months and must be completed prior to recording the Final Map. L. Small Lot Reviews If there are any lots that are approved that are ultimately substandard with respect to either lot area or average lot width, prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant will be subject to a public-notice design review process pursuant to the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance (CCC Ord. Code 82-10.0002). G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\SD048839 coa-CPC.doc Rev. 12/15/04—dls 1/26/05 -MH APPEAL LETTER AND PETITION ,t 1 M fIt• 1'} 1 Joe and Alice Quigley , 4500 Blum Road ,a s Martinez, California 94553 DELIVERED BY HAND THIS DATE: February 3, 2005 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Re: County File: SD048839 Muir Ranch Sub-Division, Phase II Emshee Lane, Martinez, CA Dear Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: The following are the points and facts upon which we base this appeal: 1. View : While we appreciate that the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission approved height restrictions on Lots 1, 2, 13, and 14, we request that our panoramic views be preserved by further height restrictions on Lots 3,4,5,10,11,12. We request story poles be erected, as suggested by Commissioner Mehlman, to determine the impact on the views from our property. We hold that erecting homes of the height approved on lots 3,4, 5, 10, 11, and 12 will destroy the views of our future residents. This will result in damages caused to the Quigleys in loss of property value contingent upon the existence of the panoramic views. 2. Heights of Lots 15, 16: While Mr. Henn stated that the pad elevations are 67 feet for Lot 15 and 64 feet for Lot 16, we do not have any documentation of these height restrictions. I have requested said documentation in my letter to Mr. Henn, but received no reply to date. While Mr. Margen testified that the soil transferred from Davni Development Phase I to Davni Development Phase II, was to be used to fill in the elevation differences along the property line between Davni Development Phase II and Caldwell's property. We have since been told by Kevin Dunford, Supervisor New Construction, Building Inspection Department, that Davni Development r Joe and Alice Quigley February 3, 2004 page 2 told him they were merely "storing" the dirt for future developments. We have no idea what the truth is. However, Gary Faria, Grading Inspector, stated to Alice Quigley that a property owner is allowed only two hundred (200) cubic yards of dirt to be imported. On January 20, 2005, Jim Farr stated to the Quigleys that over 1000 to 1300 cubic yards of dirt had been deposited upon his land by Davni Development. Jim Farr stated that he was told there were only "a few loads" to be deposited upon his land. He stated that he was angered when he discovered that he had not been told the truth by Nino Frumenti of Davni Development and that there was a discrepancy. Kevin Dunford stated to Alice Quigley on February 1, 2005, that he had spoken to Gary Faria who stated that Davni was permitted to place this dirt onto Jim Farr's land. If Davni Development is in violation of county codes, we wonder why they are not being sanctioned and forced to remove this dirt. None of what we have been told is consistent with the facts. 3. Opening Emshee Lane to Jim Brannon property: We have serious doubts that the twenty-foot street extending from Lot No. 1 to the end of the 700+ foot cul-de-sac will not be used for public access from Jim Brannon's future development. The planning commission will likely be forced to allow for egress, if only for emergencies. However, for this to be accessible, it is logical that the access will remain open in the future, allowing for heavy traffic beyond the sixteen proposed homes of Davni Development II. This will endanger the residents/children who are forced to walk in the street to gain access to Blum Road. The assertion by David Margen of Davni Development, that there will never be access from Brannon's development to this street, other than emergency vehicles, is not logical considering the length of the egress necessary for Jim Brannon's future development. This egress will necessarily be a long limited street without the additional exit afforded by the twenty-foot wide Emshee Lane. 4. 20 foot width of Emshee Lane: While County staff stated, "The Fire Protection District (FPD) is satisfied with the project as conditioned and with the street width and emergency vehicle access being provided to the west," we worry about the foreseeable street parking and the inability of the fire department to regulate this danger. When the road is blocked for emergency vehicles, the fire department will not have time to "ticket" the violators, and lives may be lost. Also, considering all of the present financial county-wide budgetary cutbacks, the fire department will/does N 1 . r Joe and Alice Quigley February 3, 2004 page 3 not have the ability to oversee the parking violations that may cause the death of a resident. Davni Development made the argument that there are sprinkler systems in all of the homes, and while we appreciate this added deterrent to fire dangers, this does not address the many other causes of the need for emergency vehicles, such as heart attack, home injuries, and other disasters. We are concerned that by approving the limitation of width of this street, and its management of violations, this might mean that FPD is assuming liability for damages served by this narrow street. 5. Sidewalks Davni Development II is currently without sidewalks. As stated above, this forces the residents to walk in the street. If the Board of Supervisors does not now require a sidewalk within this subdivision, there will be no room for their installation at a later date. Commissioner Mehlman stated that sidewalks on one side would be a plus for the Subdivision. He further stated that he lived in a subdivision without sidewalks and found it to be very hazardous for his small children. While Davni Development stated that putting a sidewalk in would cause them to redraft the plot map and lot deeds, this is not construction but a mere paperwork formality that would likely save lives. The sidewalk should be installed on the same side of the street as the asphalt sidewalk now to be installed from Lot No. 1 to Blum Road. 6. FPD to enforce "no parking": While this was stated by Commissioner Snyder at the January 25, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, we are amazed that the Fire Protection District will have the manpower to enforce this "no parking" zone. As stated above, we are more than concerned that this will not be feasible. Perhaps, the Board of Supervisors will balance the real foreseeable dangers of a community without sidewalks and with foreseeable uncontrollable illegal parking with the profitability of this project. 7. Dust and debris problems: The county staff stated that we were given a contact number to call for reporting dust and debris violations. We had no name for a 24/7 county contact person(s) for Davni Development I or Davni Development II. During the Planning Commission hearings, Commissioner Snyder demanded that we call the 1 Joe and Alice Quigley February 3, 2004 page 4 Environmental Protection Agency. Although we had complained over one hundred times, we were never told to contact the EPA. February 1, 2005, we were informed by Kevin Dunford that we were to contact him for this problem, only if the dust and debris were caused by grading on the site. If this dust and debris were caused by road work, then we were to contact Public Works. How we were to make these determinations, as lay persons, was beyond our knowledge. Kevin Dunford also stated that he would limit his inquiries and actions to those violations that had occurred since he took over the project, January 27, 2005, and that all previous violations would have to be dealt with by Ryan Hernandez of Community Development. Clearly, Ryan Hernandez has not been able to successfully address these many, many reported violations. We remain frustrated that the violations have not been addressed, and in fact, seem to be ignored. 8. Area lacks green area for children to play: This community is unique in that it has no safe area for children to play. Blum Road is constantly traveled by large trucks, boats and campers heading to the storage yard at its end. The fields are populated with livestock and are not available to children to play. The lots of these two subdivisions are small and will hold only the youngest of children for play. Therefore, we suggest the use of Lot No. 16, as it requires a variance for a house and would better serve the Davni Developments I and II as a green area. 9. Future Maintenance of the Road and Sidewalks: Commissioner Battaglia mentioned his concern as to how this park would be maintained. We suggest that a Davni Development I and II Homeowner's Association (HOA) be created in the deed to maintain the park, private road, and sidewalks. This would alleviate two prospective, yet foreseeable problems: Maintaining the park and maintaining the private roads. Other lanes off of Blum Road lie in disrepair because such forethought was not executed. A good example of this lack of foresight is Clipper Lane, a private road off of Blum Road. Inspect the poor condition of Clipper Lane, where the residents have the responsibility to maintain it. A HOA could alleviate the problem of who will pay to maintain the road and park. r Q ejoe and Alice Quigley February 3, 2004 page 5 10. Interruption of utilities: At the Planning Commission meeting, Jim Farr requested that the Planning Commission create a COA that requires a 24-hour notice before any utilities can be turned off. We have been suffering these indignities for a year now. We wonder what penalty will there be for all the "accidental" interruptions? We suffered innumerable interruptions of gas and water as well as many breaks in the temporary sewer line that allowed raw sewage to flow, all of these occurred with no notice at all given to us. Very truly yours, t C Joe Quiy Alice Quigley We, the undersigned neighbors of the Blum Road area, hereby su2por..tthe proposed sixteen lot subdivision at the end of Emshee Way, Martinez that will be known as Muir Ranch Phase II that is proposed by Davni Development. The infrastructure improvements that included sidewalks, storm drains, and catch basins that Davni Development performed for the Phase I of Muir Ranch on Blum Road are an improvement to the community. The eleven new homes under construction are also an enhancement to the community. We feel the new subdivision, along with the additional three hundred eighty feet of additional sidewalks and storm drains, will be a further enhancement to our community. We are for Contra Costa County approval of this project. Nam Address Hq `� Date Name Address s 2 d C, A4. Date t Name Address Q� L �/ Date - 1 Nam Address / Date Nam ddress 1! ',,ots Date Name Address ISO 4c/ea-r-4 AJ Date e Nam Irrr Wr i 1107- Address 11 Z, C I o'ffia- G-hl Date C5 OV Ct Name$ 29'4 Address `1L-1 (A .2, f Date f Name 711'*Af't�(471eI3�&-qAddre ssZ0 ftwlr-lefDate n /C1-41 Name Address l elzxlM fZd Date 1 Name Address Date Name Address 5-3 Date ��. Name Address Z Date Name UAddress / L Date Name Address "it O Date Name Address 3 •. Date Name Address Date Name Address 2 Date_ 2' ru Nal e Address L Date _ Name Address Date 7/. ,2 A, r �� w a Name ,�✓�� ress ,Z �'S �'' . I=rate � _ 7 Nam Address )34d, _ GOP, Date �" Name Address Date Name Address Date Name Address Date Name Address Date Name Address Date Name Address Date Name Address Date Name Address Date Name Address Date Name Address Date COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JANUARY 25, 2005 Agenda Items # Community Development Contra Costa County BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2005- 7:00 P.M. MUIR RANCH II I. INTRODUCTION DAVNI DEVELOPMENT, LLC (Applicant), JAMES FARR(Owner),Joe and Alice Quigley(Appellant); County File#SD048839: The appellants request the denial of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve a tentative map to subdivide 3.66 acres into 16 single family lots. A variance is requested to allow the lot width of Lot 16 to be 56.4 feet where a minimum of 70 feet is required. A variance was approved to reduce the rear yard for Lot 2 from the required 15 feet to 10 feet. An exception is requested to Subdivision Ordinance Section 92-4.018 to allow acul-de-sac length greater than 700 feet. The property fronts on the present western terminus of Emshee Lane, 390+/- feet west of Blum Road, in the Martinez area. (R-7) (ZA: G-13) (CT: 3200.02) (Parcel 159-170-034). MTH II. RECOMMENDATION A. That the County Planning Commission sustain the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the application because the proposed subdivision: • Is consistent with General Plan land use and density designations for the property and area; and • A number of mitigation measures have been imposed on the project to protect the interests of abutting property owners. B. On the basis of the whole record before the County Planning Commission, find that there is no substantial evidence that the project with the mitigations imposed will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the County's independent File SD048839 January 25, 2005 judgment and analysis; and that the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based may be found with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. C. Adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for this project as adequate for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. D. Adopt the related findings recommended by staff. E. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the tentative map with conditions as modified by the Zoning Administrator. F. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. III. BACKGROUND OF PROJECT On December 2, 2003 the County Planning Commission approved an 11-lot subdivision immediately to the north of the subject property. That subdivision was known as Muir Ranch. The developer of that project acquired the subject 3.66 acre property and has applied for a 16-lot subdivision to be called Muir Ranch II. As described in more detail in the attached staff report for the November 29, 2004, Zoning Administrator meeting, the site is located on Emshee Lane, a private road, within a 40 foot right-of-way, extending westerly from Blum Road near its northern terminus. The property's boundaries include the existing Emshee Road out to Blum Road, thus forming a"flag"lot. Residential as well as industrial uses are found in the surrounding area. Vacant land zoned for light industrial use is to the west but with access from a different direction. An area developed with older single-family residential district borders to the south. The 3.66 acre parcel contains one single family residence that will be retained on the future Lot 15. As proposed 16 single family residential lots would be created all fronting on an extension of Emshee Lane. IV. REVIEW OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING This matter was heard by the Zoning Administrator on November 29, 2004. Attached is a copy of the staff report from the Zoning Administrator's hearing. The Zoning Administrator took the matter under submission, closed the public hearing and rendered her decision on December 13th. The appeal letter was submitted by Joe and Alice Quigley citing concerns with various impacts of the project on their abutting property,but particularly emphasizing S-2 File SD048839 January 25, 2005 their loss of view of Mt. Diablo and other distant views. The letter also cited concerns with sidewalks,parking, construction nuisances, and park deficiencies. Conditions of approval imposed on the project by the Zoning Administrator were designed to address the project's impacts and especially mitigate the impact of the project on the Quigley property. V. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPEAL The appellant's appeal letter raises the following points in opposition to the approval of the application: 1. Sidewalks should be provided throughout the project,not just Blum Road and the entry portion of Emshee Lane. 2. The approval would cause damage to the Quigley's property because of loss of views, and not just for the existing house but for the future houses that the Quigleys plan for their property. (The conditions of approval require lowering the future house heights on Lots 1, 2, 13, & 14). Construction of residences on Lots 3, 4, 5, 109 11, and 12 must also be lowered to no more than 104' above Mean Sea Level (MSL). 3. The 20' width of the street would cause parking problems endangering lives of future inhabitants because emergency vehicles could not pass. 4. The construction of the project would cause temporary dust and debris problems during construction. The County has not been responsive to the Quigley's complaints during the construction of Phase I. 5. The area is deficient in neighborhood parks and the future residents would have insufficient places to play. VI. REVIEW OF APPEAL POINTS A. Appeal Point-Sidewalks should be provided throughout the project. Staff Response: The applicants are providing 780+/- feet of paved walkways on Blum Road for Phases I and II in addition to 490+/- feet of paved walkway on Emshee Lane for Phase II. The area of Emshee Lane without sidewalks is the area with the least available street width for sidewalks and the area with the least traffic. Explorer Way, the private street in Phase I did not provide for any walkways. The County's adopted private street standards do not require sidewalks, although General Plan policies encourage pedestrian access where feasible. B. Appeal Point- The approval would cause damage to the Quigley's property because of loss of views, and not just for the existing house but for the future houses that the Quigleys plan for their property. Staff Response: The appellant neighbors do not have a view easement over the subject property, nor does Contra Costa County have a view protection S-3 File SD048839 January 25, 2005 ordinance, nor a specific policy requiring that pre-existing views must be maintained. New construction on previously vacant property frequently affects pre-existing views for numerous properties in many locales. Nevertheless, the County has imposed an unusual amount of mitigation to protect the distant views for the Quigley property. Lots 1, 2, 13, and 14 were lowered so that the resulting ridgelines would not exceed 104' above MSL, a height determined to not encroach into the distant views from the existing Quigley residence or front yard. The appellants are now proposing that they may someday subdivide their property and the future resident's views need similar protection as is now being required for the existing Quigley house. The Zoning Administrator found that there is no inherent right to subdivide, and the design, orientation and view loss for any future houses on the Quigley property becomes speculative. Additionally, as the Davni property upslopes to the west, the 104' above MSL standard would become prohibitively difficult to accomplish. For example, the house on Lot 5 with a 92' pad elevation would be limited to only 12 feet in height. Given that the Quigley's own house plus existing trees would block views for potential house sites west of the Quigley's house, combined with the fact that the area west of the Quigley's house is relatively gentle, it is likely that some potential home sites on the Quigley property would not have Mt. Diablo views in any case. The Zoning Administrator believes the mitigations being imposed to protect the Quigley property are unusually strict. C. Appeal Point- The 20'width of the Emshee Lane would cause parking problems endangering lives of future inhabitants because emergency vehicles could not pass Staff Response: The Zoning Administrator determined that this point has been adequately addressed by several required mitigations requiring additional on-street parking, additional off-street parking and larger than minimum garages so that the garage space would be less likely to be lost to storage. The Fire Protection District is satisfied with the project as conditioned and with the street width and emergency vehicle access being provided to the west. D. Appeal Point- The construction of the project would cause temporary dust and debris problems during construction. The County has not been responsive to the Quigley's complaints during the construction of Phase I. Staff Response: Mr. and Mrs. Quigley who reside at the end of Explorer Way have complained about the construction activity that has affected them during the construction of Phase I. They have stated that they have been subject to excessive dust particularly during the grading phase of Phase I. While these S-4 File SD048839 January 25, 2005 concerns are also addressed in their appeal of Phase II, it would seem that Phase II would not have as much of an affect on them due to temporary construction activity as compared to Phase I. Emshee Lane is not an access road for Mr. and Mrs. Quigley. Dust control during grading is regulated by the Grading Ordinance and enforced by the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. The name of the contact person in that department has been given to the Quigleys. The Building Inspection Department has diligently worked with the applicant and the Quigleys to achieve compliance with dust control requirements and will continue to do so. E. Appeal Point- The area is deficient in neighborhood parks and the future residents would have insufficient places to play. Staff Response: Generally, provisions of the Government Code pre-empt this subject. Under the Quimby Act, local jurisdictions are limited to the imposition of an in-lieu fee that has been set under applicable formulas. Under the existing County Park Dedication Ordinance, $2000 per lot is collected to off-set the project's impact on parks. VII. APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES—The Land Use Plan designates the site Single-Family Residential High-Density(SH). The allowed density is 5.0 to 7.2 dwelling units/net acre. The proposed residential use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and with the following related General Plan 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 3-24: Housing opportunities shall be improved through encouragement of distinct styles, desirable amenities, attractive design and enhancement of neighborhood identity. Policy 3-25: Innovation in site planning and design of housing developments shall be encouraged in order to upgrade quality and efficiency of residential living arrangements and to protect the surrounding environment. 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. S-5 File SD048839 January 25, 2005 The site and general area are within the Urban Limit Line. VIII. APPLICABLE ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS, AND FINDINGS, R-7 ZONE. The proposed single family residential subdivision is one of the uses that is permitted within this zoning district. The required findings to approve a subdivision along with related variances and an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance regarding the length of cul-de-sacs are contained in the attached April 19, 2004, Zoning Administrator staff report IX. