HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04112006 - D.6 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
C�mr' r
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP f Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR "�o. �y County
DATE: APRIL 11, 2006
SUBJECT: HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO
REZONE A PARCEL FROM AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE (A-4) TO EXCLUSIVE
AGRICULTURAL (A-20). THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1170 BEAR
CREEK ROAD IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. OF MARTINEZ, COUNTY FILE
#RZ053169, KEITH AND LESLIE THOMAS (APPLICANTS AND OWNERS). (DISTRICT Il)
i
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. OPEN the public hearing and receive testimony on the proposed rezoning.
B. ADOPT a motion:
1) APPROVE the rezoning of the 20.89-acre property from Agricultural Preserve District
(A-4) to Exclusive Agricultural (A-20) as recommended by the County Planning
Commission;
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x' O ER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
!`_UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 40"--4- CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact:David Brockbank(925) 335-1237 ATTESTED
JOHN CULL N CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Orig: Community Development Department(CDD) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: Keith and Leslie Thomas (Applicants and Owners)
City of Martinez
CDD.—Geographical Information System Lab BY , DEPUTY
File
�/ll�
April 11, 2006
Board of Supervisors
File#RZ053169
Page 3
The A-4 zoning district is used specifically for properties that are in agricultural preserve
(Williamson Act) contracts. Since the subject property is. no longer in contract, the A-4
zoning district is no longer necessary; therefore the applicant is requesting to change the
zoning to A-20.
After approval of the rezoning the applicant has indicated that they will construct a new
single family residence (allowed use in A-20) and then submit a land use permit application
for a second residence. Under the A-4 zoning district, construction of a single residence
would require approval of a land use permit; construction of a second. residence would not
be allowed.
The request .was heard by the County Planning Commission on February 14, 2006. The
County Planning Commission, after evaluating the proposal and the evidence submitted,
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning to the Board of
Supervisors.
The Community Development Department has not received any additional letters from the
general public since the County Planning Commission hearing regarding the request to
rezone the property. Staff recommends that the Board of .Supervisors approve the
proposed rezoning.
G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Board\Board Orders\RZ053169.board order.doc
RESOLUTION 14-2006
RESOLUTION NO. 14-2006
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING BY
KEITH AND LESLIE THOMAS, (APPLICANTS AND OWNERS) (FILE
#RZ053169) IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO THE
PRECISE ZONING FOR THE MARTINEZ AREA OF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, a request by Keith and Leslie Thomas (Applicants and Owners) to
rezone 20.89 acres from Agricultural Preserve (A-4) to Exclusive Agriculture (A-20), for
which an application was received by the Community Development .Department on
September 23;.200 ; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a
Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for review and comments between
January 23, 2006 and February 13, 2006 and the Planning Commission adopted the
Negative Declaration at their meeting on February 14, 2006; and
WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was
scheduled before the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, February.14, 2006 where
all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, February 14, 2006, the County Planning Commission
having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted
in this matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission
finds that the proposed Negative Declaration is adequate for the purposes of compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopts same; and
RECOMMENDS to the Board of Supervisors the APPROVAL of the rezoning of
the site from the Agricultural Preserve (A-4) to Exclusive Agriculture (A-20).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation are as follows:
A. REZONING FINDINGS:
1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the
General Plan.
Project Finding: The rezoning of the subject properties front A-4
(Agricultural Preserve) to A-20.. (Exclusive Agriculture) tivill ►naintain
consistency with the General Plan Designation of AL (Agriculture Lands).
7. Flood Control and Drainage: A portion of the subject property is located in
Flood Zone `A' while the majority of the site is in Flood Zone `C' panel
4275B. No development is proposed within Flood Zone 'A'.
(Ref.The Growth Mana;entent Element, Chapter 4, of the General Plan)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this 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 Californi a.
The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given
by motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 by the
following vote:
AYES: Battaglia, Clark, Gaddis, Murray, Terrell, Wong and Snyder
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Don Snyder
Chair of the County Plannin- Commission
County of Contra Costa, State of California
.ATTEST:
Dennis M. Barry, Secretary.