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS Proposed Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration The application was submitted on April 15, 2004 and deemed complete on May 15, 2004. An Initial Study was prepared for the project which identifies three potentially significant impacts which are: Aesthetics,Noise, and Transportation/Parking. Please see the Initial Study for the discussion of the impacts and the proposed mitigations that can reduce the impact to less than significant. The public comment period for the Negative Declaration ran from August 10, 2004 until August 30, 2004 to allow a 20-day review period. The required mitigations are contained in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Plan. X. CONCLUSION Uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Subdivision 048839. GAcurrent planning\staff reports\sd048839cpc.rpt MH/AB S-6 Joe and Alice Quigley k 4500 Blum Road Martinez, CA 94553 L.. t. %J DELIVERED BY HAND THIS DATE: December 22,2004 n� PlugCommission � y County Administration Building Contra Costa County 631 bine Street Martinez, California 94553 Fax##: [925] 335-1222 Re: County File: SD 48839 Muir Ranch Sub--Divisions Emshee Load,Martinez,CA Dear Planmng Commission: This letter will serve as formal appeal to the Planning Commission of the Zig Admuo "'strator's decisions concerning the fore-mentioned development. we hereby object to the following decisions: 1. Sidewalks: We request that the Ph%ming Coramission consider, if they have not already done so,that the development have walkways throughout. The children of this community's development will need safe access to the Blum Road. 2. Aesthetics: Pursuant to Contra Costa County policy 3-28, "New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where it will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impact upon the environment and upon the existing community." Development that obstructs the panoramic views of the Quigley property,without consideration of the damage to the value of the Quigley property and without consideration of its future residents and their:loss of their valuable views is unconscionable and a violation of the county's own policy and precedent. The County has established policy and precedence and must fallow it, The current comments of the Zoning Administrator are directed at only the existing home site and do not consider the future development of Quigley's two-acre parcel and its future residents' value of their currently unobstructed panoramic views. The current recommended maximum beights imposed on Phase I will not retain the Mt. Diablo views of the Quigley property Lots 3,4, 5,along with lots 10, 11, and 12 must be lowered to MSL of 104 to insure preservation of the views for the future residents of Quigley's property and to preserve the value of the Quigley's property. Also,Lot 15 must be restricted in it3 future remodel to its current height or to the maximum height of MSL 104. Davni Development has transported seventy five plus loads of dirt from the Phase I site to the Phase 11 site. The original height of the lots in Phase II may have been supplemented, and we request that the Con ission assure us that none of the lots.heights were raised. 3. Traffic and Parking restrictions: The staff`of the Zoning Administration states,"there will be times when Emshee Lane may be locked by on-street parking to an extent that the minimum of two- way access standards rewired by the Fire protection District may not be met." After the firestorm of the Oakland hills, how tian the county allow a foreseeable, known danger of blocked streets such that emergency vehicles will not be able to gain access to the residents? what liability is the county accepting by stating that they knowingly approve of this foreseeable blockage of access to their citizens? 4. Dust and Debris During Construction: The Quigleys' twenty one reports, complaints of dust and debris violations by Davni Development event unheeded during the construction of Phase I,due to lack:of a telephone number and person to whom to report the violations and this county employees' inability to make a timely response thereto. We request that the developer post a bond.to 4mver any and all damages to our property,personal belongings, vehicles and l ive-stock,and to pay for any expenses incunfed in keeping said property dust and debris free. The County must create a more responsive system for neighbor;of developers. 5. Parks and recreation; The children of the Blum Road community are isolated from community parks and recreation facilities. This Blum Road community is completely without any park or open area in which the children to play. Currently,they play ball in the street,ride their skateboards in the street,and ride their bikes in the street. Now, the county has allowed the development of 26 new homes with all of the demands of the active children of these homes and not planned for any green area to be set-aside for this isolated co-nunity. The only reason this community will not burden the demand for park and recreation facilities is that the children of this community are too geographically isolated by freeways and major thoroughfares to have these existing parks and recreational fAcillties available to them. Yet,the county does not address or consider their unique need.By not addressing these 2 r r -V r growing community needs,the Commission is accepting liability for the endangerment of the children of this community. We have attached our letter to Michael Henn and Ryan Hernandez,Project Managers, for your edification. Very fly yours, r Joe Quigley Alice Quigley 3 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT _ r CONTRA COSTA COUNTY --*t' -..6 /0. DATE: November 30 2:004 r45' TO: Mike Henn, Project Planner, Community Development FROM: Christopher Lau, Associate Civil Engineer, Engineering ServiqCeSooal SUBJECT: SUB 8839: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION ON NOVEMBER 29, 2004 (Davni Development LLC/Blum Road/Martinez/AP# 159-170-034) FILE: SUB 8839 The Zoning Administrator approved modifications, as recommended by Public Works, to the Conditions of Approval included in the Staff Report for Subdivision 8839 as follows: MODIFY Condition of Approval#12, as follows: A four foot wideptt Ptd � t C ..... ..... walkway the design of which shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department shall be provided on Emshee Lane between the Blum Road walkway and the eastern boundary of Lot 1. (Note: Since the walkway, on-street parking and tree planting may all occur on the north side of Emshee Lane within the portion with a 40 foot wide right-of-way, the centerline of the 20 foot wide paved section may be located south of the centerline of the right-of-way to allow more space on the north.) MODIFY Public Works Department Conditions of Approval header as follows: Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9, and Title 10 of the County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the tentative paw map submitted to Community Development on A nA A jL ri> >S 9 �2 and n 1 2 MODIFY Condition of Approval #29, General Requirements, as follows: In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions there from must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the Tentative Map dated ...................................................................... P==I Q 2004 DELETE Condition of Approval #37, Private Road, as follows: A r►r►�i��r�t c�� . nrr�ar�tp� ter, A nr+�tr»nti i �_�A«��llr Gln the- r�reneser1 MODIFY Advisory Note E., as follows: ... .............. ........................................... .......................................... ......z* Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the ............................................ Min Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permits. Please call me at 313-2293 if you have questions. CL: G:1GrpData\EngSvc\Chris\Applications\2004\November\SUB 8839 COA Mod.doc cc: B.Balbas,Engineering Services E.Whan,Engineering Services ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 29, 2004 Agenda Items# Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY NOVEMBER 29, 2004— 1:30 P.M. MUIR RANCH II I. INTRODUCTION DAVNI DEVELOPMENT, LLC (Applicant) and JAMES FARR(Owner); County File#SD048839: The applicant requests approval of a tentative map to subdivide 3.66 acres into 16 single family lots. A variance is requested to allow the lot width of Lot 16 to be 56.4 feet where a minimum of 70 feet is required. A variance shall also be considered to reduce the rear yard for Lot 2 from the required 15 feet to 10 feet. An exception is requested to Subdivision Ordinance Section 92-4.018 to allow acul-de-sac length greater than 700 feet. The property fronts on the present western terminus of Emshee Lane, 390+/- feet west of Blum Road, in the Martinez area. (R-7) (ZA: G-13) (CT: 3200.02) (Parcel 159-170- 034). MTH II. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to: A. On the basis of the whole record before the Zoning Administrator, find that there is no substantial evidence that the project with the mitigations imposed will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis; and that the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based may be found with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. B. Adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for this project as adequate for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. File #SD048839 Zoning Administrator November 29, 2004 C. Adopt the related findings recommended by staff. D. Approve the tentative map with conditions. E. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Environs The site is located on Emshee Lane, a private road, within a 40 foot right- of-way, extending westerly from Blum Road near its northern terminus. The property's boundaries include the existing Emshee Road out to Blum Road, thus forming a "flag" lot. Residential as well as industrial uses are found in the surrounding area. An 11-lot R-7 zoned single family subdivision (Tract 8738) is currently under construction by the same developer located immediately to the north (Muir Ranch I). A recreational-vehicle storage yard is located further to the north, zoned light industrial. Vacant land zoned for light industrial use is to the west but with access from a different direction. A single-family residential district borders to the south. East of Blum Road is an open space area consisting of grassy hills. Although zoned for heavy industrial use, this area has been set aside by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District as a buffer zone for the sewage treatment plant. Existing Uses on Subject Property: The applicant proposes to subdivide one parcel of 3.66 acres into 16 lots. One single family residence is currently located near the east end of the site and is proposed to remain. As proposed the existing house would be on the future Lot 15. One proposed lot (Lot 16) would be east of the existing dwelling on Lot 15. The other fourteen lots would be west 'of the existing house. An abandoned walnut orchard occupies the western two-thirds of the subject property. This area is currently fenced and used for horse pasture. B. General Plan Desi nation Single-Family Residential High-Density (SH). Allowed density is 5.0 to 7.2 dwelling units/net acre. The allowable density range, per the General Plan, after subtracting the area in streets, is 15 to 21 dwelling units. The proposal for 16 residential units is consistent with the density allowed by the General Plan. S-2 File #SD048839 Zoning Administrator November 29, 2004 C. Zoning R-7 — Single-Family Residential District. The zone requires a minimum parcel size of 7,000 square feet. All lots meet the minimum lot size requirements. A variance is requested to reduce the lot width of Lot 16 from the required 70 feet to 56.4 feet. (See Discussion Section for review of the variance and another potential variance). D. CSA Status Proposed Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration The application was submitted on April 15, 2004 and deemed complete on May 15, 2004. An Initial Study was prepared for the project which identifies three potentially significant impacts which are: Aesthetics, Noise, and Transportation/Parking. Please see the Initial Study for the discussion of the impacts and the proposed mitigations that can reduce the impact to less than significant. The public comment period for the Negative Declaration ran from August 10, 2004 until August 30, 2004 to allow a 20-day review period. Staff received the two attached comments regarding the Initial Study: 1) from Bonnie Lee Johnson, attorney representing Joe & Alice Quigley, the adjacent property owner at 4500 Blum Road who has raised several concerns. These concerns relate to view blockage, road and sidewalk standards, drainage, construction-related disruptions, and remaining objections related to Phase I. These issues are discussed later in this report under Discussion, and, 2) Contra Costa Water District informing staff that the District can supply potable water to the project subject to the fees and standards of the District. E. Nearby Active Projects 1. Muir Ranch I, an 11-lot R-7 zoned single family subdivision (Subdivision 873 8)which was approved in 2003, and is currently under construction immediately to the north. That development is served by Explorer Way, a private lane that parallels Emshee Lane. 2. Blum View Estates, a 20+/-unit residential project, not yet deemed complete located to the southwest with access from a future road extension from Blum Road. 3. Pending Request for General Plan Amendment for adjacent property to the west. An area located west of the proposed new terminus of Emshee Lane extending to I-680 has been requested to have its S- 3 File #SD048839 Zoning Administrator November 29, 2004 General Plan designation changed from Light Industrial to a residential designation. The request is in abeyance at this time pending receipt of additional information from the applicant. The Board of Supervisors has not authorized General Plan review. F. Re ulatory Programs 1. Active Fault Zones: The subject properties are not within an active fault zone. The closest active fault is the Concord Fault located about 0.6 miles to the northeast. 2. Flood Hazard Area: The area is in Flood Zone C. All development is located outside of the flood zone. 3. 60dBA Projected Noise Impacted Area: The Noise Element of the General Plan indicates that the western portion of the site may be subject to significant noise levels (greater than 60 dB level) associated with projected traffic levels along I-680. However, the acoustical study provided by the applicant determined that the actual ambient noise levels at the location of the closest dwelling units would fall under 60 dBA, even after factoring in growth in traffic. However, potential noise from Buchanan Field would increase to just over 60dBA and mitigation measures to control interior noise are required by the General Plan. IV. AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Flood Hazard—The Flood Control District's response dated May 20, 2004, indicates that all development is outside a flood hazard zone. Several proposed conditions of approval address flood and drainage issues. 2. County Public Works- Comments and proposed conditions of approval have been submitted on the revised tentative map dated received June 11, 2004. The Public Works response notes that they have reviewed the application and tentative map received by your office and submit the following comments: Background The proposed project is a 16-lot subdivision on the west side of Blum Road between Clipper Lane and Emshee Lane in the Martinez area. The proposed subdivision is also known as Muir Ranch Phase II. S-4 File #SD048839 Zoning Administrator November 29, 2004 Traffic and Circulation The right of way on Blum Road is currently at an ultimate width of 60 feet and no right of way dedication is required. A 20-foot wide private road will provide internal access to the site from Blum Road. Parking will not be allowed on the private road. The portion of the private road along Lots 1, 14, and 15 may have a 16% grade. According to Private Road Standards, this portion of the road will require grooved concrete. The private road is subject to review by the Fire District. Drainage The applicant proposes to collect storm water on site and convey it to a storm drain system along the west or east side of Blum Road. There will be an inlet at the southern curb return to collect runoff from this project as well as runoff from Blum Road. Most of the runoff from the subdivision to the north will be conveyed across Blum Road into a grassy swale along the east shoulder of Blum Road. Both subdivisions will convey storm water to existing culverts crossing Blum Road approximately 250 feet from the proposed development and discharging into a natural swale on property owned by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD). The drainage will then flow across the property at 47 Austen Way (APN # 159-161-007 of the Helmond Shepard Tract) in route to Grayson Creek. The applicant has drainage releases for both properties. The applicant shall identify how storm water entering or originating on Lots 15 and 16 will be collected and conveyed in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code as a condition of approval for this project. This condition may be addressed by extending the storm drain system along the southern property line to the 3-foot retaining wall on Lot 16 before turning towards the private road or another adequate design subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. Conveyance of clean water is a growing concern throughout the County. The applicant should consider feasible solutions for alternate drainage systems and place an emphasis on complying with NPDES requirements. It is the applicant's responsibility to make an effort to reduce contaminants in runoff before it reaches a natural watercourse. The applicant is welcome to provide strategies to promote increasing environmental awareness. 3. County Consulting Geologist- A soils report has been reviewed by the County Geologist. With the qualifications and conditions suggested, the County Consulting Geologist by his report dated July 26, 2004, concludes that the project is feasible from a geotechnical and geological perspective. S- 5 File #SD048839 Zoning Administrator November 29, 2004 4. Contra Costa Water District - The August 26, 2004, response indicates that the site is within the District and they would be able to serve the project. The applicant shall bear all expenses associated with constructing a water system capable of meeting the fire flow and water demand requirements of the water district and fire district. 5. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District - The Fire District's response dated May 31, 2004, sets out the conditions that are necessary to conform to the applicable codes and policies. The new homes shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system. 6. Mountain View Sanitary District - The District's response dated May 6, 2004, indicates the district's willingness to serve the project subject to district fees and conditions. 7. County Health Services Department -No comment. 8. City of Martinez - The city has not provided a written response. An October 13, 2004 phone conversation with a Martinez staff planner indicated that the project is acceptable in concept. 9. California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information S stem - The June 14, 2004 response recommends that no further study for historical resources is needed. V. PROPOSED PROJECT According to Davni Development Company, the project applicants, the proposal consists of plans and studies developed by professional civil engineers, soil engineers, architects and other design professionals. 1. Proposed Division- The project would subdivide the 3.66 acre site into sixteen residential lots ranging in size from 7,000 square feet to 10,095 square feet,with the majority being between 7,000 to 8,500 square feet. The site is gently upsloping from southeast to northwest with an average slope of about 7%. The middle area around Lots 2 through 14 is steeper than the site average approaching 16% for about a 100 foot area. Approximately 4500 cubic yards of earth will be moved, but the grading is proposed to balance on-site,resulting in no significant off-site earth hauling. 2. Proposed Road Design -The lots would be arrayed along the extension of Emshee Lane. The proposed width for the street pavement would be 20 feet within a right-of-way of 40 feet for the stem portion out to Blum Road. After passing Lot 16, the road is proposed to have 20 feet of paved width within a 25 S- 6 File #SD048839 Zoning Administrator November 29, 2004 foot right-of-way. The road provides for a shunt type turn-around, rather than a cul-de-sac, at the terminus. At the western end of the extension of Emshee Lane an emergency vehicle access will provide access to adjacent undeveloped property. The lane will be gated but allow emergency vehicle access to an abutting property to the west. No through public vehicular access is proposed to the west. No sidewalk is proposed along Emshee Lane, the main entry street. There currently is a walkway under construction along the Blum Road frontage. Approximately 400 feet of sidewalk is required as a condition of approval for the abutting subdivision to the north. The Public Works Department recommends that subject subdivision provide an additional 380+/- feet of walkway to extend from Explorer Way to a point where the drainage passes under the road south of Emshee Lane. 3. Residential Design - The applicant has indicated that the project concept is to continue with the residential design used in Muir Ranch Phase I to the north. These are two-story houses containing approximately 2400-2600 square feet of living quarters plus a two-car garage. 4. Proposed Landscaping — None shown. See Aesthetics Mitigations under Discussion in the following section. 5. Soils Investigation - The project is accompanied by a report from Cal Engineering and Geology, a soils engineering firm, on the project. The report indicates that the project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The County's Consulting Geologist has submitted a review of the Cal Engineering and Geology report and agrees that the project is feasible and does not ask for additional studies. There are no landslides on the property and the site is underlain by sandstone bedrock under 3 to 8 feet of soil. 6. Drainage - The current drainage plan is conditionally acceptable to the Public Works Department. Generally the site downslopes from 110 feet above sea level at the west to 43 feet at Blum Road to the east. The drainage will then flow south in the pipe along the west side of Blum Road and then cross under Blum Road and flow to the east in an existing swale. The Public Works Department may consider a drainage option of a line down the east side of Blum Road. The proposed lots on the south side of Emshee Lane will drain to the rear and the drainage will then be picked up by a pipe and inlet system along the rears of Lots 8 through 14, and then taken out to Emshee Lane and join the system in the street. S- 7 File #SD048839 Zoning Administrator November 29, 2004 VI. DISCUSSION 1. Aesthetic Considerations and Architectural Compatibility - The applicant has indicated that the new houses are to be two-story houses containing approximately 2400-2600 square feet of living quarters plus a two-car garage. They would generally be like the recently constructed homes in Phase I. The proposed project is relatively consistent with the newer development in the general area. The proposed two-story houses may be somewhat larger than the older homes located along Blum Road and Emshee Lane. However, this is an area that is undergoing a transition with infill development occurring on the vacant larger parcels. The new houses are mostly distant from the existing houses, so the contrast will not appear incompatible. These houses have relatively low-pitched roofs and are not particularly tall for two-story houses. They measure about 29.5 feet to the ridge of the roof, while the R-7 district regulations allow up to 35 feet. Two of the Phase I houses were required to be slightly shorter (28' maximum) to accommodate Mr. and Mrs. Quigley, the neighbors to the northwest, who were concerned about their loss of views. This change was accomplished by adjusting the roof pitch rather than more significant redesign. In subject case the same neighbors have raised the same issues and in fact feel that the subject project is more obtrusive to their views, particularly from their house and front yard area looking in the direction of Mt. Diablo (southeast). Mr. and Mrs. Quigley own a 2 acre parcel at the end of Explorer Way that is generally higher in elevation than Phase I and Phase II. Both new projects have a unique impact on the Quigley property. While these neighbors do not have a view easement over the subject property, nor does Contra Costa County have a view protection ordinance as some cities do, the County consistently attempts to work with new development so as to minimize adverse impacts on existing residents. General Plan Policy 3-25 makes a general reference to having new residential development protect the surrounding environment. Policy 3-28 states that: 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. As a result of objections by Mr. and Mrs. Quigley, building height adjustments were required of the Phase I development by lowering the height of two of the houses that were the closest to the concerned neighbors. Staff has visited the Quigley's residence and has seen before S- 8 File #SD048839 Zoning Administrator November 29, 2004 and after photographs of the subject site. The site visit and pictures also show the now existing Phase I development as seen from the Quigley's property. The same maximum heights imposed on Phase I will allow the Mt. Diablo views to be retained if imposed on Phase II. Consistent with what was done with Phase I, it would seem feasible and reasonable to require Phase II to make a series of adjustments to lower the resulting ridge heights of the four houses that would have the most impact on the neighbors. Generally this can be done by slightly lowering the pad height for Lots 1, 13 and 14 in combination with the applying the 28 foot maximum height restriction that was imposed on two lots in Phase I. Currently the Quigleys, can see over the highest houses in Phase I. The pad elevations and building heights of Phase I are known so that it would be possible to use the ridge height of the existing new houses on Lots 10 and 11 of Tract 8738 (104 ft. above MSL) and then set the maximum heights of the new houses so as not to exceed the now existing ridge heights. While clearly the Quigley residence will be seeing the full rear or side house walls of the new adjacent houses, the purpose of the adjustments is to retain the distant views of Mt. Diablo and adjacent hills over the new houses. The adjustments for Lots 1, 13 and 14 are relatively easy to address; however, Lot 2 would be a greater challenge because the subject property upslopes to the west. Lot 2's proposed pad elevation is 86 feet, plus the 29 foot building height equals 115 feet above sea level or 11 feet higher than the recommended standard. Consequently staff recommends that Lot 2 be restricted to a one-story house along with slightly reducing the pad so that the same 104 feet above sea level be met. The applicant has indicated that such a restriction would be an undesirable burden on their project because of the cost of having one house different from all the rest,plus if they were able to put as big a house as they believe the market demands, that the house would consume too much of the lot resulting in little usable outdoor area for the future residents. Staff recognizes that these are valid concerns and suggests that allowing a variance for a 10 foot rear yard in the conditions of approval for Lot 2 only would give greater design flexibility by compensation for requiring a one-story house. While it might seem excessive to require such a degree of changes to protect one neighbor, the Quigleys' property contains 2 acres, and based on the General Plan and zoning designations on the property, it may someday be the subject of subdivision proposals. It is reasonable public policy to consider the protection of the future views from property that may be developed in the future. The following table presents the staff recommendations to adjust building heights in the subject project: S- 9 File #SD048839 Zoning Administrator November 29, 2004 As Proposed With Mitigations Difference Lot 1 80'pad EL. 76' pad -5' 29' house Ht. 28"house 109 to ridge EL. 104' to ridge Lot 2 86' pad 84' pad -11' 29' house 20' house 115' to ridge 104' to ridge Lot 13 80' pad 76' pad -5' 29' house 28' house 109' to ridge 104' to ridge Lot 14 76' pad 76' pad -1' 29' house 28' house 105' to ridge 104' to ridge 2. Variance Considerations — The applicant has requested a variance for Lot 16 reducing its width from the required 70 feet to 56 feet. The need for this variance results from the method required to measure lot width. The present unsubdivided parcel includes the right-of-way under Emshee Lane. This street area creates the "pole" of a flag lot. Since measuring the lot depth is done from the frontage on Blum Road, an unintended and unrepresentative lot width calculation results for Lot 16 which will technically "own" the road. This unusual parcel shape produces the special circumstances necessary to grant a variance. Staff could find no other design alternative that would cause the elimination of a variance for any further development of the subject property. The actual buildable area of Lot 16 is about 60 feet wide at the midpoint and is over 70 feet wide at the rear. Staff recommends that a variance also be granted for Lot 2 because of the reasons cited above under Aesthetics and Architectural Considerations. In order to accommodate a neighbor whose view would be seriously impacted by a two-story house on this lot, staff is recommending that the house be restricted to one story. In order to contain a one-story house of the size commensurate with others in the project and vicinity, the house would spread out to an unusual extent, resulting in a house that would extend from setback line to setback line. If the rear wall of the house could have an L-shaped jog in it to accommodate a better house design and provide a larger and more usable outdoor area of greater depth, a corresponding area of reduced rear setback would result. The special circumstances include the unusual relationship of Lot 2 to the adjacent property combined with the fact that the greatest steepness of any lot occurs on Lot 2. S-10 File #SD048839 Zoning Administrator November 29, 2004 3. Parking Sufficiency— The proposed houses will have two-car garages and the potential to park two additional vehicles in tandem by parking in the driveway. However, the proposed 20-foot wide private street standard would not allow for any on-street parking. In addition to the 15 new homes that would result from the proposed subdivision, there are four existing lots on Emshee Lane that would contribute parking demand. It can be anticipated that existing and future residents will have occasions when they will generate some degree of guest or overflow parking demand beyond that which can be provided by the minimum two, on-site spaces required by the R-7 zoning. Consequently, there will be times when Emshee Lane may be blocked by on-street parking to an extent that the minimum two-way access standards required by the Fire Protection District may not be met. A limited amount of on-street parking could be located in the right-of-way along the frontages of Lots 1, 15 and 16 by widening on the north side of the road to 28 feet as well as possibly at other locations. In addition, the lot layouts could provide for another independently accessible (i.e. non- tandem) parking space as a condition of approval. To reduce the probability that the enclosed garages do not revert to personal storage areas, the minimum two-car garages should provide at least 50 sq. ft. of storage space beyond the typical 20'x 20' two-car garage. (This is actually 108 square feet more than the minimum required area of two 9' x 19' parking spaces). The response to the CEQA notice from the Quigleys raised concern with Emshee Lane being extended to the west and then becoming the access road for some great number of houses. The applicant has responded that the property to the west has no access rights to Emshee Lane and that they do not plan to grant them other than a gated emergency vehicle access to satisfy the Fire Protection District. A recommended condition of approval prohibits extension of Emshee Lane to serve other development. 4. Tree Replacement and Aesthetic Mitigations - The site was historically used as a walnut orchard but abandoned many years ago. The original orchard trees are presumed to be English Walnuts which have reverted to their Black Walnut rootstock as commonly occurs. Black Walnuts are not considered to be a desirable yard or street tree by landscaping professionals. The majority of those on site are also not very healthy nor do they have a good structure. Consequently the removal of the 15+/- trees that are over the 20" circumference standard for County review could be removed and replaced with trees more suitable for residential yards. The applicant agrees to replace trees as needed The planting of young trees before there are residents to care for them has a poor track record of survival. The applicant has offered to provide a 15-gallon tree to each S-11 File #SD048839 Zoning Administrator November 29, 2004 resident after move-in. Staff recommends that two such trees be required because of the relatively large area of the project and because no trees are being retained on the new house lots. A condition of approval has been created to implement the requirement. The applicant's tree survey identified 7 redwood or cedar trees along the Emshee Lane entry road, east of Lot 1. Five of these trees were later removed, apparently with the grading of Phase I. The trees were along the common property line and the two phases were not in the same ownership at the beginning of Phase I development. The cause of the removal of these five trees is not clear. Because it is unclear whether some of these trees may not have been inadvertently approved for removal as part of Phase I, staff is only recommending that the applicant provide three 24- inch boxed trees of a species and location acceptable to the Zoning Administrator, with two trees being placed on Lot 1 and one across the street on Lot 14. Since there are no common areas in the project, the applicant will need to make a permanent arrangement with the owners of the two lots to provide an automatic irrigation system for these trees. There is a scattering of small volunteer Black Walnut trees and large brush (Baccharis) along the common Phase II/Quigley property line behind the proposed Lots 2-6. While not of great value in terms of landscaping quality, nevertheless, the vegetation would provide a visual screen for the neighbor when the new homes are built. Staff has discussed the question of saving or replacing the vegetative screen with the neighboring property owners. It is generally staff s belief that the neighbors would prefer replacement of the existing screen by the applicant with a new screen such as Oleander. A condition of approval to reflect this concern has been drafted requiring a landscape screen for the first 175 feet west of the southeast corner of the Quigley property which would take it past the rear of the Quigley's house. Rearward of that point the applicant should exercise care in fence construction to avoid damaging the existing screen where possible. If the neighbors prefer a different condition, that could be considered by the Zoning Administrator. 5. Pedestrian Facilities — It is a General Plan policy (Policy 5-25) to encourage safe and convenient pedestrian travel ways and provide sidewalks where conditions allow. As a requirement of Phase I the applicant was required to provide an off-site walkway improvement on the west side of Blum Road, consisting of approximately 400 lineal feet of the filling in of a roadside ditch, installation of an underground pipe and construction of an asphalt walkway where the ditch had been filled in. As a condition of the subject project the applicant has continued the Blum Road drainage and walkway improvements along an additional approximately 380 ft. of Blum Road. This 780 +/- feet of improvements 5-12 File #SD048839 Zoning Administrator November 29, 2004 has been made more difficult and expensive by the need to cross numerous driveways and other utility complications. Given the rather unusual amount of off-site walkway improvements being provided by the applicant, staff is reluctant to ask for a sidewalk within the proj ect on Emshee Lane in Phase II. No walkway was asked for on Explorer Way in Phase I, but in that case there was a very narrow right-of- way and no feasible way of requiring a sidewalk or less formal all-weather graded gravel walkway. In Phase II the right of way is quite wide, generally 40 feet or wider with only a 20 foot street proposed for the first 470 feet in from Blum Road. West of the eastern edge of Lot 1, the right- of-way narrows to 25 feet and it would not appear feasible to require a walkway. Staff recommends that a 4-foot wide graded gravel all-weather walkway be provided along Emshee Lane from Blum Road to the eastern edge of Lot 1. 6. Grading and Retaining Walls Along Property Lines — In the construction of Phase I there was concern raised by neighbors about the appearance and design of slopes and retaining walls along common property lines between new lots. Because the site slopes from west to east, the house pads are terraced with slopes and sometimes retaining walls between houses. Staff would agree that a solid, six-foot fence on top of a three-foot or taller retaining wall can appear massive from the downhill side and would be in conflict with a 6 foot fence maximum height restriction in the Zoning Ordinance. A grade differential between lots of 1 or 2 feet can be handled with a sloped area, but a larger differential requires a wall. Since the applicant proposes to fence the lots, where a greater lot pad differential is proposed, a potential problem results. The Zoning Ordinance is not definitive as to how much separation is necessary between a retaining wall and a fence so as not to produce a combined height issue. In this case staff would recommend that there be at least one and one-half feet of plantable soil between the retaining wall and the fence to produce the necessary separation. 7. Cul-de-sac Length Exception Request — Section 92-4.018 of the Subdivision Ordinance limits the length of a cul-de-sac to 700 feet, and also limits the number of lots that can be served to 16. An exception per Section 92-6.002 et. seq. would need to be granted since the length of the Emshee Lane cul-de-sac system measuring out to Blum Road is about 1020 feet, and because there are four existing homes, there would be a total of 20 homes served by the cul-de-sac when the proposed homes are added to the existing homes. Section 92.6.002 of the Subdivision Ordinance allows an exception to be granted if the required findings can be made. Staff believes that an S-13 File #SD048839 Zoning Administrator November 29, 2004 exception can be granted because the purpose of the regulation which is primarily to protect the public health and safety by improving emergency vehicle response time is being met by other means. In particular, the homes will be equipped with an automatic residential sprinkler system, and an emergency vehicle access to the abutting property to the west is being provided. An exception is also necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the property owner. 8. Noise Concerns -The acoustical study provided by the applicant determined that the actual ambient noise levels at the location of the closest dwelling units to I-680 would fall under 60 dBA, even after factoring in growth in traffic. However, potential noise from Buchanan Field would increase to just over 60dBA and mitigation measures to control interior noise are required by the General Plan. A condition of approval is recommended which requires that interior noise levels will be held to under 45 decibels. 9. Dust and Utility Disruption During Construction — Mr. and Mrs. Quigley who reside at the end of Explorer Way have complained about the construction activity that has affected them during the construction of Phase I. They cite examples of their access being temporarily blocked, of their utilities being cut. off, and of excessive dust particularly during the grading phase of Phase,I. While these concerns are addressed in their letter about Phase II, it would seem that Phase II would not have as much of an affect on them due to temporary construction activity. Emshee Lane is not an access road for Mr. and Mrs. Quigley, and the extension of utilities in Emshee Lane should not impact the Quigleys located at the end of Explorer Way. Dust control during grading is regulated by the Grading Ordinance and enforced by the Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. Complaints about dust should be directed to that department. VII. REQUIRED FINDINGS TO APPROVE PROJECT A. Attached is a listing of the findings required either under the general plan or under the zoning/subdivision ordinance for approval of this project. They include findings for approving a subdivision, growth management findings, variance findings, and findings for allowing a cul-de-sac longer than 700 feet. B. Potentially Relevant General Plan Policies - Listed below are a selection of general plan policies that have relevance to the proposed project followed by staff evaluations of consistency with these policies. 5-14 File #SD048839 Zoning Administrator November 29, 2004 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 3-24: Housing opportunities shall be improved through encouragement of distinct styles, desirable amenities, attractive design and enhancement of neighborhood identity. Policy 3-25: Innovation in site planning and design of housing developments shall be encouraged in order to upgrade quality and efficiency of residential living arrangements and to protect the surrounding environment. 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. The site and general area are within the Urban Limit Line. VIII. CONCLUSION The single family residential infill project falls within the lower end of the General Plan residential land use density range. The project provides desirable amenities and infrastructure improvements for the area. Therefore, staff believes the proposed project with recommended conditions of approval will result in a project consistent with the General Plan policies for the area. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and is largely consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The two variances are consistent with the intent of the R-7 zone. The variance to the Lot 16 width is necessitated by the existing condition of the project site being a flag lot. The building area is conducive to a single family home under the R-7 standards. The variance to Lot 2 is recommended to improve the resulting situation for concerned neighbors. With the use of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts, and would further the goals of the General Plan. Infrastructure improvements to roadways, drainage and walkways will improve the neighborhood. MH/kp G:\curr-plan\Staff Reports\SD048839-staff report.doc 5-15 r'�+.,Y.. �• '`'T".:w-.'. fir."�.�.i.. ' _7..:�1..,.. 1 .. ...._y - ..(.�_. ,i i:.,1 '1 y_ ' a ~tf t ^/lY y ` U nl ' IT In to i8 0 SCS"of to 066 cl 43 rA j t sro• ,%t% f * }2 U ..r cc Z !'t .,r i r s .a •,�' 1' � rti rte• N � 't vi V 9 o So fto w d ^ ci / 't tr r •`r' r�f j � �W J hl 4 y g� /W ami .?moi h /bey R ,a�: _..... j ._ �• r; 't !` � �� \'' S1O'OE'36'E ---•..,,,,._ 1.�, ,Gyi i ,t l f( tl 1 ^1 1 1, R•iIId� , 2 ' It , N11'27'40'W 123.14' N I lit h�C ,1 1 t � � 7 '''�•, TCl t�$ �f jr , i i ,ti � t •'1 ,'1•. e ii Y ii,` w Ri • ,, � •R a+ .f a 1./ 7a$h f O t W. t , f• � i 7 f�t ' ,� �, " t3 !i �,t as g Nz ti r f it.x .r kv f h t r 1•.1 t d , a G1 "af$ X It }hil! + 1"N npr ffYh p .4p � 1: •~��'"i� 69.97' 1 i 5.46' 269,24' N10'Ot'10 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: May 24, 2004 TO: Ryan Hernandez, Project Planner, Community Development FROM: Keith Hoey, Engineering Staff, Engineering Services 'A SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION 8839 STAFF REPORT & CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Davni Development LLC/Blum Road/Martinez/AP# 159-170-034) FILE: SD 04-8839 We have reviewed the application and tentative map received by your office on April 15, 2004 and submit the following comments: Background The proposed project is a 16-lot subdivision on the west side of Blum Road between Clipper Lane and Emshee Lane in the Martinez area. The proposed subdivision is also known as Muir Ranch Phase II. Traffic and Circulation The right of way on Blum Road is currently at an ultimate width of 60 feet and no right of way dedication is required. A 20-foot wide private road will provide internal access to the site from Blum Road. Parking will not be allowed on the private road. The portion of the private road along Lots 1, 14, and 15 will have a 16% grade. According to Private Road Standards, this portion of the road will require grooved concrete. The private road is subject to review by the Fire District. Drainage The applicant proposes to collect storm water on site and convey it to a storm drain system along the west side of Blum Road. There will be an inlet at the southern curb return to collect runoff from this project as well as runoff from Blum Road. Most of the runoff from the subdivision to the north will be conveyed across Blum Road into a grassy swale along the east shoulder of Blum Road. Both subdivisions will convey storm water to existing culverts crossing Blum Road approximately 250 feet from the proposed development and discharging into a natural swale on property owned by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD). The drainage will then flow across the property at 47 Austen Way (APN # 159-161-007 of the Helmond Shepard Tract) in route to Grayson Creek. The applicant has drainage releases for both properties. r The applicant shall identify how storm water entering or originating on Lots 15 and 16 will be collected and conveyed in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code as a condition of approval for this project. This condition may be addressed by extending the storm drain system along the southern property line to the 3-foot retaining wall on Lot 16 before turning towards the private road or another adequate design subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. Conveyance of clean water is a growing concern throughout the County. The applicant should consider feasible solutions for alternate drainage systems and place an emphasis on complying with NPDES requirements. It is the applicant's responsibility to make an effort to reduce contaminants in runoff before it reaches a natural watercourse. The applicant may consider implementing shallow grassy swales alongside the private road and reduce the size of Lot 1 by adding a bio-retention area to collect the runoff from the private road before conveying it to Blum Road. These are only suggestions and the applicant is welcome to provide other strategies to promote increasing environmental awareness. t MAY.24.2004 7:20PM CCC PUBLIC WORKS NO.685 P.2 CONTRA COSTA COUNW FLOOD CONYIVOL AND WATIER,CONSERVATION DUCT 255 GLACIER DRIVE,MARTINEZ,CALMORNIA DATE: May 20,2004 TO: Ryan Aez,'Project Plainer, Community Development Depiu3U91-It ]FROMP Paul R.DOens,Associate,Civil ngmeer,Flood Controi 3ZD SUBJECT: 30-Day Co-- ,ftmo —Subdivision 8839,Muir Ranch Phase II FELE: 1002-8839 We have reviewed the vestingtentativefor M*Ranch Phase H.Subdivision 8839,which was received by our office on April 21,2004, and submit the following 30-&y comments: 1, The proposed project is located within Drainage Area 90(DA 90),an unfoimed drainage, Therefore,no drainage fees are due. I 2. We recommend that the., developer design and construct storm, drain facilities to adequately collect convey stormwater runoff, without diversion of the watershed, entering or originating within the development to the nearest natural watercourse or adequate man-made drainage facility. The applicant should vedfy the capacity of the downstream system. 