County of Contra Costa
State of California
FINDINGS MAP
ORDINANCE N0. 2006-10
(Re-Zoning Land in the
Martinez Area)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
SECTION I: Page K-9 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map(Ord. No.2005-03) is amended by
re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein
(see also Community Development Department File No. RZ053169 )
FROM: Land Use District A-4 ( Aaricultural Preserve )
TO: Land Use District A-20 ( Exclusive Agriculture )
and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning .Map accordingly, pursuant to
Ordinance Code Sec.84.2.002.
o �
A-2
f . . : .
A-2'
6Pd
fi
1 ;
f �
i
SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within
15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in
v , r,S �the � � es a newspaper published in this County.
PASSEDonQDbythe following vote:
Supervisor Ave No Absent Abstain
1. J.Gioia (}c') ( ) ( ) ( )
2. G.B. Uilkema
3. M.N. Piepho
..4. M.DeSaulnier
5. F.D. Glover >d) ( ) ( ) ( )
ATTEST: John Culisn,County Administrator
and Cler of the Board of Supervisors
Chairman of the Board
B.y Dep. (SEAL)
ORDINANCE N0. 2006-10
R7_051;1 C9 l�,-itli d:.L�sli:Tllo11185
STAFF REPORT
County Planning Commission
February 14, 2006
Agenda Item # -`
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY PLANNING COMISSION
TUESDAY. FEBRUARY 14, 2006 - 7:00 P.M:
1. INTRODUCTION
KEITH AND LESLIE THOMAS (Applicants & Owners), County File #RZ053169: The
applicants have requested approval to rezone a 20.89 acre parcel from A-4 (Agricultural
Preserve) to A-20 (Exclusive Agriculture). The subject site address is 1170 Bear Creek
Road in the Martinez area. (A-4) (ZA: K-9) (CT: 3560.02) (APN: 365-030-110).
Il. RECOMMENDATION
A. Adopt the attached Negative Declaration.
'B. Adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed
rezoning from A-4 (Agricultural Preserve) to A-20 (.Exclusive Agriculture).
IIl. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan: The General Plan Designation is Agricultural Lands (AL) one
dwelling unit per five acres.
B. ZoniriQ: The current zoning is A-4, Agricultural Preserve District.
C. CEOA Status: A negative declaration was posted on January 23, 2006. The
comment period expired on February 13, 2006. No comments have been received
as ofthe time of preparation of this report.
D. Previous Applications: .
1. MS010020: A minor subdivision that subdivided 110.32 acres into two
20+/- acre parcels with a 69.28 acre designated remainder, which created the
subject parcel.
E. Regulatory Programs:
1. Active Fault Zone: The site is not within an active fault zone.
S-3
C. East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD): There were no comments on the
application.
D. Community Development Department -Advance Planning Division: There were
no comments on the application, but recommended the application be distributed
to EBMUD, EBRPD, and Muir Heritage Land Trust.
E. Alhambra Valley Improvement Association: There were no comments on the
application.
F. Muir Heritage Land Trust: No comments were received prior to the preparation
of this report.
VII. STAFF ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
A. Appropriateness of Use: The proposal to rezone the property from A-4 to A-20 is
appropriate for the area, and is compatible with the General Plan Designation of
Agricultural Lands. The purpose of the rezoning is to change the zoning district
from A-4, which is specifically designed to regulate those properties in an
agricultural preserve contract, and this parcel is not under contract. In changing
to the A-20 District, the property owners may also apply for a land use permit to
allow a second residence, in addition to the single-family residence that is a
permitted use under the zoning code. It should also be noted that by rezoning to
A-20, the minimum parcel size is 20 acres, so the property could not be further
subdivided without undergoing another rezoning application. Thus the maximum
number of housing units for this property would be two.