1 3. The tentative map shows the in-tract drainage system connecting to the storm drain on 131um,Road that is being constmeted as part of subdivision 873 8,which is directly north of the proposed subdivision. The developer should be required to submit hydrology and hydraulic calculations that,ver*the downstream dr system will not be adversely a acted by the proposed subdivision. If you have any finther questions, please call me at (925) 313-2394 or Wes Cooley at (925) 313-2304. PRD:WQ-cw Cr.\GrpDah'Zdcd\curDmAcrrmmartin=\sub mg.doc Q-' G.C=Mghwn,,Flood Contmi B.Farlone.,Flood Control K.Hogy.Enginccrittg Services C.Laus. saviccs DARWIN MYERS AssocIATES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY July 26, 2004 Mike Henn, Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 2"Floor,,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Geologic Review Services Contract SD048839 (Muir Ranch Phase 11) APN 159-170-034/Emshee Lane Martinez Area,, Contra Costa County DMA Project# 3051.04 Dear Mike: On July 22, 2004 we issued a peer review letter on the captioned projects and prepared a CEQA section. At that time we had not reviewed the report prepared by Cal Engineering &Geology (CEG).' Subsequently, you requested that we review the report and update the CEQA Checklist as appropriate. Cal Engineering and Geology Report 1. Sco-pe of Work The scope of work "included: a)review of published soil and geologic maps of the area; b) drilling and logging of ten exploratory test borings; c)evaluation of the materials encountered 'in the exploratory borings; d)laboratory testing of selected samples recovered from the borings; e) engineering analyses and preparation of report documenting the investigation and presenting findings of the consultant. In summary,the CEG report presents the results of the field exploration, laboratory testing, data analysis, and conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical engineering aspects of the design and construction of the proposed project. 2. Subsurface Exploration The subsurface conditions in the vicinity of the proposed residence were explored by drilling and sampling ten exploratory borings. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are shown on Figure 2 of the CEG report. The exploratory drilling was performed using a B-24 1 Darwin Myers Associates,Inc.,2004. Geologic Review Services Contract,SD048839(Muir Ranch Phase III),APN 159-170-034 lEmshee Lane,Martinez Area, Contra Costa County. DMA Project#3048.04(dated July 22, 2004). 'Cal Engineering&Geology,2004. Foundation Exploration, 32 Emshee Lane,Mrtinez, California. CEG Job#04028(dated April 4,2004). '41 3 08 pIN= T REIT E M A R T I Nr-L-71 .- 4 5,5,3 M 99-15!370-9330 Page 2 drilling ng equipped with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers. Samples of the site materials were recovered-using both Modified California and Standard Penetration samplers. Selected samples recovered from the borings were retained for additional analysis and/or laboratory testing. Briefly surnman'zed,the borings penetrated 31/2to 8V2feet of clayey silt (colluvium) overlying bedrock that is described as hard.,,moderately fractured,tight silty sandstone. Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing was performed to obtain information regarding the physical propel-ties of the soil samples recovered from the exploratory test borings. The CEG report states that tests were performed in general conformance with applicable ASTM standards. The tests included Atterberg Limits, dry unit weight,natural moisture content sieve analysis, sulfate content, and hydrometer testing. The testing indicates that soils are lean clays with sand;no liquefiable sands were encountered M* the borings, and the soils have a low sulfate content implying corrosivity is not a problem. 4. Conclusions CEG concludes that the project is feasible from a geotechnical and geologic perspective. The laboratory test data indicate that the soils and colluvium have a moderately low expansion potential. CEG recommends that the potential for(minor) expansion and contraction of the surficial soils should be taken into consideration M* designing the foundation systems for the proposed improvements and appurtenant structures. With regard to geologic and seismic hazards,, CEG's assessment is as follows: • Landslides. The potential for landslides is "moderately low." • Groundwater. Although no groundwater was encountered M* the borings, water levels may fluctuate seasonally. • Ground Accelerations. The report indicates Seismic Zone 4, Soil Type S and Seismic Source type B at a distance of less than 2 km from the site. 4. Conclusions CEG concludes that the project is feasible from a geotechnical and geologic perspective. The laboratory test data indicate that the soils and colluvium have a moderately low expansion potential. CEG recommends that the potential for (minor) expansion and contraction of the surficial soils should be taken into consideration M* designing the foundation systems for the proposed improvements and appurtenant structures. DARWIN MYERs AssOCIATES Page 3 With regard to geologic and seismic hazards, CEG's assessment is as follows: • Landslides. The potential for landslides is "moderately low." • Groundwater. Although no groundwater was encountered in the borings, CEG states that water levels may fluctuate seasonally. • Ground Accelerations. The report indicates Seismic Zone 4, Soil Type S, and Seismic Service Type B at a distance of less than 2 km from the site. • Liquefaction. Soils on the site are too clayey for liquefaction. 5. Recommendations CEG provides recommendations for: a)fill placement;b) slope gradients, c) drainage; d) building pad preparation; e) foundation design;f)retaining walls; and g) slabs-on-grade. The limitations section states that the geotechnical engineer must review detailed grading and foundation plans for consistency with the intent of the recommendations in the geotechnical report. They also indicate that observation and testing services are required during grading and installation of utilities and foundations. DMA.Findings Our findings are summarized in the Updated CEQA Section,provided in Appendix A. DMA Recommendations We recommend that the following be made Conditions of Approval: Geotechnical/Geologic A. Prior to issuance of the grading permit,provide geologic and geotechnical evaluation of the grading plan on stability,particularly on the hillside overlooking Lot 46. B. The required report shall provide measures to intercept any concentrated runoff at the upper boundary of the project site in a closed conduit system and convey it to adequate storm drainage facilities or a natural channel. -C. Flillside grading shall be kept to a practical minimum. Where needed, retaining walls or reinforced earth can be utilized with proper design. Fill slopes and cut slopes in colluvium.over 4 feet M* vertical height shall have a gradient of 2.5:1 (or flatter). Graded slopes in fill or colluvium.over 15 feet in vertical height shall have gradients of 3:1 (or flatter). DARWIN MYERs Assor-IATES Page 4 Deed Disclosure D. Applicant shall record a statement to run with deeds to property acknowledging the approved geotechnical report by title, author(firm), and date, calling attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is available from the seller. We trust this letter provides the evaluation and comments that you requested. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES - 4 d Darwin Myers, CEG 946 f n Principal _ r cc: Gary Facia, Building Inspection Department Izzat Nashashibi, Humane Co. James Farr Davni Development 3051-041tr.wpd C DARWIN MYERs ASSOCIATE \�l Contra Costa County Fire Protectiont" ~ 04 JUN -7 AM 11: 19 Fire Chief KEITH RICHTER May 31, 2004 Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Ryan Hernandez Subject: SD04-8839, Muir Ranch Phase li, Emshee Lane CCCFPD Project No.: 103257 Gentlemen: We have reviewed the subdivision application to establish a 16 lot residential subdivision at the subject location. This project is regulated by codes, regulations, and ordinances administered by this Fire District. If approved by your office, the following shall be included as conditions of approval: 1. The developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 1000 GPM. Required flow shall be delivered from not more than 1 hydrant flowing while maintaining 20 pounds residual pressure in the main. (903.3)CFC Note: This includes the reduction for the installation of automatic fire sprinklers. 2. The developer shall provide three (3) hydrants of the East Bay type.eHydrant Y locations will be determined by this office upon submittal of three copies of a tentative map or site plan. (903.4.2)CFC 3. Provide access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20 feet unobstructed width, and not less than 13 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 42 feet, and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus i.e., 37 tons. (902-2)CFC ❑ 2010 GEARY ROAD • PLEASANT HILL, CALIFORNIA 94523-4694 • TELEPHONE (925) 930-5500 • FAX 930-5592 ❑ 4527 DEERFIELD DRIVE • ANTIOCH, CALIFORNIA 94531 • TELEPHONE (925) 757-1303 • FAX 754-8852 ❑ WEST COUNTY AREA • TELEPHONE (5 10) 374-7070 CCC Community Development - 2 - May 31, 2004 CCCFPD No. 103257 Note: Access roads of 20 feet unobstructed width shall have approved NO PARKING signs posted or curbs painted red with the words "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" clearly marked. Access as shown appears to comply with these requirements. 4. Dead end Fire District access roads in excess of 150 feet long shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of Fire District apparatus. (902.2.2.4)CFC 5. The developer shall submit three copies of site improvement plans indicating fire apparatus access and turnaround area for review and approval prior to construction. (902.2.2.1) CFC Note: This may be the same submittal as the Hydrant location(s) if necessary. 6. The developer shall provide acomputer-aided design (CAD) digital file copy of the subject project upon final approval of the site improvement plans or subdivision map. CAD file shall be saved in an AUtoCAD@ 2002 file format or DXF file format. Contact this office for current acceptable AutoCAD@ version. 7. Access roads and hydrants shall be installed, in service and approved prior to construction. (8704.1)CFC 8. Approved premises identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall contrast with their background and be readily visible from the street. (901.4.4)CFC 9. The homes as proposed shall be protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system complying with NFPA 13D. Submit two sets of plans to this office for review and approval prior to installation. (1003.1)CFC, CCC General Plan 10. Submit plans to: Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 2010 Geary Road Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 To schedule field inspections and tests, call 925-941-3323. It is requested that a copy of the conditions of approval for the subject project be forwarded to this office when compiled by the planning agency. CCC Community Development - 3 - May 31, 2004 CCCFPD No. 103257 If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office at 925-941-3300. Sincerely, Kevin Joell Fire Prevention Technician FILE: 103257.Itr c: Davni Development L.L.C. 18 Hillside Ct. Berkeley, CA 94704 James Farr P.O. Box 2567 Martinez, CA 94553 De I JGGO"0JO Lk-.l. i M, ddU t-'161104 1'"IH Y Ob '04 10:00 r. �1. IOW HIMP EMU May 6,2004 Mamaez,California FOWW 1913 Contra Costa County Community Development Department Attn:Ryan Hernandez, Project Planner 651 Pine Street,44 Floor,North Wing Martina, CA 94553-0095 %1 1 r Subject: Tentative Map Subdivision 8839 Muir Ranch Phase 11 Blum Road, Martinez I 9 Dear Mr.Hemandez Thank you for furnishing the Mt.view Sanitary District with a copy of the tentative map for Am the referenced subdivision. OAW SBOUMWWe have the following comments on this application. •:1 1. Each building shall be served with a separate side-sewer connected to the new main_ The side--sewer to any existing buildings to remain shall be replaced.All side-sewers shall be Armowfitted with sund backwater prevention devices. 2. If the existing building is to be removed the developer shall obtain an abandonment permit Rudolph ;Loptien from the District prior to demolition and the existing lateral abandoned . �NQIr�Be� g n at the main, A credit for this unit will be applied to future connection fees. I Any sewer main not located within a public street must have a 15-foot minimum easement dedicated to the sewer district. Structures and trees are not permuted within District easements, The easement may be non-exclusive provided no storm drains or utilities are constructed within five feet of sewer mains. 4. The developer shall submit plans prepared by a California registered civil engineer to the Distract Engineer for review for all new sanitary sewer construction required by this development. Plans shall conform to the District's Standard Specifications, 5. The developer shall enter into the District's standard sewer improvement agreement, post mainline security and pay plan review, mapping and inspection fees prior to recording the 1~incl Map, 6. The developer shall obtain a sewer construction permit and construct all improvements necessary for the development of the project at no cost to the District. 7. The developer shall pay permit fees for trunk sewer,plant capacity and connection prior to connecting each dwelling unit to the District's system. The District will not issue individual connection permits until after the Sanitary Board has accepted mainline MT.VIEW SANITARY DISTRICT improvements for maintenance and building foundation have been constructed. 3 5 0 0 AR r H u R R 0 AID 8. Fees shalt be charged pursuant to the Ordinance in effect at the time permits are issued. P . O . Box Z 7 5 ? Fees are subject to revision by the Diet Board without notice. MARTINEZ,CA 94553 9 4. 15 . 2 ? 8 . 5635 FAX92S-22K-75KS \\Clerical 1\C\Clerical 1%NSD\LL ERS\10593Hcmandez-Muir Ranch Phase H engineers conditions.doc ; x02/04 MHY alb '04 10:01 f Please feel free to contact ft undersigned at 925 228 4218 voice,925 228 463 8 fax,or ran .l ' n 1 -inc«com email, sold there be any questions. Ma�p�C�lii`u�ain�Ebuaded 1923 Very truly yours, Inc. r R dolp W.Leptien istrict En&eer Encl. Agency Comment Request Form Maintenance Map Via facsim&no. 925 335 1222 Original will follow by mail Copy; D. Contreras w/o encl 925 228 7585 Izzat Nashashibi,Humann Company Inc. w/e'ncl 925 283 3578 RWL:rckl r s�r,a r y.l tt � • A i•', t I � �12.1f�r�.:'r.%S'tpftt J•�. �:E'�'•+ �y'(»� .i, t,,fl�r:rt•�.�t'fifty I+.t`}• t�'�,•.r,�4 r,• :�� .r 7r .i; •'��r.t:i;1'b. .Ir. fr�,�rJ,r.�1./t.'t�,•{ �•Y. �f,,j"tj�1'�t ft`tl�f•i." r1'•,t�i��f.rl�i t.�•.. .:`l 'rr:• .:Il r. tO t}•,�1,t ,I �t rr t }'i A«rw rt••.t(' y�i i •tf..�t�fft't ti ,r.'+t,•.' I rt 1;., .,t..•!t A t.I•�:...fy.� t fit 4'1,�''..'1•t'1 I. �. r \\Clerical j\C\Clerical 1\MVSD\LF?TnRS\l 0593Hcmandez Muir Ranch Plisse It engines conditions,dQc AirpoTt Dennis M. Barry,AICP o n ra Community Development Director Land Use Costa Commission County c/o Community Development Department County Administration Building _ --L- 651 Pine Street `'•• 4th Floor,North Wing _ Martinez,California 94553-0095 • v1 Phone: rA-�aU- (925) 335-1229 July 1, 2004 Mike Henn, Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development 2"d Flr,NW, Martinez, Ca. 94533 RE: County File#SD048839 for Muir Ranch in the unincorporated Martinez area Dear Mr. Henn: The subdivision proposed needs to incorporate two mitigation measures within the initial study.The site is located according the Contra Costa County General Plan in an area "unconditionally acceptable", which states, New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction required is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. This site is also within the Buchanan Airfield Airport Influence Area, however clear of any safety zones. According to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, development for the subject site is considered"marginally acceptable";therefore two mitigations measures need to be incorporated into a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The following measures are required: 1) Prior to the recordation of the parcel map a deed restriction is required to be recorded and submitted to the Community Development Department with the following language: "Notice of Airport in the Vicinity" This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area.For that reason,the property maybe subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations and state highways (for example: noise,vibration, and odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. " Office Hours Monday - Friday:8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month 2) Forty-five(45)days prior to the request of building permits,interior noise level for all homes within an airport influence area needs to be 45 dB CNEL in single family residences with the window closed. The developer will need to provide the necessary insulation to maintain the acceptable level. If you have any questions regarding this matter you may contact the ALUC staff at 925-335-1229 Sincerely, Lashun C. Cross ALUC Planner cc: ALUC File SD048839 James Farr P.O. Box 2567 Martinez, Ca. 94553 Davni Development, LLC 18 Hillside Court Berkeley, Ca. 94704 ....s usersZ$'.1 Persion ct t.:Q en. a.£',..:Pro J7.1, L..doc CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT a 1331 Concord Avenue P.O.Box H2O 04 AUG 31 Concord,CA 94524 PH 925 688-8000 FAX 925 688-8122 3 8/26/2004 ; 5. , i Directors Joseph L. Campbell Contra Costa County, President Community Development Department Elizabeth R.Anello 651 Pine Street Vice President Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Bette Boatmun John A. Burgh Karl L. Burgh SUBJECT: DAVNI DEVEL,OPMEr:T—EM4'.HEE LANE File Number: SD048839 — Walter J. Bishop Genera!Manager To Whom It May Concern: Potable water service for the Davni Development —Emshee Lane is required and will be made available upon completion of financial arrangements and installation of all necessary water facilities to meet the requirements of residential use, including irrigation, backflow protection and fire protection, according to current District standards. Sincerely, Peter H. Dunn Engineering Service Coordinator PHD File: 305998 5 uommunry ILI �� a Community Development Director Development 'Co' Sta DertmQnt_'��a - ty �l�n County Administration BuildingE 651 Pine Street r S 4th Floor,North VVing ��,j r Martinez California 94553-0095RL - + (925)33"5-1210Date: Phone: �r ?A-Co. AGENCI COREQUEST We request your comm. eats rear ' the attached application currently 1—mder renew. DISTRIBIJTION Please submit your comments as follows: Buildjng Inspection HSD5 Environmental Health., Concord Project Planner 0 P n 0A JE�7� HSD,Hazardous Mate-i ah f PI. -Flood Control (Full Size) - County File PJW En ' ee ' Sv Size humbe e 0 } Date Forwarded Z 6TO �x PIW.Traffm(Rediice4j Prior To: 10q P,'W Sped l Disbcicts_(Reduced) Comgrehensiv � e Ianaaiag - 'e.have following the follog spe-ciai programs Hedev'elopment Agency apply to this application: Historical Resources Information System - CA Native,Amer.Her. Comm. Redevelopment Area - CA Fish._& Game,Region. —U- S.Fish &Wildlife Service . Active Fault Zone Fire District - .�;Sanitary District Alf, Vi, - Flood Hazard Areas Panel# t �i Rter District C-aV144 L5h . City f - 60 dBA Noise Control School District717�- p ?- Shri: 'OeAte.:: CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site Alamo Improvement Assodation -_ EI Sobrante PIg. 8:honing Committee` Traffic Zone MAC - . DOIT -Dep.Director, Communications CEQA Exempt CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical Ebemption Section Community Organizations W.6 01/1 P 14 vi Ar r Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance• Please send co ies of your response to the Applicant& Owner. No comments on this application. aur Comments are attached AcErmn 'Comments: re • V ' t • A.genc3� /2,7 �16V Sx rrent punning/templates/forms/agency comment request Date ` Office Hours-Monday - Friday: 5:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. CALIFORNIA - ALAMEDA MARIN SAN MATED Northwest Information Center HISTORICAL °_• COLUSA MENDOCINO SANTA CLARA Sonoma State University �. CONTRA COSTA MONTEREY SANTA CRUZ RESOURCES LAKE NAPA ' SOLANO 1303 Maurice Avenue SAN BENITOSONOMA Rohnert Park California 94928-3609 INFORMATION f •`�` '•""' SAN FRANCISCO YOLO Tel:707.664.0880 Fax:707.664.0890 SYSTEM � E-mail:nwic@sonoma.edu . ::�,:.. 04 jut, June 14,2004 File No.: 03-CC-94 Reevaluation Ryan Hernandez,Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street 4'h Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 re: SD048839/APN 159-170-034/Dauni Development Dear Mr. Hernandez Records at this office were reviewed to determine if this project could adversely affect historical resources. The review for possible historic structures,however,was limited to references currently in our office. Please note that use of the term historical resources includes both archaeological sites and historic structures. The proposed project area has the possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological site(s). A study is recommended prior to commencement of project activities. XX The proposed project area has a low possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological site(s). Therefore,no further study for archaeological resources is recommended. Study# identified one or more historical resources. It is recommended that a qualified archaeologist assess the status of the site and provide project specific recommendations. XX Review for possible historic structures was limited to the Northwest Information Centers documents and should not be considered comprehensive. Since the Office of Historic Preservation has determined that any building or structure 45 years or older maybe of historic value,if the project area contains such properties it is recommended that they be evaluated by an architectural historian prior to commencement of project activities. XX The Office of Historic Preservation has determined that any building or structure 45 years or older maybe of historic value. therefore, if the project area contains such properties thay should be evaluated by an architectural historian prior to commencement of project activities. XX The guidelines for implementation of the California Register of Historical Resources(Cal Register)criteria for evaluation of historical properties have been developed by the State Office of Historical Preservation. For the purposes of CEQA,all identified sites should be evaluated using the Cal Register criteria. XX We recommend you contact the local Native American tribe(s)regarding traditional, cultural, and religious values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of the project,please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at 916/653-4082. If archaeological resources are encountered during the project,work in the immediate vicinity of the finds should be halted until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation. If you have any questions please give us a call(707)664-0880. Sincerely, ,. Leigh Jordan Coordinator f 1'� Bonnie Lee Johnson, Attorney at Lam 22 Nil Law Office of Bonnie Lee Johnson � 1700 Forth Broadway, Suite 300 Walnutnee Creek, CA 94596 Tel. 925-943-5400 Pax. 925-943-5050 E-mail: BonnieJohnsonEsq@aol.com DELIVERED BY HAND THIS DATE: November 22, 2004 Michael Henna Project Planner Ryan A. Hernandez, Project Planner Community Development County Administration Building Contra Costa County 631 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Fax #: [9251335-1222 Re: County File: SD048839 Muir Ranch Sub-Divisions Ernshee Road, Martinez, CA Dear Mr. Michael Henn and Mr. Ryan Hernandez: As you knower, this office represents Alice and Joe Quigley. This letter will serge as formal request for you to forward the following missing reports that appear to have been a basis for your report/agenda and recommendations of the Contra Costa County ening Adrniuustrator's Report to be heard on Monday,November 29, 2004. Also included are comments offered for the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator's consideration. Requested reports: 1. Traffic and Circulation: Waiver of requirement of grooved concrete for portion of road that may have a 16%grade. 2. Drainage: Proof of presence of"grassy swale along the east shoulder of Blum Road" where the runoff from the subdivision to the north will be conveyed. [My clients state that there is no existing swale.] 3. Drainage: Applicant identification of"how storm water entering or originating on Lots 15 and 16 will be collected and conveyed in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code." 4. Drainage: Report of how applicant will fulfill his duty to reduce contaminants in runoff before it reaches a natural watercourse. 5. Drainage: Applicant's report: Paul R. Detjens, Associate Civil Engineer,Flood Control, recommended a report be submitted by applicant on homer the applicant has verified the capacity of down stream drainage system and the hydrology and hydraulic calculations verifying the downstrewn drainage system will not be adversely impacted by the proposed subdivision. 6. Proposed Road Design: County Report that Emshee road will Never be impacted by the future development of Blum View and/or Jing Brannan's property to the west. The logical and foreseeable future of this area is that the county will want to insure the safety of the citizens who will be purchasing homes that wi I] obviously be built on Blum View and/or Jim Brannan's property behind this current Davni Phase II project. To protect these future residents adequately, the county will most likely want them to have ingress and egress down Emshee Load. The present design of Emshee Road foretells this. Therefore, the County would foreseeably want to increase the width of Emshee Road to accommodate the future safety of its foreseeable future residents. 7. Sidewalks: County Report that states that there will be no danger to children or other residents of these 16 homes to walk down Emshee Road without sidewalks to catch the school bus and participate in other activities ire the community and that the current plan to have a four-foot wide gravel path will fulfill ADA requirements. ADA Title II and Title III: Are state and local governments required to make roads and sidewalks accessible? Yes. where the government has authority over roads and sidewalks it must provide physical access in the form of curb ramps or sloped areas to all. Providing curb ramps to sidewalks serving state and local government buildings, public accommodations, transportation facilities and places of employment must be given first priority. It appears that the County by asserting requirement upon the builder/developer/owner has asserted its authority over this road and its construction and therefore must enforce ADA minimum requirements. S. Aesthetics: County report that considers the future residents and the value of the views to the Quigley property. The current comments are directed at only the existing home site and do not even consider the future development of Quigley's two acre parcel and its future residents? value of their currently unobstructed panoramic views. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has enacted Ordinance leo. 2004-33 to preserve the areas of Kensington that has distant and panoramic views and solar access}privacy in living areas adequate off-street parking, compatibility of structures within neighborhoods with regard to bulk and scale and isolation from offensive emissions, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1. Also to be considered is Policy 3-28: New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas when it will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment and upon the existing community. Development that obstructs the panoramic views of the Quigley property, without consideration of the damage to the value of the Quigley property and without consideration of its future residents and their loss of their valuable views is unconscionable and a violation of the county's own policy and precedent. The County has established policy and precedence and must fallow it. The current recommended maximum heights imposed on Phase I will not retain the lit. Diablo views of the Quigley property. Lots 3,4,5, along with lots 10, 11, and 12 must be lowered to MSL of 104 to insure preservation of the views for the future residents of Quigley's property and to preserve the value of the Quigley's property. 9. Report of limitation to development of lot 15. Presently lot 15 has no height limitation mentioned should this home be remodeled and another story added. This lot must be limited to MSL of 104 also for the sante reasons as mentioned above in paragraph 7. Conclusion: The lots to be developed in Phase Il of Davni Development never had any views to be preserved and lack the unique value that property with panoramic views hold. Lots offering vistas for their residents to enjoy are a premium and the county must not destroy the value of one citizen's asset to ease the development of another's property. 10. Traffic and Parking restrictions: a) Report stating who enforces these parking restrictions? 3 After the firestorm of the Oakland hills, how can the county allow a foreseeable blocking streets such that emergency vehicles will not be able to gain access to the residents? what liability is the county accepting by stating that they knowingly approve of this foreseeable blockage of access to their citizens? b) Report of the fact that the project will generate only 15 additional AM/PM trips. Unless this is a single person only residential development, each residence will have the 3.5 residents. This meanc.. that each residence vii l l have the usual two working parents with the child/children who attend the usual activities of sports, religious,music, and etc. activities. This statement of only 15 trips appears to be completer without logic or foresight. 11. Free Replacement: Arborists Report and Report stating what type of replacement trees and the two trees to be planted on each lot. The existing views from the Quigley property need to be protected and the height of the chosen tree when mature lnust not block the existing views. 12. Screening Replacement: oleanders are not appropriate screening due to the fact that they are poisonous to children and pets and this is a residential development. The Quigleys prefer that the screening be continued beyond lot 2 to the end of lot 6. 13. Pedestrian facilities: (a) Report that Mr. and Mrs. Quigley requested sidewalks to be installed down Explorer way before the development of Phase I. (b) Report that the county has approved asphalt walkways down residential streets elsewhere in the county and that they meet ADA standards. 14. Dust and Debris During Construction: Report of to whom to report violations during restricted hours and federal and state holidays, including this person's telephone numbers. The reports of violations by the Quigleys went unheeded due to lack of a telephone number and person to whom to report the violations and this county employees' inability to make a timely response thereto. Gary Faria, Senior Grading Inspector, stated That Joe Romo, Grading Inspector II, would inspect the Davni Phase I site once daily and leave his business card at the Quigley's door as confirmation that he had been by. This card was left once. However,whenever there was an inspector due,the developer watered the site well. 4 Debris from construction and worker=s lunches blew into the surrounding neighborhood including the open field of grazing cattle, endangering their safety. The lengths of yellow plastic caution tape,plastic bags,paper, cups, chunks of cement and chunks of blacktop found in the field and through out the neighborhood forced the neighborhood residents to clean up after Davni. There was no discernable effort by Davni to enforce abatement of debris and dust. 15. Parks and recreation: The report that this project will have a minor effect on demand for park and recreation facilities. The children of the Blum Road community are isolated from community parks and recreation facilities. This Bl am Load community is completely without any park or open area for the children to play. Currently, they play ball in the street,ride their skateboards in the street, and ride their bikes in the street. Now,the county has allowed the development of 26 neer homes With all of the demands of the active children of these homes and not planned for any green area to be set-aside for this isolated community. The only reason this community will not burden the demand for park and recreation facilities is that the children of this community are too geographically isolated by freeway.&;and major thoroughfares to have these existing parks and recreational faNcilities available to them. Yet, the county does not address or consider their unique needs. Very truly yo r 7 � � t Bonnie L. Johnson, Esquire BLJ J bj Enclosure cc. Joe Quigley and Alice Quigley 5 )EX s P-U-BLIc NaT1F1--CA. T1C3N,. Lepi.notice ' Lego!-N tice Lepl.Notice Lepi i ante Leel 11%WUCe LOW NOW, ORDINANCE NO.20% family Impacts upon surrounding the Cou. oeiferal Plan adopt=. These acceptan- mum to width o'lot area- residentlal uses. propertles, thereby pre-.so that Kensington ces appp�s-w4u! req Ines•b, Dlvr$io f?xTENSioJ�AND I11lODl FICA The sAFtrl g the values of the Combining 1)1strl world lead to a degrad ep ,of ana-84 for 1-he rests rti TION Of URGENCY C. terrain of the Kensington community, be consistent h the the unique resltletltial =Ustrlet where the INTERIM ORDINANCE �censington area-Is hill . Oeneral Plan- character of the Kenslna. ate L PROHIBITING CERTAIN Parcels and lots located In f,The Kensington Cornbirr- ton area. LAND tt5E DEVELOPMENT redS.��dendal zoning dis= Ing Dtstr(�t ordinance !!-A �hreat #a the ubtic S CTPrONAtlar iN THE KENSING7ClN AREA tI Ct� In th Kensinat�on would establish an over- hearth. safety, andP wel- ON ti. It. The. -s forth area have distairt end pen- Iay zone the wh8n m-. e wo:dd Lilt if any Ordinance No.2004-� as In section.111 nVapp y The Contra Costa County oramlC v��wws�f siIn bind with an t�ndprl tnQ land-use entltlornents oTrtodi !d by Section iV,be- Z:KneyrSnatan lite followingpin Board of Supervisors or- bridges.�lstant cities,d - zoning.dlstrlc4 MUM re- =99 perm for rest- tow,is extended for 10 area: darns as follows: i�cfiv�e gootogic�toatures qutre public hearings on structures pro- r�Ianth# and 15 days, h=de terra n, wooded development 0 licetians pond for Lind„�y oped through June 2&20D5. (O- Any drscredona SECTION 1, FtNDINGS AND canyons,ridges,or bodies under s eciliff condi- parcels or undihm land-use entitler'it�rlrt at PUAPOSE. bf WateT. tions. -Under the ordi- lots to=ted IR the Ken- SECTION 111- PW MI81- authorizes a ttvc- nance If a- ariWirs- sin n area are Accepted TIOlils- While this Interim tion of-a res�ential struc- A.The rands within the un- -D.The Kensinj# n corn- quired.thezoning an approved before the ordinance is In a{ no tura.addltlon to 4 resider►- Incorporated communittyy mu Sty values the preset- tcatar wot]Id ire required Genera(Plan Is amended epppllcations for Ian se t1a1-structure or new or of Kensington are 1 d atz vv�on of v Vews and solar to evaluate features of the and the Kensington Co - entitleme or_buildl modifled residential acxes- generaIla south an east � privacy n living proposed gevelopMent oil bining,District zoning olydi- permits s i be accept Baty building an an lot or of te City of d Cerrito. areas.adequate In the ba3ls�of�helr impacts Hance IS adopted. A or pmeessed and no parcel,as lona as the dis- hnorth of the City of Berke- parking, Compatibility of on neighboring proper- threat to the public land-use ardltiements or tretionaryla td-'teetltltle- � ley, and west of wildcat structures within neigh- tim health, safety, and w+el- building. a shot be ment was approved as of . Canyon and Tilden region- borhoad5 with regard -to re would 'result if any app or issued, for the a date of Or& ai parrs. More specitical- bulk and scale.and Isola. -G.The County has re land-use,ept nts or an of the following in the ftnce ND. 3004.28 thane . i ,the Kensfn��tton area Is tion from offensive mils- qquuested to amend the building per for rest- Kensington area: 29,2004). � srown on Exhibit A and de- slons. Collat�r General plan so dentia``struc 13e - t fined In Exhlbft B, which thm tfte land uses author- tial addMon%5, or new or (a)Any r+esfdential strut- � 33 Ai v building permit i are attached hereto ani# E.The Coir is contetn- Ize by the Kensington modified identlel asses- ture pproposed tar any un- Teson, is long as the Incorporated herein by plating o�tQ a zonirEg Combinl�i)Istrlct zoning so bufidings proposed devetaped.parcel or uncle• ullding permit appllca- this reference. �t would es- ordinance would be corn- onformIng.Idts locat- veloped lot. tion received zoning dear- i tabflsh the Kens1 on ppaatible with the objet- �n residefidW zoning ante from the Community B.The lands within the Containing OL e klves, poficles. general districts In the Kerala on (by residential strut- Developmerft Oepartntertt Kensington area are desig- purpose of the o mance land uses, and prpgrams ansa are ar-aCepted nail ap. ture dltion to et redden- as of the effective date of natPed�n the County Genet- l `Id be to establish regu- sp�tifled Jn the..General proved before the General flat struicture or rtew or Ordinance No. 2004.28 $ a parnrs ly For hlgn ons atiowtng propertyPian. Pian Is amend and lite modified r�esic�entlai Ages- Oune 2'9, ). density single farnily resi- owners to Improve thH.The Cosi Intends to Kensington Corn nine Dis- sol buildl a ed for dentia use and are zoned property while minlmlzing tnitlate a studyto amend trict zoning ordinance is a Iot that as the mini- SECTIOM V. ItEPORTIi. In amolance with sukrdlvl- "� slon� to f Government Code section 65858, ten days ei<ore dw expiration of M ordinance or any r extepslen of,It,the Com- munity DevelOpmeet. De- fah Cent shall file with Jerk of this Board a w6tten report describing the measures taken to a- leviate the coediftos that W.to alta adoption of this urgency interim ordin- ance. SECTION VL SEVER sou 4, TY. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the;application thereof-to any person or circumstm- ces Is herd to be unconstl- tutional or to be other- wise Invalid b �ny court of stent lurlsdiction, such Irwalldity shall not a�- fect other ordinancearov- sions,or.pauses CW.appn- ions thereof that can impiftented without tate,invalid p vision or clause or ap pr catlon,and to this end a provislons and c1l*dses,of this ordi- nence are declared to be Severable., :11110110H vill. oEcu,tA- TION OFtiM MICY.This or- dlnan Is hereby de- clared to be an urqqncy or:. dinanm for1he Immediate Presery ion of the pubft safety healfih, and. wel• flare Ue e spun ,and it shall effect 7mmedl- a ely pn :its adAptlp�t. tam con Itutiin the E ur�en of thhs nan:- ce s adoption are set forth In Section 1. SECTtOMI'Y1 . EFFECM VERIOD. This ordlnan� be nM.effi duvet Irnnledl- . ately upon. passage fay Lr- fibs oto am and and stall ca tlnue In,effect for period of Lo months. U. :15. days,. through lune.2B,200�5„pu r- suant Gonet�OnM1ent Code sectidn* 6565L Whh- t5 days of qe,this, orWhance sh be'publ M- ed once:with the-names of the supqrvisars voting for t and astarlt essln the.Can- au published$i m s M3+ PASSED ON .August 10,. 2604 by the foitoWlnp vote: AYES: supervisors Glole. ilkkerr�a, Grwnberg, Deaulnler and Glover NOES:.None ABSENT:'None ABSTAIN:'clone ATTEST:JOHN SWEETEN Clerk of the Board of- Su ervlsars and County Administrator /s/Federal 0.Glover C X�1ib,f ;� ho�� verl�y.5� >s:4,14 .pt�-mob dliMp��C e=.. Fan- — - 04 NOV E9 PM g :., r 1e10 �f Ji 40" oor ;- Orr?- W4 .Cc.I�G.�. ��r<, �w6lJ� .4{,t�',vt r« .1��„ .. •I z;32 ble.0ar ��swnpi �s�f'yoo- sp. SOtitOwc�e,Vol _ .. /4f �a./ed, e�nr. 04 ,.. /e Zoos��lx.ltrfos u h, Alp W_A TA7 VDo ho"Lxp� 1:30 3tsn Alwo C1960Vol/ - ov NO ..•5��/QG.,�.ln�. ee4sal— No ��t� a//a�ay /2600 w 40 rl o. noj�leg�.. low& . . •1:av -lf�s o�..- �Ln.��,r r�loeQknl. . 3: 17 a i.Ta1 3y i -- 1 . W716 10 a rr' -Me - YZ _.. - : - .+err _.r r-!• Y _�..r_. _ 9!*1113 tcud) I - .464... _ -. _...._ Zlzt"e5le 4 Zia, 7 17to /�� ..rr... w. +�-+:_b .� ..e..-.r.R.r_r�r�.•^+ �.�.�. -�-+- _*f_ ..•rr��w...•M w+w_. rr-�^r�..�-.•.... ♦ _..w"'1_..r��rrr rr-M� �_--.�..�+ tee_.__..... �_' .^ .+.W wA.�_+ _ - 11/ +I ie _ - r ..._ •• + _ r��+.l�l.r� 1 r• +�+..r�Mt•.�11._..T..i�. ...r... ..+._ w rir .1. �l �M��IIM�Rr'��. �j -,�� r�..r *- ..._,.._ ... ... . . � - _ w. � _ ..� - wr-•._ � _ .r, j(t A174 ,�. _a�-..yr_ �r�� a„" /r r"". w�_♦ +..+•.T. a ��w r.►�.,p_.r.- _�..�� -�J►_ +w�-.may._rw+�•w_ �ti .-��.w�►..�_ SI 2.0c?a jy 6%,w-41-7- A 9 5 rr,9 m q 1',37 «._.._. __...._ _ .. .._••r^--_ _._�... __._....� r-�• ��R �'Y� .- +r-._..-� .q,_ r.�._-r•r- .r.,..i. �._._. a r...�._�._.�..� �._ _.._ r_•+ _..w.f... ....._....r.�.r...rr.r•+ - •+. .w..-- ._•w•_....�. _. _ .._ .. _._�� _. � -ter r f �d .. ,w .• : _.y 'w-- •yr � .�.�-.._,-_.. -...rte -•.n, aw.•.•�-.._ p y.r qj o epo Joel LJO 4-71 1• �f 3�' �y +� �� ... '�I�+1/r. ._., _ ,..►_ .r - -► _�_.- ter*-_.._.- .•► rr s a r-.rra -_...- - .. PATRICK D. ZIMSKI ATTORNEY AT LAW THE LEAMINGTON 1814 FRANKLIN STREET,SUITE 815 OAKLAND,CALIFORNIA 94612 TELEPHONE:510.595.7708 FACSIMILE: 510.595.7712 November 24, 2004 YIA FAX&MAIL Michael Henn, Project Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,North Wing,2"d Floor Martinez, California 94553 RECEIVED Re: County file No. SD 048839 Dear Mr. Henn. ZONING ADMINIS-rn-A AT R HEARING AGENDA ITEM # I represent Applicant,Davni Development. This responds to the November 22, 2004 letter to you from attorney Bonnie Lee Johnson on behalf of Alice and Joe Quigley. I will speak to each of the items raised in the letter in the same order they appear in the letter. 1. Traffic and Circulation: The grade shall be reduced to 15.7%on the final map. .2. Drainage: The grassy swale is under construction as part of Muir Ranch Phase I. 3. Drainage: Is part of COA from public works? 4. Drainage: I am informed that BMP's have been studied and approved by Rich Lierly P.E storm water specialist for Contra Costa County. A large natural grassy swale is part of BMP for filtration. 5. Drainage: It is our understanding that after meeting with public works,the recommended reports shall be submitted along with our improvement plans for the final map This should satisfactorily address this matter. 6. Proposed road design: Emshee is a private road; COA# 18 addresses this issue. It is Applicant's understanding that if the county ever wanted to acquire Emshee,the county would have to do so through eminent domain. 7. Sidewalks: It is my understanding that ADA should only apply to sidewalks. As there are no sidewalks in the subdivision neither Title I nor II applies. A gravel walkway is not an approved ADA surface. We request the deletion of this COA. Michale Henn Page 2 November 24, 2004 8. Aesthetics: Applicant is aware of no code provision that speaks to view protection for future development in Contra Costa.County;to Applicant's knowledge,there is not even a view ordinance for existing housing. The Kensington ordinance is site specific to Kensington. Applicant does not understand the point about scenic views, as it is my observation that Mt. Diablo is not visible from most of the Quigley property. 9. Report of limitation to development of lot 15: Lot 15 is not in the view line. 10. Traffic and Parking Restrictions: Applicant expects that parking enforcement will be controlled in the same manner as every other street in Contra Costa County. It is Applicant's understanding that a traffic study is only required for 100 or more peak trips 11. Tree Replacement: See view ordinance 12. Screening Replacement: Applicant is willing to use another plant subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator. Applicant submits that screening beyond the house is an excessive burden on Applicant. 13. Pedestrian Facilities: Applicant does not understand the point of this item. 14. Dust and Debris During Construction: On Muir Ranch Phase I, Davni has been in compliance on dust control, and disputes and resents the suggestion that compliance only coincided with inspections. There were surprise inspections and Davni was found to be in compliance. As to the claim that Davni's operations littered the neighborhood,this is the first time this has ever been raised, and as far as Davni is aware,there was never any issue raised by any neighbors, even by Mr. and Mrs. Quigley,who raised a drumbeat of other complaints. Davni has been reticent to engage Mr. and Mrs. Quigley and their counsel in a tit for tat. I must say,however,that these types of allegations are particularly galling in that: (a)Mr. and Mrs. Quigley have now benefitted from over$200,000 worth of improvements running to their property at Davni's expense; and(b)Davni experienced very little cooperation from Mr. and Mrs. Quigley in complying with COA#26 of Phase I which was installation of new services for Mr. and Mrs. Quigley,which cost Davni approximately an additional $10,000 in standby time and other fees associated with gaining access to Mr. and Mrs. Quigley's property While Mr. and Mrs. Quigley were entitled to oppose Phase I,as they did, and are entitled to raise their concerns about Phase II,much of this feels like an agenda driven more by a personal vendetta than authentic concern and input about the respective projects. 15. Parks and Recreation: Applicant will pay the park dedication fee as other developers do in Contra Costa County. Michale Henn Page 3 November 24, 2004 Please feel free to call me or Mr. David Margen at Davni if you have any questions. incerely, Patrick D. Zimski Joe and Alice Quigley 4500 Blum Road mo Martinez, CA 94553 Phone 925-228-7599 Fax 925-228-7599 December 13,2004 VAruna Bhat,Zoning Administrator Michael Henn,Project Planner y , Community Development Department Contra Costa County .-�- 651 Pine Street,North'Wing,2nd Floor a-p Martinez, CA 94553 `, CD ,- ' rw i RE: SD 04-8839 Dear Ms.Bhat and Mr.Henn, The letter from Patrick Zimski,attorney for Davni Development,was provided to us late last week. Hence our response was delayed. Several of the statements in Mr.Zimski's letter are not factual. #8- He stated that it is his observation that Mt.Diablo is not visible from most of the Quigley property.To our knowledge,Mr. Zimski has never been on our property. I have attached two photos that clearly show the magnificent view from thoughout our property. • #9-He states that Lot 15 is not in the view line toward Mt.Diablo.Photo 2 shows the location of the house on Lot 15, relative to our view. #14-With regards to the dust issue,attached are letters of complaint re: dust and/or debris,dated March 15, Sept. 29,2004. The letter of November 22,2004 is not attached as you already have received a copy of it. In addition to these written complaints,verbal complaints were made on at least twenty one separate occassions. Your prompt and professional attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Joe Quigley Alice Quigley cc: Bonnie Johnson,Esquire ;1�!�•td?,µi^$wi:.;an:Y�Gr'+�1kW'1Y:�a;�+,+�f.':t'�.eiS»,IL.rtTvc=s.�•.3,3+.vr""�"�a�.:.�:,,rn ati,�v!;.-...�a:w..e.h:�n.:.._.v -ti.�,-' - -.. 7 t �:A u�s. �, � :� x S i.:�„Y 'pq3 ."b^ n•t�Ll�{�# "':'k !'^t�a�t¢.. Y� ,X p-�f'y:.,. z � eT { z �5 YY y 1 d N it ✓✓✓/ 4^ �( r V .'2. 'r:..i a. �.>,t A"�'" �ti'y ,,f,.:# .fir' ;v. t-. rYe�v av r. .9:Grd�'i' �a'�i. '>-•'�Z '�««. f �� ,.4'.6f :f, �� y.,'{`!