B. Site Plan Analvsis: The property in question is currently vacant after having
undergone recent subdivision. Rezoning of the property will not involve a change
in use, nor will it cause a problem with the permitted uses, save there is no
agricultural preserve contract agreements. The site plan attached to this report
was taken from the tentative map approved for the minor subdivision (Count),File
#MS010020) that created the parcel. It indicates one home site, two water well
sites, and a leach field. Although it does not indicate a second home site, this will
be addressed in the land use permit if the rezoning is approved.
C. Compatibility with Regulatory Programs: Rezoning of the property from A-4 to
A-20 will maintain compatibility with the General Plan Designation of
Agricultural Lands (AL). The uses allowed on the property to be rezoned are
similar in both A-4 and A-20 zones. Although the.A-4 Zoning District is
designed specifically for those properties that enter into an agricultural preserve
contract. Exclusive Agricultural zoning districts (A-20, A-40, & A-80) may also
enter into Williamson Act contracts, so this rezoning doesn't eliminate the
possibility of future contract opportunities.
FINDINGS FOR COUNTY FILE #RZ053169
KEITH AND LESLIE THOMAS (Applicants & Owners)
FINDINGS:
A. Growth Management Performance Standards:
1. Traffic: There are no development plans proposed at this time. Rezoning of the
properties will not impact current traffic patterns. The uses allowed in the A-4
zoning district as compared with those allowed in the A-20 district will not
.lead to any significant impact on traffic patterns. Therefore, the applicant is not
required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C
requirements.
2. Water: The subject site is not connected to public water supplies, however it
the development of.any residence will have to meet County Environmental
Health standards and receive their approval prior to issuance of a building
permit.
3. Sewage: The subject sites do not utilize public sanitary systems. The subject
parcel is on a septic system, which will also have to meet Environmental
Health standards
4. Fire Protection: The site is within the Consolidated Fire Protection District.
5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element standard is 155 square
feet of Sheriff facility station area per 1,000 population. This project will not
trigger this requirement.
6. Parks and Recreation: The applicants will not be required to pay park
dedication fees at this time, only upon residential development is proposed.
T. Flood Control and Drainage: A portion of the subject property is located in
Flood Zone 'A' while the majority of the site is in Flood Zone 'C' panel
#275B. No development is proposed within Flood Zone 'A'.
B. Rezone Findings
Section 26-2.1806 of the County Ordinance Code requires specific findings to be
made by the planning agency when a request for change in land use district is made;
they,are as follows:
1. The change proposed will substantially comply with the general plan.
y'00 777-90
_ --
a '4
N `" Ou„
,
IV
ffQ t o pP Pas pl�$ t✓—'�� _ `I _
J
,a
a • -- -
Yiu - -
�r
LEACH
�+E t
_
......moi; ._. .. .._ .. �..
s�
,44
jjrJ)
-
_- _ ivy a;/tf"l�fl r,i.rtrrlrt f/t/f
o QPo�ED.
-.. -
1900
Ho
yrs'/�
eJ l
ILI
lr.
• RK,
f
i
J, t
rp, I
+
4
(7)
co
ZO
'n
v )NV8
CD
ZP
Ao
6,61,
10
14q6,,, C'I S'l
;Mo
I .
9a,,t!
10
cp
(Uj t, lit i�
co co LD0-
st,
tQk)
cq
N
----------------
co
----------- W S
o
N u�
1 l
0
U
o
co
m
W
j a •� 0 � i
i T n
a,
.. .. .. --
I W YVS
�f
ESMUD
REVIEW OF AGENCY PLANNING APPLICATION
:- -
__
........
THIS.I&NO:TA:.F.RO;FOS.AL:TO'PROVIDE:WATER..SERVIC.ES'
... :................. . .. ..
The::tiachnical data supplied:herem:is.:based.on:preliminary:information, is.su-bfect:to.revision-and:is#o'be:used foc plarinin'g purpose:
ONLY... :.
........:::::::
............
j DATE:10/1712005 EBMUD MAP(S): i EBMUD FILETS-8194
AGENCY: Contra Costa County Community AGENCY FILE: RZ053169 FILE TYPE:Rezoning/GPA
Development Department
Attn:David Brockbank ( . .
j 651 Pine Street,4th Floor, North Wing
1 MARTINEZ,CA 94553
1 APPLICANT: Keith&Leslie Thomas ` OWNER: Keith&Leslie Thomas
628 Janet Lane 628 Janet Lane
IMartinez,CA 94553 . i Martinez,CA 94533 i
....::..:...