_,f•:,,};,.T_. � s:... .:p.;'� ,fir 5 #" i y9 M rt�y J ........... A41 On!. D t� b t M1 L f t: E ,.r.ti:'i v jl4ey r y MFR-15-2E84 09:313 FRCN-bQnWXY RWM 9251c,"M TO:15LB84 446 �.G joe ano AI{Ce OUT91ey 45M Blum ROW M- - t MEW 94553 925-22&7599 TC11 15, 2004 8:15 AM Dpi Owelopment 18 Hillside Court Berkeley, C!9474 tvnAWeat 4SIO Sam n=df This letter Is to AcdfV vou of continued vioiatio res of tine Cod!for tri e con ion at 4510 Blum Roar. • The new 24 Mwr emergencV numtw stied bV Mr. margen was a voice=11 and as of m is WrI Ong.there nas teen no respiefromhexer is at that numbor. • Ate`all Me interruptions W our wow-SaViCe on ch I Z the tempos line RMed all Wy march-13 ano wally rupWrW sometime during the night Joe o it tneu ng of MWO114_ • RWO vM 1mpW aable RU 13,14 and w11ing of the ISM our p�ap�r carrier ref used to clef iver our paw to the house slue to tft Ma cc ble rwe. • OnFeD4. 2004, the ni-cPat, 451013lum Mud was demoil"a Wthaut a �T number on file mAM the cnuM ac.corcl ing to qtr.Fung,Conte CO County.Acwraing to Infordvbon from Ta my Ijirata, WQMD, Omni DeefMment and NnIx E)u2v3WM h3ve e2Ch been iSWeo a WV fair the estos contamirMon rMlOng m VWr actJons. M out is vbitRe from"Ing with no dust COrVW measures in pow. We demand Mai ChM issues tje resaftd prompt . Sr ejVV or mwe and ATIc IeV cc. Brian Minix.,Mftw Excavators Wan Hernandez,pner for ContTa Costa Court Gam UiIlke[Tla,SUPerviSof fir District 2 VV 1Uti J_r-ta t r t illLaUL G R From.- BonnielohnsonEsq@aol.com To: jaquigley@earthlink.net Subject: Davni Date: Sep 29,2004 1:34 PM Bonnie Lee Johnson, Attorney at Law Law Office of Bonnie Lee Johnson 1700 North Broadway, Ste. 300 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Tel. 925-943-5400 1-866-411-ADOPT Fax. 925-943-5050 E-mail: BonnieJohnsonEsq@aol.com SENT BY FACSUMILE TO PATRICK ZIM SKI THIS DATE September 29, 2004 Patrick Zimski 1814 Franklin Street, Ste. 815 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel.: [510] 595-7708 Pax.: [510] 595-7712 Re: Davni Development Blum Road Project Dear Mr. Zi rn ski: This letter memorializes our telephone conversation of earlier today,wherein you stated that Davni Development,and specifically David Margen,would like any clients the Quigleys to cease complaining about their perceived problems with the Davni Development,LLC,development of phase I and phase II along Blum Road and Emchee Read. My clients are properly notifying those county offices that would be regulating the specific concerns noticed by my clients. If these officials find there are no violations or problems with Davni's work,then they can so V nform my clients and Davni. The concerns mentioned in any letter of August 29,2004, are specific honest and reasonable concerns of members of the community. when I attempted to discuss each of these concerns with you,you declined. I also mentioned a new concern. Davni is building a three-foot retaining wall along the border of Blum Road Storage facility and putting a three-foot fence on top of that. The concern is that this will diminish the security of the Blum Road Storage facility,and while this does not impact my clients directly,they are as a courtesy to Davni,alerting therm to the potential of their diminishing the needed security of this storage facility. If Davni wanted to be a"good neighbor-builder," they would discuss the fencing before construction to insure that bath parties' interests were met. https-.//webmaii.pas.earthlink.net/wam/printablejsp?.msgid=13 I O& 23443355 9/29104 The Contra Costa County Sanitary District has contacted my clients to discuss the impingement of Davni onto my clients' leased land on the east side of Turn Road,where my clients run cattle. Currently the coves are calving and so far there are seven brand new little calves in the Meld. For Davni to burden my clients' lease, whomever floes any work on this property must obtain the same liability insurance that CCCSD required of my clients,attached hereto as an example of what is required by your clients. The entrance and exits of the property must remain accessible to my clients' cattle operation equipment. My clients may have other limitations of Davni's use,however,until my clients know what Davni is doing upon this land,they cannot say for certain what they need Davni to dotguarantee. The immediate concern is that Davni is not picking up their g4trbage and trash,including lunch trash,yellow tape, chunks of board, plastic-thin foam,plywood, etc. This trash is blown in to the pasture and can kill a calf or cow if eaten. This must stop. Davni MUST PICK UP TBEIR TRASH AS TREY WORK. Nino mentioned that he wanted his men to be able to enter the field to pick up the gash,but this burdens my clients with liability for these men's safety, especially since Dino has no workers comprehensive insurance,for as is stated on his license,he has no employees. My clients gas is still on their temporary line instead ofbeing properlyinstalled. Can you please advise us as to when this will be progeny connected? Sincerely yours, Bonnie L. Johnson,Esquire BLJ*J .l Enclosure cc. Clients httos://webrnail,iDas.earthlink.nettwam/t)n'ntable.i sD?msaid=1310&x=223443355 9129/04 Bonnie Lee Johnson, Attorney at Law Law Office of Bonnie Lee Johnson 1700 North Broadway, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tel. 925-943-5400 Fax. 925-943-5050 E-mail: BonnieJohnsonEsq@aol.com August 29, 2004 Michael Henn, Project Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building Contra Costa County 631 Pine Street,North Wing, 2nd Floor Martinez, California 94553 Justin Ingram, Public Works Department County Administration Building Contra Costa County 631 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Ryan A. Hernandez, Project Planner, Community Development County Administration Building Contra Costa County 631 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Captain Webb, Fire Department 2010 Geary Road Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Larry Cornelius, Construction Inspector Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Eric Wahn, Department Head Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 k l Dave Seat, Field Engineer Vali Cooper and Associates, Inc. 41 Washington Avenue Point Richmond, California 94801 Gary Faria, Senior Grading Inspector Joseph Romo, Grading Inspector II Building Department County Administration Building Contra Costa County 631 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Keith Hoey, Engineering Staff Engineering Services Building Department County Administration Building Contra Costa County 631 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 David Contreras, District Manager Mountain View Sanitary District P.O. Box 2757 Martinez, CA 94553 Deputy Biggs Contra Costa Sheriff 1980 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Gayle Uilkema, Supervisor of District 2 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Room 108 A 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Randy Musgraves Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 2 Re: County File : SD048839 Muir Ranch Sub-Divisions Emshee Road, Martinez, CA Dear Sirs and Madame: My clients are residents and owners of the property adjacent to the north side of the above-mentioned development. My clients respectfully hereby submit their objections and concerns to the above-mentioned project. Foresight: Road: Parking on the private road: Parking on the private road that is only twenty feet wide will make the road impassable without it being widened. A minimum of sixteen families [and likely 120 families when the 26 acre parcel directly west of this one is developed], children, visitors, and service/delivery persons will be parking along this road and thereby block any safe passage. With only the sheriff to patrol this road, enforcement of "no parking" will be unavailable to the residents. What liability does the planning commission and the addressees accept when the road is blocked and no emergency vehicle can get through? Future connection of Emshee Road to the 26 acre development: Future connection of Emshee Road to the 26-acre development behind this one, with Emshee being the second access to the development is likely. Note: The original design of the cul de sac at the end of Emshee Road has been altered to allow for an "easement" into the 26 acres lying behind this project. Dedicate as a county road: My clients respectfully submit that this easement will become a road to connect with the 26-acre development. If the current project is approximately 3 acres with 16 residences being built thereon, the 26-acre project will likely have a minimum of 104 residences. These 104 residences will significantly increase the traffic use of this road and demand a wider road. My clients encourage the addressees to exercise foresight and to demand that this road and the future road through the 26 acres be dedicated to the county and be built within all the respective parameters. Sidewalks: The.addressees should also consider the fact that these two developments will have significant foot traffic on this road. Given this fact, it appears more appropriate to have sidewalks included as a part of this development. One hundred twenty homes with approximately 3.5 people residing therein means 420 people will be walking/ driving on this road. Aesthetics-Elevation of building pads and houses: Pads and Houses: 3 Currently the homes being built by Davni Development are limited to pad elevations of 76 feet and roof elevations of 28 feet with deed disclosures to limit future remodeling that might increase these limits. All of the 16 lots on the projected development are over 76 feet in elevation. The homes on these lots should be limited to one-story homes to avoid destroying my clients' views and the views of future residents of my clients' property and the properties north and west of this project. Scenic Vistas: My clients believe that the planning department has not had the opportunity to walk up and through the surrounding land to the west and to the north of this project. All of these future lots have magnificent views that will be either limited or blocked without the exercise of proper foresight and restraint. My client's property is just to the north of this projected 16-parcel development, and they currently enjoy magnificent vistas of Mt. Diablo, downtown Concord and the surrounding areas. If homes are built without consideration for my clients' enjoyment of the vistas from their front and side yards, my clients and any future residents will no longer be able to enjoy such magnificent views. My clients invite the above named addressees to their home to walk their property so they will be able to see the scenic vistas the Environmental Determination of Contra Costa County Community Development Department dismissed as "no scenic vistas located in the area." The storage facility to the north of this project will likely be developed into homes within just a few years. These lots may also have their views obstructed or limited by the homes currently being considered. My clients believe the addressees have not had the opportunity to fully explore the area to make themselves aware of how many future residents will be affected if the heights of the homes of this current project are not properly limited with the foresight of wise thoughtful planning. Also, this entire area is abounding in wildlife including jackrabbits, deer, fox, and a variety of bird species, all to be considered when planning such a crowded development. Air Quality: The Davni Development Company does not consistently maintain its obligation for dust control and only intermittently sprays water for dust control. Should the county continue not to enforce Davni's dust control, the community at large will continue to suffer diminished air quality during the construction of this new project. The addressees should also note that the storage facility that is mentioned in Michael Henn's report, to the north of the project also has a family in residence on it. Drainage: Presently no culverts exist on Blum Road as they were removed by Davni Development and have not been replaced. My clients have no idea if there is a deadline for when these must be replaced. 4 The culverts are to be concrete, and are not. Presently the newly installed culvert, that only crosses Blum Road at the end of Blum Road, is a black plastic corrugated one that will hold water in the ridges allowing for mosquito breeding at a time when the county and state are attempting to avoid the spread of the West Nile virus. My clients request that this culvert/drainage pipes/drainage systems and all others be of concrete that will avoid this mosquito problem. My clients know of no deadline as to when the builder must have the drainage plans approved and the drainage installed. This lack of a deadline will, my clients believe, create a disaster for the community. This builder has not met any of his self-imposed deadlines he promised to me and to my clients. Winter and its rains will come, and the plan and drainage, my clients fear, will not have been approved or installed. My clients also believe foresight should be employed in considering that in the very near future all of the acreage including the 26 acres west of this project, my clients' two acres and the large acreage of Blum Road Storage will be developed into homes. The drainage should be designed and installed with the future in mind. Sidewalks: The Blum Road sidewalks installed by Davni are made of asphalt. Where else in the county are sidewalks so shabbily made or allowed? My clients also believe foresight should be employed in considering that all of the acreage including the 26 acres west of this project, my clients' two acres and the large acreage of Blum Road Storage will in the very near future be developed into homes. The sidewalks should be designed with the future in mind. Fencing on Muir Ranch Subdivision, Lots numbered 1 and 2: On Muir Ranch Subdivision Phase I, on lots numbered one and two, the six-foot wooden fence-is currently constructed upon the top of the three-foot wood retaining wall. This construction is not in compliance with building codes and gives the developer the advantage of"widening" the adjacent lots for development. The other residents in this community of Blum Road should then be given the same advantage that the county is giving this builder. The Blum Road residents wishing to construct a fence upon a retaining wall and thereby create a larger than formerly available lot, should be extended this variance by the county. One of my clients' neighbors has recently been limited to six feet of retaining wall and fence. Why does Davni Development get such special treatment? Muir Ranch Subdivision, Phase II, Lot 16: In the Muir Ranch Subdivision, Phase II, Lot 16 is currently 54 feet wide and well below the minimum for any residential lot in the area. My clients believe that it is inappropriate to approve as a building site such a small lot. My clients believe that this lot would more appropriately be used for filtering the runoff/drainage of the project. 5 Caution: My clients also have had extensive and disappointing experiences with the proposed builder and caution the county officers to clearly delineate the deadlines and boundaries of the requirements of this project and to strictly enforce the COAs. Very truly yours, Bonnie L. Johnson,, Esquire B LJ J bJ cc. Joe Quigley and Alice Quigley Residents/Owners Blum Road Area 6 PATRICK D. ZIMSKI ATTORNEY AT LAW THE LEAMINGTON 1814 FRANKLIN STREET,SUITE 815 OL-7 OCT OAKLAND,CALIFORNIA 94612 P 4: 00TELEPHONE:510.595.7708 FACSIMILE: 510.595.7712 t. September 29,'2004 f Michael Henn, Project Planner Randy Musgraves Community Development Department Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County Administration Building 5019 Imhoff Place Contra Costa County Martinez, California 94553 631 Pine Street, North Wing, 2nd Floor Martinez, California 94553 Ryan A Hernandez Captain Webb Project Planner, Community Development Fire Department County Administration Building 2010 Geary Road Contra Costa County Pleasant Hill, California 94523 631 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Gary Faria, Senior Grading Inspector Eric Wahn, Department Head Building Department Public Works Department County Administration Building 255 Glacier Drive Contra Costa County Martinez, California 94553 631 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Joseph Romo, Grading Inspector II Gayle Uilkema, Supervisor of District 2 Building Department Contra Costa Board of Supervisors County Administration Building Room 108A Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 631 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Martinez, California 94553 Keith Hoey, Engineering Staff Engineering Services Building Department County Administration Building Contra Costa County 631 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Page 2 September 29, 2004 Re: County file No. 8839 Dear Sirs and madams: I represent Applicant, Davni Development. This responds to a September 8, 2004 letter to you from attorney Bonnie L. Johnson concerning the above-referenced subdivision. It is my understanding that Ms. Johnson represents Joe and Alice Quigley. A copy of Ms. Johnson's letter is attached for your convenience. I will respond to Ms. Johnson's letter in the same order as the points she raises. Forsight: Road: Parking on the private road: The new road will serve only the proposed subdivision. The extension easement, if executed, shall only be for a gated emergency vehicle access road for fire protection of the area, including the possible development of the Quigley property. A 20-foot street, with no parking signs, is adequate. Applicant is also installing one (1) additional parking place per lot in addition to the two (2), which the county requires. Public works is not requiring a dedicated road. Future connection of Emshee Road to 26 acre development: Davni is not aware of any proposal for 104 residences to be built in the area. Davni believes that there is a development plan submitted to the county by another developer to subdivide 23 homes on the 26-acre parcel, and that the access for that development is off Blum road at the beginning of the residential area to the south It does not appear Emshee road will service that development except for a possible gated road for fire department access only. Dedicate as a countv road: See above. Sidewalks: The area of the county in which the subdivision is located has few sidewalks. Sidewalks were not a condition of the subdivision next door. This street will serve only 15 new, and one existing, residences. (One (1) existing home is part of the proposed subdivision.) Aesthetics-Elevations of building pads and houses: Pads and houses: Elevations: Lots 10 and 11 (in the current subdivision) already have height restrictions of twenty-eight(28) feet that were imposed by the ZA out of consideration of the Quigley's views of mount Diablo. There is no view ordinance in contra Costa County. The lot elevations in the proposed subdivision have no relevance to the 76-foot pad height of lots 10 and 11 next Page 3 September 29, 2004 door, as the topography is quite different. Two story houses are appropriate to the subdivision and the homes shall adhere to contra country R-7 height ordinances. Scenic Vistas: The storage facility to the north is zoned light industrial and there are no plans for development of the property that we are aware of. It is anticipated that the Quigleys will attempt to subdivide next door. We are concerned that they are attempting to obtain a special privilege to keep Applicant's homes to one story. Further, the Quigleys do not own the land to the west and as far as we know do not have authority to speak for the owner of that property. Air Quality: Unfortunately, Davni has endured quite a number of these types of unfounded accusations from Mr. And Mrs. Quigley's attorney throughout its development of the Muir Ranch subdivision. Davni is in compliance with county for dust control requirements and will comply with all such requirements in construction of the proposed subdivision Drainage: Davni Development has an encroachment permit with Contra Costa County that is active until Oct 31 2004. The drainage along Blum road shall be completed by that date. The developer and their engineers and county engineers have worked together to design a creative drainage system that employs BMP practices including draining to a large open grassy swale. Each subdivision is responsible for its own drainage requirements. The culverts are to be concrete: Davni is working from'a revised and approved County engineering drainage plan along Blum road. Black plastic pipe is corrugated on the outside and smooth on the inside. We do not understand the point Ms. Johnson is trying to make on behalf of the Quigleys. VSTC also are puzzled by, and resent, Ms. Johinson's accusations against Davni concerning purported, self-imposed deadlines and promises made to the Quigleys as to the progress Davni's work. Davni has complied with all county requirements. It is motivated to prosecute its work as quickly and safely as possible, and has done so to the best of its ability. It owes no duty to the Quigleys to have certain work done by a certain time. Sidewalks: Davni is not satisfied with the work the contractor performed on the sidewalk on Blum Road and shall have the sidewalk repaved by October 31, 2004. There is an existing asphalt sidewalk on Blum road in front of the county property which was installed by the county. Fencing on Muir Ranch Subdivision, Lots numbered 1 and 2: Davni has been aware of this condition. At present, Davni has not completed the fencing on the property. The subcontractor created this condition by mistake and when he returns to actually Page 4 September 29, 2004 start to install all the fencing for the project he will remove the fence and install it to county code. and has known all along this fence cannot sit on the retaining wall. Muir Ranch Subdivision Phase 2, Lot 16: The reason the lot is measured at 54 feet is because it is a flag lot incorporating the access road as part of the lot. The actual buildable lot is much wider than 54 feet. The actual net area is 8775 square feet. The minimum lot size for the area is 7000 square feet. This flag lot consideration was explained to the Quigley's and the neighborhood as part of Muir Ranch I as the same type of condition existed. Davni believes the community understood it. A detention basin is not required for this project. Caution: The Quigleys opposed Davni on Muir Ranch I in much the same way they are opposing Davni on this project. While Mr. And Mrs. Quigley and their attorney are certainly permitted to voice their concerns about the respective projects, there is no place for unfounded, personal attacks. Davni has performed its work in compliance with county requirements, and will continue to do so. cerely, Patrick D. Zimski Enclosure MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM F� 0 De .B CP Community Contra - Community Development D ec or Development CostaI Department CounAIIG 1 p 2004 t}/ County Administration Building SE__L r 651 Pine Street .��-��, WEIR, OUNTYLERKC 4th Floor, North Wing •�� F€\' �i; OSTA COUNTY Martinez, California 94553-0095 •1'`��_ �- gy —1DEPUTY Phone: III_I (925) 335-1210 9 --�� °o��,._ '�'' DATE: August 10, 2004 SQA�oUx� g NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County File # SD048839 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: The application relates to the approximately 3.66 acre property and project, located at 32 Emshee Lane, in the unincorporated area of Martinez (R-7) (ZA: G-13) (CT: 3200.02) (Parcel 159-170-034). DAVM DEVELOPMENT, LLC (Applicant) and JAMES FARR (Owner); County File #SD048839: The applicant requests approval of a tentative map to subdivide 3.66 acres into 16 Single Family Lots. One existing single family residence exists and will remain at 32 Emshee Lane. A variance is requested to reduce the lot width of Lot 16 from the required 70 feet to 56.4 feet. An exception is requested to Subdivision Ordinance Section 92-4.018 to allow acul-de-sac length greater than 700 feet. Trees are proposed to be removed. The property fronts on the present terminus of Emshee Lane, 390+/- feet west of Blum Road, in the Martinez area. (ZA: J-7) (CT: 3601) (Parcel 159-170-034). MTH The proposed project has potential significant impacts on the environment in regards to Aesthetics, Noise, and Transportation/Parking. Revisions in the project plans and proposals agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a less than significant effect on the environment. A copy of the mitigated negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month and Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building, North Wing, Second Floor, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, during normal business hours. Public Comment Period - The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extends to 5:00 P.M. August 30, 2004. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Michael Henn Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 It is anticipated that the proposed Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting of the County Zoning Administrator on September 20, 2004. It is anticipated that the hearing will be held at McBrien Administration Building, Room 107, Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez. Name: Michael Henn Title: Project Planner cc: County Clerk's Office (2 copies) Attachment: Site Plan with Area Maps 2 Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: County File #SD048839,"Muir Ranch II" 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Michael Henn,Project Planner (925) 335-1204 4. Project Location: 32 Emshee Lane,Martinez CA 94553. APN: 159-170-034 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Davni Development LLC 18 Hillside Court Berkeley, CA 94704-2531 6. General Plan Designation: Single-Family Residential High Density,(SH)5.0 to 7.2 dwelling units per net acre. 7. Zoning: R-7 — Single-Family Residential District that allows for the establishment of single-family residences on parcels with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet. 8. Description of Project: The applicant proposes to subdivide one parcel of 3.66 acres into 16 lots. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is located on Emshee Lane, a private road,within a 40 foot right-of-way, extending westerly from Blum Road near the northern terminus of Blum Road. One single family residence currently occupies the site and is proposed to remain. Residential as well as industrial uses are found in the surrounding area. An 11-lot R-7 zoned single family subdivision (Tract 873 8) is currently under construction immediately to the north. A recreational-vehicle storage yard is located further to the north, zoned light industrial. Vacant light industrially zoned land is to the west. A single-family residential district borders to the south. East of Blum Road is open space consisting of grassy hills. Although zoned for heavy industrial use,this area has been set aside by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District as a buffer zone. 10. Other public agencies whose Contra Costa County Public Works Department, approval is required(e.g. California Department of Resources, permits, financing,approval, Mt.View Sanitary District,Contra Costa County or participation agreement): 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 X Transportation/ _ Public Services Population and Circulation _ Utilities & Service Housing _ Biological Resources Systems Geological Problems _ Energy & Mineral X Aesthetics Water Resources Cultural Resources Air Quality _ Hazards and hazardous Recreation Mandatory Findings of Materials Significance X Noise 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 IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect(1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets,if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, cluding revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ?s � Signature D to roe-) Michael Henn Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 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 2nd Floor-North Wing, Martinez)were consulted: 1) Contra Costa County General Plan, 1996 2) Title 8,Planning and Zoning Ordinance 3) Title 9, Subdivision Ordinance 4) Community Development Department Digital Map Library 5) Site visits,June and July 2004 6) Subdivision 8839 Tentative Map&Project Description 7) Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines, 1999 8) Noise Survey dated April 12,2004 by Armin Wright 9) Memorandum from Mountain View Sanitary District,dated May 6,2004 10) Memorandum from Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, dated May 31,2004 11) Memorandum from the Airport Land Use Commission,dated July 1,2004 12) Memorandum from California Historical Resource Information System, dated June 14, 2004 13) Referral Response from Contra Costa County Sheriff, dated April 27,2004 14) Soils Report by Cal Engineering and Geology dated April 5,2004 15) Comments regarding soil stability from Darwin Myers and Associates, dated July 26,2004. 16) State of California,Department of Conservation Important Farmland Map,2000 17) Contra Costa Water District Interim Service Area Listed Species Occurrences&Potential Habitat Map,2000 18) USGS,Port Chicago Quad. 19) 2002 Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites(Cortese C)List—State of California 20) Arborist Report from National Tree and Garden Co. undated,received April 27,2004 21) Public Works Department Findings and Conditions of Approval dated May 20, 2004&May 24,2004 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact I. AESTHETICS—Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source: 1,5) X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1,5, X 20) c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?(Sources: 1,5) X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?(Sources: 6) X SUMMARY:Less than Significant Impact if mitigations are provided. a) No scenic vistas are located in the area. b) The arborist's report indicates that the majority of the trees on site are abandoned walnut trees in poor condition. In spite of their poor health, their removal would detract from the partially wooded appearance of the property but can be mitigated by the planting of replacement trees planted by the developer or offered to the future lot buyers. Because of the limited area on these small lots to plant trees, a mitigation of offering one 15-gallon appropriate shade tree per lot would be an acceptable mitigation.. There are also seven ornamental trees in good conditions consisting of 3 redwood and 4 cedar trees along Emshee Lane.These trees should be protected during construction and retained. c) The proposed 16-lot subdivision is an infill project. There are existing residences that surround the site and the project would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site and surroundings. d) This subdivision would be lighted in a manner that would be consistent with other homes in the neighborhood and would not create a significant impact. II. AGRICULTURALRESOURCES 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- X agricultural use?(Source: 16) b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?(Sources: 1,2) 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: 16) X SUMMARY:No Significant Impact a, c) The State of California Department of Conservation Map of Important Farmland has designated this area as urban and built up land, and is not prime or unique. This project will not convert farmland to non-agricultural use. b) The site is not zoned for agricultural uses rather it is zoned for residential use, and the site is not in a Williamson Act Contract. III. AIR QUALITY a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 1, 7) X b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 1, 7) 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)? X (Sources: 1, 7) d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?(Sources: 1 ,5,7) X e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?(Sources: 5, 7) X SUMMARY:Less Than Significant Impact a) The proposal does not conflict with implementation of an applicable air quality plan. b—c) The region is currently in non-attainment for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM lo). Ozone precursors and PM,o could be emitted by diesel engines but that would only be during the construction phase of the project. However, these impacts are insignificant due to their extremely small scale and the fact that the operation is temporary. The impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. d) The residential subdivision (sensitive receptor) is located in the vicinity of the Tesoro Oil Refinery. The project site is buffered from the refinery by public space consisting of a vacant grassy hill, and the Walnut Creek Channel. There are single-family residential districts located to the east and south of the project. A light industrial use, recreational- vehicle storage, is located to the north. The single-family residential zoning district and underlying general plan is consistent with this proposed project. e) Though this project will not create objectionable odors it is located within the vicinity of three odor-emitting operations, the Tesoro Oil Refinery, Contra Costa County Sanitary District wastewater treatment plant, and the ACME Landfill. Staff contacted the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for guidance with assessing the air quality impacts of this project and the impacts the three facilities would have on potential homeowners. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District supplied information pertaining to odor complaints stemming from these local facilities. Staff has created a scatter map that relates addresses of odor complaints (confirmed & unconfirmed), the location of the subject property, to the odor emitting facilities. There are only three unconfirmed complaints located within a '/2 mile of the project site. There are open, grassy hills between the subject site and the Tesoro Refinery and Acme Land Fill. There is a considerable separation to buffer these odors created by residential homes between the site and the wastewater facilities. 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?(Sources: 1, 17) 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 X Service?(Sources: 1, 16, 17) 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: 1,5, 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) X e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources: 1,2, X 20) 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? X (Source: 1) SUMMARY:Less than Significant Impact a—b) The site does not lie in the significant ecological areas outlined in the Conservation Element of the General Plan. This site does not lie in the selected locations of protected Wildlife and Plant species areas. The site is listed as Urban Area on the listed species occurrences and potential habitat map of Contra Costa Water District. C) The USGS Port Chicago quad overlay does not show this site within in a wetland area. d) As an infill project there is not a significant impact to the movement of any species of animal. e) The Tree Preservation Ordinance contains an exception for orchard trees and for trees found by a licensed arborists not to be suitable for retention because of poor health and structure. Therefore,proposal does not conflict with any such policies or ordinances. f) There is no such plan for this area. 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?(Source: 12) X b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?(Source: 12) X c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?(Sources: 12) X d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source: 6, X 12) SUMMARY:Less than Significant Impact a—b) A copy of this application was forwarded to the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) for comments. CHRIS stated that the site has a low possibility of containing historic resources and recommend no further study. C) No unique geological features are apparent on-site. Should paleontological resources be uncovered during grading or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within (30) yards of these materials shall be stopped until a certified professional archaeologist/paleontologist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s)if deemed necessary. d) No human remains are apparent on-site. Should remains be discovered, construction work shall be stopped and the coroner shall be contacted immediately, per Public Resources Code Section 15064.5(e). Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS-Would the Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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. X 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? X 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X 4. Landslides? 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(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 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? X Discussion A 1. The nearest fault considered active by the California Division of Mines&Geology is the Concord fault. The Concord fault A-P Zone passes approximately 3,000 feet northeast of the site. A2. According to the Safety Element(p. 10-23)the site is in an area rated"lowest damage susceptibility". The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the building codes and County Grading Ordinance. The UBC requires use of seismic parameters which allow the structural engineering analysis for buildings to be based on soil profile types(see UBC, 1997, Volume 2,Div. 5,page 2-23). Compliance with building and grading regulations can be expected to keep risks within generally accepted limits. A3. According to the Safety Element(p. 10-27),the site is rated"generally low" liquefaction potential. This preliminary finding is supported by the data and analysis presented in the CEG report. A4. A. With regard to landslides,no slides are shown on published maps and the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County(1977)indicates that the erosion hazard is low. The findings of the CEG investigation is consistent with this interpretation. B. A SWPPP and Erosion Control Plan are a routine requirement of projects requiring grading permits. The SWPPP identifies the"best management practices"that are most appropriate for the site, and the"Erosion Control Plan,"which is required for the grading permit,provides the details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the site. C. Our review of the existing geologic data indicates that the project is feasible.The details of the specific standards and criteria for site grading, drainage and foundation design are to be provided in the geotechnical report issued by Cal Engineering&Geology(CEG). D. Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture changes that can cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade,pavements and structures founded on shallow foundations. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soils can be reduced by dppendin the foundations to below the zone of moisture fluctuation,i.e.,by using deep footings or drilled piers or placing slabs on select, granular fill. Detailed foundation design criteria are to be provided by the CEG geotechnical report. It should be recognized that expansive soils are an engineering issue,and not a land use or feasibility issue. E. The project is to be served by public sewers. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact 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: 6) 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?(Sources: 5, 6) 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: 1, 6) 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: 19) 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. (Sources: 1, 11) X f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people X residing or working in the project area?(Source: 1) g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?(Sources: 1, 10,13) 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: 1,3, 5, 10) X SUMMARY: Less Than Significant Impact a) The proposed subdivision will not transport or dispose of hazardous materials. b) The proposed subdivision will not release hazardous materials into the environment. C) The site is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed of a school. d) The site is not listed on the State of California 2002 Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites (Cortese C)List. e—f) While the site is affected by the noise of the airport, in a memorandum dated June 185 2003 from the Airport Land Use Commission the subject site does not lie within the safety zones for Buchanan Airport. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact g) The project would not interfere with implementation of an emergency response plan or evacuation plan. h) The project is located in an urbanized area and there are no wildlands in the vicinity of the project. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements'!(Source: 6,21) 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)? (Source: 6, X 21) 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? (Source: 3, 6, 21) 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: 3, 6, X 21) 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 runofP. (Sources: 1, 6,21) X f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality`? (Source: 6,21) 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: 6, 21) X h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 3, X 6,20) 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: 1, X 21) j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Sources: 1, 21) X Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact SUMMARY:Less Than Significant Impact (a j) Public Works, the applicant, and the applicant's engineer have met several times to discuss drainage issues associated with this development. With the recommended conditions of approval established, the Public Works Department has determined that the hydrology impacts will not be significant. The applicant proposes to collect storm water on site and convey it to a storm drain system along the west side of Blum Road. There will be an inlet at the southern curb return to collect runoff from this project as well as runoff from Blum Road. Most of the runoff from the subdivision to the north will be conveyed across Blum Road into a grassy swale along the east shoulder of Blum Road. Both subdivisions will convey storm water to existing culverts crossing Blum Road approximately 250 feet from the proposed development and discharging into a natural Swale on property owned by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD). The drainage will then flow across the property at 47 Austen Way (APN # 159-161-007 of the Helmond Shepard Tract) in route to Grayson Creek.The applicant has drainage releases for both properties. The applicant shall be required to identify how storm water entering or originating on Lots 15 and 16 will be collected and conveyed in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code as a condition of approval for this project. This condition may be addressed by extending the storm drain system along the southern property line to the 3-foot retaining wall on Lot 16 before turning towards the private road or another adequate design subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department,Engineering Services Division. (f) The applicant has worked with the Flood Control District and agreed upon specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. These BMPs include: (1) the third off-street parking space shall provide for a permeable pavement material, (2) 50% of the roof leaders will be disconnected from the storm drain system(splash blocks with overland flow is acceptable), (3) an earthen swale will be installed at the rear of lots 8-14. It was also acknowledged by the Public Works Department that the existing off-site grassy Swale across the Central Sanitary District property to the east provides significant water quality benefits. Ix. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 1,4, 5) 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: 1,2) X C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?(Source: 1) X Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ]rrmact Incorporated lmpact Impact SUMMARY:No Significant Impact a) The proposal would not divide a community. b) The establishment of this residential infill project would not conflict with any plan,policy or other regulation and is encouraged in the Housing Element of the General Plan. The variance being sought relates to the lot width of Lot 16, for which special circumstances exist in that the area that causes the technical variance results from calculating the private road as being a part of the lot. C) No such plans exist for the area. 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) 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? (Source: 1) X SUMMARY:No Impact a—b) No mineral resources are located in the area. 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?(Sources: 1,5, 6, 8) X b. Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? (Sources: 5, 6, 8) X c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 3, 6, 8) X d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?