..:.:.....
DEVELOPMENT DATA
.':
I ADDRESS/LOCATION:Bear Creek Road City:MARTINEZ Zip Code:
ZONING:A20 PREVIOUS LAND USE:Undeveloped i
DESCRIPTION:2-parcel residential subdivision 'TOTAL ACREAGE:24 ac.
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT:
Single Family Residential:2 Units
LL
WATER SERVICES:DATA
"
ELEVATION RANGES OF ELEVATION RANGE OF PROPERTY TO j
PROPERTY:Outside of USB STREETS: I BE DEVELOPED:
1500-600 1500-600
I
All of development may be served from existing main(s) None from main extension(s)
1 Location of Main(s): Location of Existing Main(s):
r-------...------ -'— -- ------—------ ------._._._.... _..----- --_._..._-.............-----------
i PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION RANGE I PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION RANGE
COMMENTS
Please see enclosed comments.
IJLM
i
CHARGES&OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE:
Contact the EBMUD Nev. Business Office at(510)287-1008.
1
iDavid J Rehnstrom,Senior Civil Engineer;. DATE .
1 WATER SERVICE PLANNING SECTION
f `�.7�
-1
Review of Agency Planning Application
Attachment
Agency file: RZ 05-3169
EBMUD file: 5-8194
Comments:
East Bay Municipal Utility District(EBMUD) appreciates,the opportunity to comment on the
proposed subdivision in the Pinole Valley area of Contra Costa County. Even though the
property is located outside of EBMUD's Ultimate Service Boundary and Service Area,
EBMUD owns and manages 3,681 aces of watershed land in Pinole Valley downstream from
the proposed project. Land uses on EBMUD property include dryland farming, livestock-
grazing,
ivestockgrazing, fire hazard mitigation, and habitat and creek restoration. Protection of listed species
including the Alameda Whipsnake,Red-legged Frog, and Steelhead are included in all
EBMUD management activities. A particularly important feature of Pinole Valley is Pinole
Creek in which modest Steelhead runs are an annual occurrence. EBMUD watershed lands
also include terminal reservoirs which provide storage for untreated water..
EBMUD expects that the cumulative impacts of incremental increases in the consumption of
groundwater and the discharge of surface water and groundwater in Pinole Valley have been
analyzed as required by law in terms of impacts on adjacent landowners and that such land uses
neither pollute nor deplete the flow in Pinole Creek to the detriment of listed species. In
particular, the listed Steelhead are sensitive to the amount and temperature of the water flowing in
Pinole Creek, as well as any polluting constituents in surface runoff or in groundwater seepage
into the creek.
Potential hydrological impacts from increased areas of hardscape and destruction of natural
creeks, springs, and seeps should be address is any environmental documentation and/or in the
planning of the proposed development. Also, potential water quality impacts from,but not
limited to, increased vehicular traffic,proposed septic systems which are located within 1000 feet
of.a creek, and residential runoff(e.g.,pesticides and household products) should also be
addressed. As stewards of our watershed land, EBMUD is concerned about potential loss of
wildlife habitat, wildfire hazards, damage to wildlife and livestock on EBMUD land from pets,
and the potential for increased trespassing of EBMUD watershed land. EBMUD requests that
these impacts also be addressed.
As the largest landowner adjacent to the proposed project, EBMUD requests the opportunity to
receive copies of current and future environmental and planning documentation for the proposed
project. EBMUD has staff with expertise in watershed and endangered species management,
water quality, and water conservation to review and comment on future environmental and
planning documents related to this project. Environmental documents can be sent to William R.
Kirkpatrick, Engineering Manager, 375 11`�.'Street—MS 701, Oakland, CA 94607.
CEQA DETERMINATION
Community _
o n t ra �, Gommun itv De.VPIOC.7mm.Tt Dlrecic .
DevelopmentOsta ------
Department County n �,
Countv Aoministration Building
651 Fine Street
4th =10or. North Wing
Martinez. California 94553-0095 = ;I
Phone: (92 5) 33�-1210 J` ._', :Py DATE: 3anuar5.23, 20 6
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
County File �R -05; 169.
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 advises you that the
Community Development Department of.Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the
following;project:
KEITH AND LESLIE THOMAS. (Applicants L Owners),County File#R7_053 169: The applicants
have requested approval to rezone a 20.89 acre parcel from A-4(Agricultural Preserve District)to A-
20(Exclusive AUricultural District)in order to apple for a land use permit that would allow a second
residence on the site, which ma} be applied for under the A-20 zoning= provision. The subject
property's address is#1170 Bear Creek. Road in the Martinez area of unincorporated Contra Costa
Countv. (A-4) (ZA: 1-10 and K-10) (CT: 3560.02) (Parcel #365-030-1 10)
The proposed development will not result in any significant impacts.
A copy of the ntgative declaration and all documents referenced In the negative declaration may be
reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and Apphcaiion and Permit
Center at the MCBrien Administration Building., North Wing, Second Floor, 651 Pine Street.
Martinez. durin normal business hours.
Public Comment Period -The period for accepting*comments on the adequacy of the environmental
documents extends to 5:00 P.M., Februau 13, 2006. Any comments should be in writin, and
submitted to the followinc, address:
David Brockbank
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, North Win(-,, 2nd Floor
Martinez. CA 94553
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: RZO:-3169(Keith and Leslie Thomas-.Applicant d Owner)
3. Lead Agenc\ Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department
6�1 Pine Street.North Wing-4th Floor
Martinez. CA 9453
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: David Brockbank (935)33�;-133 7
4. Project Location: 1170 Bear Creek Road.Martinez
�. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Keith Thomas
638 Janet Lane
Martinez. CA 045,�3
6. General Plan Designation: AL—Agricultural Lands
7. Zoning: A-4 Agricultural Preserve District
S. Description of Project: A request to rezone the 30.89-acre parcel from A-4.
Agricultural Preserve District to A-30. Exclusive
.Agriculture District becausethe property is no longer in an
agricultural preserve contract. The nem zoning district still
complies with the zoning district parcel size requirements
and Count\ General Plan DesiLmation. In addition. the
applicant is also planning to file a land use permit
application to allow for a second residence once the
rezoning is approved. This environmental revieNk,
encompasses the rezoning application and proposed
establishment of two single-family residences on the site.
The subject propem is addressed#935 Deer Creek Drive.
in the Martinez area.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Residential and equestrian
10. Other public agencies whose approval Building=Inspection Department. County Environmental
is required (.e.�i., permits. financing Health. County_ Fire Protection District
approval. or participation agreement).
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
_X_ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment.there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitiLyation measures described oil an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
1 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 si-nificant effect in this case because all potentially sianificani effects (a)have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)have been avoided or
miti,,,ated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitis*ation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
Sig*nature Late
David Brockbank CCC Communih Development Department
Printed Name For
SUMMARY:
For residential viewers. the changes proposed at the site would include two new residences. The
second residence is allowed with the approval of a land use permit in the Exclusive Agricultural
Zonina District("A-20). The proposed home locations would be south of the road. setback from the
property frontage. and could be viewed as a comparable site to the existinLy home sites in the
Alhambra Vallee area.. It should also be noted that the project site is not considered a`'scenic vista'
from those viewpoints. The Contra Costa Count, General Plan defines a scenic route as. "a road.
street. or freeway.which traverses a scenic corridor of relatively high visual or cultural value. And
although the General Plan policies are intended to protect scenic vistas.the proposed home.sites are
located in an area with the least amount of trees.
Night li,*hting anticipated for future development is that tvpicall-\ oi'residential development (c.�(,
switch operated front door light and switch operated garageiout-building light). Therefore. the
potential for nevy sources of substantial light or �(lare would not adversely affect environment or
surroundinas to a sib**nificant de`*ree. The effect of the Project would be Ie.ti,c-thn��-•sinnificcrn�.