(Sources: 3, 6, 8) 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? (Sources: 1, 8, X 11) f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 1, X 8, 11) SUMMARY:Less Than a Significant Impact When Mitigation Measures are Required NOISE STUDY SETTING The proposed Vesting Tentative Map would have fifteen new pads for single-family dwellings and one existing house arrayed along both sides of a proposed extension of Emshee Road,the existing private driveway extending west one short block south of the north end of Blum Road in Pacheco.The tract extends for a total distance of about 560 feet west from the gate at the present termination of the paved portion of Emshee Road.About half the proposed building pads are over the low saddle in the terrain, having a view towards Highway 680,rather than toward the Buchannan Field/Concord area,as was the case for Phase 1 dwellings and half of Phase 2. The proposed dwellings are two-story,and the upper stories of several of the dwellings at the western end of the tract will have a view of traffic along a short segment of Highway 680. This difference in viewscape for the western half of Phase 2 made it inadvisable to rely on the noise survey performed last year for Phase 1, since traffic on Highway 680 is audible in the half of the project having a view toward the highway. A railroad right-of-way exists well north of the tract and was visible in the distance from the building pads on the east-facing slope of the tract.The tracks appear to be,perhaps, 1/2 mile to the north and would not be expected to impact the site statistically. The main noise source for the eastern-facing slope seems to be air traffic associated with Buchanan Field, as determined in the noise survey for Phase 1.The main noise source for the western-facing slope of the tract is traffic on Highway 680,but it is not a strongly intrusive source due to the terrain,which shields the actual road surface from view. Thus, the terrain also provides shielding for tire and engine noise from traffic on Highway 680. NOISE SURVEY A 64-hour statistical noise survey was conducted on the site commencing 7 pm Tuesday,April 6.The monitor microphone was located about 13 feet above grade on the power pole at the southwest corner of the tract.This location is the portion of the tract most exposed to noise from traffic on Highway 680, and the 13 ft.elevation of the microphone is the approximate height of the second story windows of the proposed dwellings.This is a worse than worst-case location for the monitor, as the closest dwellings will actually be an additional 20 ft. from Highway 680 due to setback requirements.This provides the benefit of additional(albeit slight)distance and shielding from traffic on 680. The survey instrument was a Larson-Davis Labs Model 700,Type 2,Integrating Sound Level Meter set on A-weighting. This instrument samples the sound level many times per second and automatically computes Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Irrmact Incorporated Impact Impact the statistics of the noise environment hourly.The statistical parameters stored hourly are the Leq,LI, LI0, L;o, and L90. The Leq is the average A-weighted noise level and is the data used for calculation of the Ldfl and the CNEL,the Day-Night Noise Level and the Community Noise Equivalent Level, two almost identical statistical noise indicators used as the basis for evaluating community noise climates.The percentile noise levels,L—, where n= 15 10, 501) and 90, are not directly used in the evaluation of the noise exposure at the site,but they are sometimes useful in determining the nature of any anomalous noise events occurring during the survey. The Ldfl is determined by energy summing all 24 hourly LegS with a 10 dB penalty applied from 10 pm to 7 am to account for the increased sensitivity of people to noise at night.The CNEL is identical except that there is a 5 dB penalty imposed from 7 pm to 10 pm. In the absence of a strong noise source in the 7 to 10 pm period the two indicators are virtually identical and can be used interchangeably. SURVEY RESULTS Figures 1 and 2 are graphical presentation of the results of the two 24-hour statistical noise surveys from midnite Tuesday,April 6 through midnite Thursday,April 8. The data from the two 24-hour surveys at the southwest corner of the tract show a pattern of hourly Leq typical of urban areas or areas near freeways,with a lull at 3 to 4 am,a rapid rise during the morning rush period, fairly uniform levels through the day,and a gradual decline through the evening to another early morning lull.The noise survey data from Phase 1 of the project, still applicable to the portion of Phase 2 facing toward Concord, exhibited much more erratic patterns of noise due to the dominance of air traffic and the absence of street traffic noise,but the LdflS and the CNEL were actually slightly lower than for the present survey. Both the Ldfl and the CNEL are between 60 and 61 for both 24-hour periods monitored on April 7 and 8, 2004.The threshold at which a noise study is required is 60. Note that standard procedures require that the noise level be projected out 20 years in the future to determine impact on residential developments. In areas near freeways,normal traffic increases are in the I%to 2%range,with 3%being seen primarily where large new developments come in. Taking a worst- case perspective, a 3%per year growth rate compounded over 20 years would lead to an 80%total increase in traffic.An 80%increase in traffic(air or street)would be expected to result in less than a 3 dB increase in noise.Assuming a 3 dB increase in noise level still leaves ther proposed development in the range requiring only the ability to close ordinary windows at night through provision of forced ventilation. Because you are already planning forced ventilation in your dwellings,the project would still be expected easily to be in compliance in 20 years. RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the low noise levels presently existing at the project site, and the low noise levels projected 20 years into the future,no measures to control interior noise levels caused by exterior noise are required beyond provision of forced ventilation allowing windows to be closed at night.The applicant's stated intention to Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated I=act Impact provide forced air ventilation in the form of full air conditioning will allow windows to be closed at night in the event that future noise levels increase by 4 dB or less. An increase of this magnitude is not expected. Although the noise survey concludes that no additional requirements are necessary.The General Plan Policy 11-4 requires that new residential development be designed to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA or less.Therefore a mitigation measure will require that prior to the issuance of a building permit new residences or other new habitable structures shall be designed to comply with the Sound Transmission Control Standards of the Uniform Building Code for the State of California 1989 Amendments. Structural design shall be based on the recommendation of an acoustical study of the site by an acoustical engineer to assure that interior noise levels do not exceed a CNEL of 45 dB.This requirement is consistent with the requirements recommended by the Airport Land Use Commission. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION COMMENTS: According to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, development for the subject site is considered "marginally acceptable"; therefore mitigation measures need to be incorporated into a Mitigated Negative Declaration.The following measures are: MITIGATION MEASURE REQUIRED 1. Interior noise levels for all homes within an airport influence are 45 db CNEL in single-family residences with the windows closed. Therefore, the developer will need to provide the necessary insulation to maintain the acceptable level. An acoustical study shall be provided as evidence to confirm these levels. If the mitigation is adhered to, the potentially significant impact will be reduced to a less than significant impact level. 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: 6) X b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 3,5, 6) X c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 5, 6) X SUMMARY:No Impact a—c) The proposal is an urban infill project that proposes 15 new homes and would not negatively impact housing. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated InYpact 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: 3, 6, 10, 13) 1. Fire Protection? X 2. Police Protection? X 3. Schools? X 4. Parks? X 5. Other public facilities? X SUMMARY: No Impact a-(1). Comments from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District ■ The developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 1000 GPM. Required flow shall be delivered from not more than one hydrant flowing while maintaining 20 pounds residual pressure in the main. (903.2)UFC ■ The developer shall provide three hydrants of the East Bay type. Hydrant locations will be determined by this office upon submittal of three copies of a tentative map or site plan. (903.4.2)UFC ■ Provide access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20 feet unobstructed width, and not less than 13 feet six inches of vertical clearance, to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 42 feet, and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus i.e.,37 tons.(902.2)UFC Note: Access roads of 20 feet unobstructed width shall have NO PARKING signs posted and curbs painted red. The vesting tentative map dated June 11, 2004, complies with the above requirements. ■ Access roads and hydrants shall be installed and in-service prior to construction. (8704.1)UFC ■ Approved premises identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall contrast with their background and be readily visible from the street. ■ The developer shall provide roof coverings with a minimum Class C rating. Untreated wood shake or shingles are not allowed. (1503)T-24,CCR Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated In act Impact The Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District and the Contra Costa County Sheriff serve the site. It is not anticipated that this development would cause an increase in demand for either service. a-(2) The Sheriff of Contra Costa County has no concerns with the 16-lot subdivision project. The applicant will be required to annex the property into a police service district. a-(3) Martinez Unified has not responded to the Agency Comment Request. a-(4&5) Conditions of approval of the project would require that the appropriate park dedication fees and school impact fees be paid to mitigate the impacts of the project. XIV. RECREATION a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational X facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source: 6) 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: 6) X SUMMARY:No Impact a—b) The proposed infill project shall pay the standard park dedication fee for each proposed lot and subsequent residence. With this $2000.00 park fee for each residence the impact on recreation facilities will be will be less than significant. 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 (Source: 1, 6,21) b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Source: 1, 6,21) 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? (Sources: 1, 6) X d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated IpMact Impact (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source: 6, X 21) e. Result in inadequate emergency access?(Source: 10) X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 2, 5, X 6) g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?(Source: 1) X SUMMARY:No Impact a—b) This project is located at the end of Blum Road, a dead end. There are two major freeways located in close vicinity to this project Interstate 680 and State Route 4. The impact of this proposed eleven-lot subdivision will not affect traffic patterns significantly. Air traffic patterns will not be affected. - d) No hazardous design features or incompatible uses are proposed. e) The Consolidated Fire Protection District raised no concerns regarding minimum access standards and outlined that the tentative map is adequate for access. f) The proposed private street standard would not allow for any on-street parking. In addition to the 15 new homes that would result from the proposed subdivision, there are four existing lots on Emshee Lane that would contribute parking demand. It can be anticipated that existing and future residents will have occasions when they will generate some degree of guest parking demand beyond that which can be provided by the minimum two, on-site spaces required by the R-7 zoning. Consequently, there will be times when Emshee Lane is likely be blocked by on-street parking to an extent that the minimum two-way access standards required by the Fire Protection District may not be met. A limited amount of on-street parking could be located on Lots 1, 15 and 16 by widening on the north side of the road to 28 feet. The lot layouts could provide for another independently accessible (i.e. non-tandem) parking space as a condition of approval. To reduce the probability that the enclosed garages do not revert to personal storage areas,the minimum two- car garages shall provide at least 50 sq. ft. of storage space beyond the typical 20'x 20' two-car garage. Mitigations to the parking deficiencies shall require collectively at least one additional parking space per lot over the two spaces required by the R-7 zoning district.To meet this mitigation some of the spaces shall be in the area of Lots 1, 15, and 16 created by widening the pavement width to 28 feet (a minimum of five spaces is recommended at this location). Other spaces may be located as a third parking space between the driveway and the side property line, or at other locations found acceptable by the Zoning Administrator. To reduce the probability that the enclosed garages do not revert to personal storage areas, the minimum two-car garages shall provide at least 450 sq. ft.of interior space. g) The project does not conflict with adopted policies or programs supporting alternative transportation. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—Would the project: 19 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source: 6,9) 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: 6, 9) X c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 6,21) X d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?(Source: 6) 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?(Sources: 6, 9) X f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's waste disposal needs?(Source: 1, 6) X g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?(Source: 1) X SUMMARY:Less Than Significant Impact (a, b, d, e) The Mountain View Sanitary District's May 6, 2004 letter has supplied the following comments for this application: ■ Each building shall be served with a separate side-sewer connected to the new main. The side- sewer to any existing buildings to remain shall be replaced. All side-sewers shall be fitted with standard backwater prevention devices. ■ If the existing building is to be removed the developer shall obtain an abandonment permit from the District prior to demolition and the existing lateral abandoned at the main. A credit for this unit will be applied to future connection fees. ■ Any sewer main not located within a public street must have a 15-foot minimum easement dedicated to the sewer district. Structures and trees are not permitted within District easements. The easement may be non-exclusive provided no storm drains or utilities are constructed within five feet of sewer mains. 20 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ■ The District will agree to quit claim that portion of its existing easement that lies south of the .r� south line of the 23 foot public access(and new sewer)easement provided developer pays all costs required to process the Quit Claim Deed and Developer executes the Districts standard Quit Claim and Indemnity Agreement. ■ The developer shall submit plans prepared by a registered engineer to the District Engineer for review for all new sanitary sewer construction required by this development. Plans shall conform to the District's Standard Specifications. ■ The developer shall obtain a sewer construction permit, post mainline security and pay plan review,mapping and inspection fees prior to recording the Parcel Map. ■ The developer shall enter into a sewer improvement agreement with the District and construct all improvements necessary for the development of the project at no cost to the District. ■ The developer shall obtain a sewer connection permit and pay permit fees for trunk sewer, plant capacity and connection prior to connecting each dwelling unit to the District's system. The District will not issue individual connection permits until after the Sanitary Board has accepted mainline improvements for maintenance and building foundation have been constructed. ■ Fees shall be charged pursuant to the Ordinance in effect at the time that the permit is issued..Fees are subject to revision by the District Board without notice. (c) The Public Works Department has provided conditions of approval to mitigate the effects of run- increased off. (d) The Contra Costa Water district reports that there is an adequate water public supply available. (f-g) The development would produce normal household trash that would be dumped in an approved landfill. 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 21 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 Significant Impact a. Based on the evaluation of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the natural environment. The proposed 16-lot subdivision is located on a site that is not environmentally significant. The vegetation on the site is restricted to grasses and abandoned Black Walnut Trees that were planted for agricultural use. There are no significant habitat or other biological resources on the property. During the construction phase of the project there is a potential for minor short-term effects, however, these possible impacts are considered less than significant and an expected part of construction and would be addressed by the conditions of approval to lessen the effects to the extent possible. With the mitigations provided regarding aesthetics, noise, and parking, there would be no significant environmental impacts from the 16-lot subdivision. b. The applicant proposes an infill project and the development of that proposed project would not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term ones. Relatively minor impacts such as air emissions and noise may occur from construction activities,but these effects would be of short duration and not cumulatively considerable. C. There would be no substantial adverse impacts on humans. G:SD0488391nitialStudy C-13 150 :z -64 Cpl- en eo') w Md co C) �o q; co o xa A o v cd -,:d 41 Cd cd cd -gel :3 sz- 0 .1 Cd u 40A 1 c Cd s.- ::� 4.4 cd 'C.. chio 3 cu 7r;:� oz Cd Cd 45 ca 4- con CA Cd OQ L4.4 U) 0 cd cd 06) N -A o SZ. rd 10 0 0 0 tb cd 1.4 od I-A t4- 0.) C* t) Q ° o :t:� (L) .04 0 tncn tn cd 4.A AN 0 .1.0�, 0 8 0 (n 0 cn JoA Cd , .V- 4-0 (A 0 H �, � o � � ° .a'- °' � 3 �, dao � a ,� �� ,� �d ED VoA V.-A vi Cill, 45� 0 0 0 0 -t:5 cd Cd ;PIN -CdA 4r Cd sz C's 1.- 0 5.A 0 0 cts 5z o -c-d 0 0 0 0 V.A s 0 0 cd ...................... -................. .................. .......... ............... ............. ............. .......... ...................................... cd ....................................................................................................... t) m P. cU V p Q 4-4 td ca on OD cd td 0 cd !Pl 0 0 (n 0.) Cd cd a) tp t 0 48 11.0 tn o cd cd Tn �" O p td t�o 1� W 4-4 0 10- Q 0 Q3 S= Cd0 bz VA, 00 -- V C�l cd Q v 1Z. Q V)A . 0 lt:� Cd Cd V-4 CO Cd 0 cd 5- u cd cd tn (n 0 y cd cd o sz. i-A 0 tn Cd cd oa C* 0 (n C� Cd 0 Cd I:w tf) ca V Cqtd W o cd x) v� 0 0 0 o tL ..A 0 68 V. tn 4v; 0 0 *-j cd o ., .ca e o cd CIL, Y) 0 4- tn o 0 t� 0 w Cd V� 0 SZA 0 cd 15) q cd to VrA tn cd V. 4-J, , �& 0 4- 0 0 ^d Cd"0 S,- o 46 I'> Cd Cd 4--A 0 "I o I'nn 0 1:1 tc ir- 0 tn 0 41 sZbD Cd Cd 10; :� per' ' tn MAPS li V4 C z it In LLI In _ H W a f-rn cr z a> O O o.a a L� W U a W .. U O Z i O W U O W N U D W C• l o _ `z D�Wr- =NW Zac� 1 ?•+ _J In Z Z m -J,-., Z N 2 a ^< Q W= � �W cq Q N N W 3t._i --� cr ,_-� 44* ►�' N o a C) 31- j ly < W t tn Z 00 M Vi N r, a_2d it co I Z Ot Z g � N W 0 W V " - LA. y r. . W Q N I•- ' - ' C,, �„ V Yr�r-� M 'o 00 >O M M � tii a 0 N .s I CL _ W 3 U r ( Q p� v to 1- = Q w o M �p U .. N F 1- (;<- ! V� •� R G� 0. Z Ld W W W !- f!1 W fY Z r M Lv J Q Lal O _ Z W U 0 L'. 1- d 3 f/1 p qco O OJ 9 • a a a N a Q W F- ~ O C� LLJ z I ri W a 3 Z I I - '� 11 `' Q Z � O O I '1 O H ! r, W c > •-1 cz� zi ey I a z 1 „J LI-i .t A .. p6' a z 06 rL �+! 1 t'1 ` . h 10 I W co co 'opt 1 \t 1 n n ' • a n j` t l � �t � I n 1 1 I t 1 t C8 1 1 1 M 1 4...-rte - �\ •"+� aniA i 1 Z t 1 1 I N11'2� 1 �� / _ �( O o 112.03 c 1 t N p0g IGV t t + j v1 m N 29.24'IQ t'1 O o OL 0 t 1� P. 08 1 , go a t -^ 1 i W 1 / ♦ Ip �1 [I b OD CN •�i -tet t in 1 h' Ig Im CO) �� a l i �s Z �m'$i to w d S r' 1 t t � 1 oti � l' i! yt2.50• :r � .� '!r N rn to I 11 t I ^ O^ It � , W �,t'O p'', .•I CZ � a e. 1 �j -� r' 11 •'•� M � � .r Z^ 1 N N �Q ,1! 'I 8 S O t 1 A r 1! Z O rt T-t' OD 40 t. z V 1w�I t 1 j 1+ o ly t CL tt"�� I t 1 L 11 4.68• i t 1 1 t �..� t ^ �1 aD• I' d t ri vi 1 1 1 CL O toCl t 1 Tf. ►. 1 t t Z a 11 ,1 g H IL a: e�•a► o 0 f 1 t I�j r 1 { 1 t tt +p \ �H h O � � b�• `, o IL th c H ovob wme ao -w �+ QTS Q71p aM o 1.1 5 < a 7- f 1 I f f R-40 1 I < • • See Area Policies for -Vine Hill / �oG ! Pacheco AIML RAILROAD CORRIDOR COMBINING DISTRICT afro.87.19 les-Etz NOV 61995 t � \ 'x tlpP ; '/� _•__ � ` AUS P- ALAN WAY it 1 R RSM!` i .R fi 1 ENITA WAY •7 off Sop � N ,� .. . Pal1 * i I _ 000V T R-7 , See Area Policies for, • - • / PachecoMAN-Vine Hill Cr ///LLL ♦ ♦ 1 � • W • me • i ► • ,x+y P 9Q�,�a`c a}� #x S?•. \.Ar;?1' X p �d.�«N '%\ i :.�.s} >>..S } :.yy:{Sl. FY.:�' �,yE r ,�Aoa��,Yr_ �.�} ^, h,} !x}� :` '•s ��s�• �z} ':kz �a{r x. �{a'f^aY t. h } ,•} �S �YF 4R ,a{ }}+5 'FJy, pq 9f�0�?. .f ` .<\^' a,yvY� ?•n'+S u,. O" : aF t a Y�.�k+4F Y:��.y �i. �' ;<"} �,' :t h!Wi:;'..)�'...�.,�.} r�L ''{r.R.i•:}4Y� �.. {"� Jf} :i+#:a tell IBM: S X M' a , 1 tool `,�44, > ��y4h��f slog NE -00 a:{h Oi Wow } t 0 a �v NORL w `._ � AW-1 s} l r Y }a £P a a 4L P �a low P top ,'. P:: `Y 7 L 5? f Y v IX� y Y �4•a M `P Alva ,.off ,;A,. ' av +A g{ F, } }c ANN y:S rYc P u£.4. SB's'si Y ..4 i a�'�.F�P 5:.�..q,1fY ':::oyo• f� �( F of ,,��ttGG , F k S,ice"`'M, 4' k• .': } } } sit T ANNE ( p : •a•K. Pm Apbow J P � :. Wool3 } ��{}�,Otis+t•e000��2 .Y Vt'�+�oy �}P A k f �a6" :�.} { , f? Y d } so: o sit u P n Y F : ` f #:a „/'� S•. t^-�, ._.,,ray MONO* cam')S �� C`' �++/ 0 1 Z c- AFL- a c� X A w �l w t• = w�` sI9 O > U UJ o 0 N"1 V! 4AO O O U LU d G1G � S - t ku CP 0 ON 4 Y yra • • 'd �Q, �N N �., 1a1 +� cm Q � •r r 0 e� 1 W1611 z I 11CC(1 J M td! �•OtN t 00 Ell KFt►+ `9 1 ' % ”' N 1•,� , l � NaA r cri .a..� yam'"=. c�is'� �.... (y + tO. 9 _ :�}�r OD togs. LLJ Ile tr m o o OD co LL 05 CC 0 LO LP + - U O 2 a.. cL Z ° c) O; CV d' Q.. �} �2,. �`� ;� ,meg "�/"1 ` A t l r i � Q W �- 0 Lc) -- 09 0 M/� ro m, Tq 0 Ir Z %; (1)t C 'tL1► o C4 r4C% d. 131 Cn N C\j j, 9�N �r N t NOTIFICATION LIST Building Inspection Health Services Public Works Interoffice Environmental Health Flood Control Interoffice Historical Resources Information Public Works System CCC Fire District Engineering Services Northwestern Information Center Interoffice 1303 Maurice Avenue Rohnert Park,'Ca 94928 Mt. View Sanitary District Contra Costa Water District City of Martinez P.O. Box 2757 1331 Concord Avenue 525 Henrietta Street Martinez, Ca 94553 P.O. Box H2O Martinez, Ca 94553 Concord, Ca 94524 David Margen Martinez Unified School District Sheriff's Office Davni Development 921 Susana Street 1980 Muir Road 18 Hillside Court Martinez, Ca 94553 Interoffice Berkeley, Ca 94704 Joe and Alice Quigley James &PatriHumann Co. cia Farr 1021 Brown Avenue 4500 Blum Road P.O. Box 2567 Martinez, Ca 94553 Martinez, Ca 94553 Lafayette, Ca 94549 Attn: Izzat Nashashibi Edward Leigh Nino Frumenti Bonnie Johnson, Attorney at Law 4610 Blum Road 23 Bridgewater Road 1700 N. Broadway#300 Martinez, Ca 94553 Pleasant Hill, Ca 94523 Walnut Creek, Ca 94596 159 161 001 159 170005 159 170 006 Chris Sprankle Michael & June Caldwell Michael Mitchell 41 Austen Way 109 Clipper Lane 111 Clipper Lane Martinez, Ca 94553 Martinez, Ca 94553 Martinez, Ca 94553 159 150 170 011 159 170 012 Richard Post Wayne &Laurie Johnston Jesse Smith, Jr. &Karen Lon 139 Clipper Lane William &Vi Messick 4560 Blum Road Martinez, Ca 94553 141 Clipper Lane Martinez,, Ca 94553 Martinez, Ca 94553 159 170 013 159 170018 159 170 019 James Tre Morphy&James Alexa Joan White Barbara Gilmartin M 125 Clipper Lane 4546 Blum Road 1200 Henrietta Street Martinez, Ca 94553 Martinez, Ca 94553 Martinez, Ca 94553 159 170 022 159 170 023 159 170 024 James &Karen Passmore Mark&Vanessa Adams Mark &Irma Bergeron 127 Clipper Lane 131 Clipper Lane 133 Clipper Lane Martinez, Ca 94553 Martinez, Ca 94553 Martinez, Ca 94553 159 170 025 150 170 026 159 170 027 David&Erin Montalbo Lloyd&Anne West Bruce Bohman 123 Clipper Lane#A 123 Clipper Lane#B 123 Clipper Lane Martinez, Ca 94553 Martinez, Ca 94553 Martinez, Ca 94553 159 170 028 159 180 001 159 180 002 Joe &Alice Quigley Wright Richard Petrillo 4500 Blum Road 112 Clipper Lane 118 Clipper Lane Martinez, Ca 94553 Martinez, Ca 94553 Martinez, Ca 94553 159 180003 159 180005 159 180 019 Richard Petrillo Robert & Sherry Henderson Troy&Heather Caraway 116 Clipper Lane#5 120 Clipper Lane 134 Clipper Lane 'NAnrt;ntn,7 ( n QdVsl "N45irt;-nP-z ( ,a _N4,arf;-nia,7 Ock 04J;J;" 1.& %,,&.L.L%.'") %-1%A, -0 1-'---9 J.IV.&%,,%,.L%,AAA%.'") " --� I .f-'--I Ly X"X 1,111 5 %-" -,f --1-/-f 159 180 020 159 180 021 159 180022 - Mark&Jennifer Shealor James & Giner Tre Marieiro Joyce & Samuel Thompson 136 Clipper Lane 138 Clipper Lane 140 Clipper Lane Martinez, Ca 94553 Martinez, Ca 94553 Martinez, Ca 94553 159 180 025 159 180 026 159 140 042 Sheri Anderson Judith Eshbach Central CC Sanitary District 110 Clipper Lane 4610 Blum Road 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, Ca 94553 Martinez, Ca 94553 Martinez, Ca 94553 159 140 048 159 170 002 150 170 0031 Vsa Ernest Est of Pasley James & Patricia Farr 183 Mayhew Way 226 Paso Nogal Road P.O. Box 2567 Z:> Walnut Creek, Ca 94597 Pleasant Hill, Ca 94523 Martinez, Ca 94553 159 170 020 159 170 021 159 170 029 J. Whitney Tre Hodge Donald &Terri Souza Davni Dev LLC Rosemarie Tre Hodge I 10Clear Creek Ct 18 Hillside Court 264 Bermuda Lane Martinez, Ca 94553 Berkeley, Ca 94704 Vallejo, Ca 94591 159 170 030 159 230 004 159 240 002 James &Patricia Farr Edith Tre Brannon Vsa P.O. Box 2567 3430 E St Managers 183 Mayhew Way Martinez, Ca 94553 North Highland, Ca 95660 Walnut Creek, Ca 94553 159 080 004 Richard Petrillo 118 Clipper Lane Martinez, Ca 94553