Pntentialh
Steniftcant
Potentialh Unless Less than
Sieniftcant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Imn;ictInsact
ll. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: in determinin(,
whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects. lead auencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. Oi'Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing, impacts
on agricultural and farmland. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland. Unique Farmland. _ _ _ X_
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland). as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Fanmland Mapping and Monitoring,
PfoLrram of the California Resources AuencN.
to non-avricultural use?(Source 4)
b. Conflict with existing zonino, for _ _ _ X_
w-mcultural use. or a Williamson
Act contract?(Source 4)
C. Involve other chane*es in the existUiL, X _
environment which. due to their location
or nature. could result in conversion of'
Farmland.to non-agricultural use?
Source 9.)
7 Potentially'
shmiflcam
PotentiallyUnless Less than
Significam Mitintion Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Im aci
of airborne dust and particulate matter during site grading and emissions from construction impact.
Implementation of the conditions of approval for the subdivision that created the lot would maintain the
project at a less than significant impact.
i\%. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect. either _ _ a _
directly or throudt habitat modifications.
on am.species identified as a candidate.
sensitive. or special status species in local
or regional plans. polices. or red*ulations. or
by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service"
Source#?1
h. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitivenatural
community identified in local or re-ional
plans, policies. regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
in Wildlife Service?(Source,= 1
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on _ _ a_
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.
(illin«. hydrological interruption. or other
means. Source : )
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or miuratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native.
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites'.'
Source 4 )
C'. Conflict with any local policies or _ _ _ -X-
ordinances
_ordinances protecting_bioloaical resources.
such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Source )
f. Conflict with the provisions of an _ _ _ -X-
adopted
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan.
Natural Community Conservation Plan.
or other approved local. regional. or
state habitat conservation plan?
Source )
Potentially
Signifiaut;
Potentially Unles; Less than
Significant Miti,_ation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Imp;+cl Impact
(Source r )
2. Strong, seismic around shaking? _ _ _X_ _
3. Seismic-related (_*round failure. including _ _ X _
liquefaction') (Source r 1
a. Landslides'.) (Source r )
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil? (Source r )
C. Be located on a ueoloaic unit or soil that is
unstable. or that would become unstable as
a result of the project. and potentially result
in on-ot off-site landslide. lateral spreading,
subsidence. liquefaction or collapse?
(Source r )
d. Be located on expansive soil. as defined in _ _ _X_
Table 1 R-1-B of the Uniform Buildina,Code
(1994). creatine substantial risks to life or
property? (Source r )
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting _ _ _X_ _
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater? (Source r' )
SUN4M.ARY:
The proposed home site(s)are not xvithin the 100 year flood zone..:> compicte soils analysis has not
been required for this current project. However, as a condition of approval for the subdivision that
created this parcel required the applicant to submit a detailed engineering.L eoloaic and L eotechnical
report, to analyze slope stability associated with site development (e.g. residences. access
roads/driveways...,accessory structures) prior to the issuance of a building=permit. The geotechnical
report shall be reviewed by and subject to the approval of the Countv Geolo6st. The subdivision
also conditioned that prior to any gradina of the site. an erosion control plan shall he submitted for
the review and approval of the Grading, Inspection Division to adequately address storm water
controls during construction in the rainv season. The Count° Environmental Health Division has
approved the sustainability of a septic system for one home site on the property. and prior to the
issuance of a building permit for the proposed second residence: the applicant will be required to
have Environmental Health approve the increased capacity- on the septic system for the additional
residence.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
.Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public _ x_
Potentialh
Significant
Potentialh Unless Less than
sieniiicaw Mitieation Sienificant No
impact Incomoratton Impact Impact
The Movement of gasoline powered equipment will occur through routine and schedule development of the
site.however. it will not expose people or structure to substantial risks associated with development of the site.
`File site is proposed for two home sites which will not interfere with existing enlergenc,, response plans.
Much of the land for this project will remain undeveloped due to the..hillsidetopo`Traphy as well as the inability
to further subdivide without rezoning the parcel again. The potential for wildland fires is minimal other than
any acts as a result of high temperature weather.
Vill. HYDROLOGY AND VVATEi: QUALiTY -
Would tile project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or _ _ _ X_
waste discharge requirements?
b. Substantially- deplete groundwater supplies_ _ _7:_
or interfere substantially with groundwater .
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local trroundwater table level (e.g..
the production rate of pre-existing Nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)`'
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area. including through
the alteration of the course• oi'a stream or riser.
in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site'.)
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage _ _ _N_ _
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 runoff in a planner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
(Source )
e. Create or contribute runoff water which _ _ ?;_
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systellls 01'
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runofP(Source r )
f. Otherwise substantialh_-degrade water
qualit,-? (Source 7' ) �—
LT. Place housin`,within a 1(1(1-year flood
hazard area as mapped oil a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
1;
11iuenliall
Sienificanl
Potenlialh Unless Less than
sienil'icam 1Ampation Significam No
Impact. Incorporation Imnact Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would tite
project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known _ _ _ X
mineral resource that would he of value to
the re<aion and the residents of the state'
(Source )
b. Result in the loss of availability of a local)y- _ _ _ X_
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan. specific
plan or other land use plan'' (Source r )
SUMMARY:
The Contra Costa County General Plan has not identified any mineral resources on the project site.
X1. NOiSE - Would the project result in''
a. Exposure of persons to or *eneratiolt of X _
noise levels in excess.of standards established
in tho, local general plan or noise ordinance.
or applicable standards of other agencies`'
(Source -1. )
h. Exposure of persons to or`*eneration of _ _ _V_
excessive around borne vibration or'Lround
borne noise levels? (Source 4 )
C. .A substantial permanent increase in _ _ X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing, without the project`'
(Source )
d. A substantial temporan or periodic increase _ _ X_
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels eaistim-, without the project?
(Source I-
>
e. For a project located within an airport land _ _ _ X_
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 residinL, or workin in the
project area to excessive Noise levels"
(Source# )
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private _ _ _ X_
airstrip. would tite project expose people
Potennalh
Sianificant
Potentialh Unless Less than
Sianificant Mitigation Significant No
Imt incomoration Impact Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of neve or physically altered
L,,overnmental facilities. need for neve or
physically altered L*overnmental facilities.
the construction of which could cause sianif icant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios. response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services (Source t ):
1. Fire Protection? X
2. Police Protection?
3. Schools? _ _ X
4. Parks? _ _~ X_
5. Other Public facilities? X
SUMMAi:Y:
The project is located within a rural area and currently has typical governmental services associated
with rural development. The project is expected to Incrementally increase demand for public
services (c.g.. schools and Fire Protection) and is not anticipated to create anv new or unusual law
enforcement problems. A Developer fee will be imposed on the project at the issuance of buildill��
permits by the BuildinL, Inspection Department. The project will have minimal effect on Public
Services and therefore a less than sianificant impact.
XiV. RECREATION -
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated')
(Source 4 )
b. Does the project include recreational _ _ _ X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Source r )
SUMMARY:
The project is a proposal to rezone the subject property that will be developed with two home sites.
The addition of two new households may increase the use of existing neighborhood and reLTional
17 Potentially
Sienificant
Potcntialh Unless Less than
Sienificant Mitieation Sienificant No
Imoact Incomoration Impact Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements _ _ _X_
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? (Source =y )
b. Require or result in the construction of new _ _ _ _X_
water or wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities. the
construction or which could cause siLmificant
environmental effects? (Source f )
C. Require or result in the construction of new _ _ _X_
storm water drainage facilities or expansion .
of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause simlificant environmental effects?
(Source # )
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to _ _ X_
serve the project from existing entitlement
and resources. or are new or expanded
entitlement needed? (Source )
C. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
tale project that it has adequate capaciry to serve
the proiecfs projected demand in addition to the
Providers existing commitments" (Source r I
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate,the
project's solid waste disposal needs`?
(Source )
Comply with federal. state and local statutes _ _ _ _X_
and regulations related to solid waste?
(Source t )
SUMMARY:
The proposed project would not involve the increase in demand from service utility providers or districts.but
rather require an additional water well and a larger septic system. If it is detennined that the subject propern
cannot adequately provide these necessary services to the second residence.then the second residence would
not he,pennitted. This potential for an increase in providin`; certain utility services to tlle residences and a
drainage system for the property is a less than significant impact.
MAPS
J
® Ort'ho o
a- -
.,, '..:. ... .:.':,)t#.:+.:•-.ray.. :;;xt;(�, iv?G:i .�.. Ni�'> '9[:�r.:.'=&: J 'F ;'.;s`:.:,w'.:.tt ::`tr.:'
:1� _ .l,h '..^^.P.'k•' ld=.w.`'']�:r'.I' ."J:., f�f:.^,: �y - .;7.:"^:::
, a ,
arc% •a+-x, 'ly'•,'
•� '..i `'J: �.'.4:i,`•:T.:�- �'a,{4J'' '.,5:ri`:4^� _ l•�bO� �1'7-i - ;'�'' I
i.
b •:ler,a.^,].e. v;...t,J I.:..:.�.,.n;::•' i`
.
Via. '.� ;;. �-. .:, l
_��.-,::.' " �:.-n .. 0.
-.-:, - rte ';!•b.
la ,.�., �• ,l. ,.t. ::Y'• ?:':\'.": .,[r 1`t,' 4v '`(3.ri � .:r::•'-�; '.'l ,t)
vl:. - #.1 ',Cr J,'Y?,• :c, •:+h4. :'i. "?/,.., �ba ''t([ .y,'�, e{
�`.._ r:� .::.:.,_..r.�::5,-....'ta._': ... :.:.}.. i.RPI ..�• '•.'d+f:....:8.+.: !,A
.r.. - :!•...... !...r t,r,,_:r.7..r.., ;.( ._�:..� .�:>;4e'`: r;,rC:,'.. -'.: f: - :<a.,a+;..... -
,. 1AVtt.' I
... ..r/ r4lY, tB ., ,..,.,.t11,.•. 40
:i
r,
Vit:•- Vic.:; _ '.: ,A •V
•,3 p.
.`�t y^�;.^. {..� R46'•1:. >._ `+dry n s+�
- if,-. :.t•� .��`�:. :3:9'w.: �',.rt;`::��.i"' .7�t. yam(' si!; S�
i
' r
p,� •e`4.- - a:3..,,tC.:'Mr•:�' ;e1. t.:��;.,�,.,,..,,v::r.. ;i.. -. '4:.:eS _
'6.,t'91t•.ir.4• �'4'.~`i,. !,•j- - .,v„1_,� n.n.r. .ew "t.': t4���� 1; ��i!,
._.� ':',t;,`'”.-.,2 �r�,•e .;i•-. •l.,;f:::.� .ra�.r1.,,,. ;t4� r ��yc _ "•,�'t',.i e y
)�. .l,, r. 'C':{;t•-..:...�� � .. y 'Vtl,. ::`r:::.:a.:'_ �� �Li .;A ..l s� t���:� _.5 :',( Vie'
1:
r -.A•.+SFS`ti`.?i; ;.:vG�:4,
yL
�y� 'te„r,,,.. - ''�:,�� �'iF�a.'e�-r�:.itli�'.'"�-:^ca 'q':• s. JF;�' '�'r6�91• ;N
Thi•. '�'s� ::.,s;:-. '�. .^� ti..-.r:;i,.,tis,'° �->Fk�,>_;:M• ':�;.:.: a;':-:',-:f;., :'�,..,a`;'��:•j•.
i+
-:_
i
't•
,
^!. r
4
4:
1 1r•
f e
.wf _
.�,.. `_L., _.H - ":i:�;;�i 'i a,•� ,Y•�` '�r;,.k::i. t;�' �'y .4'C a),, � .ass.
••J
a�.
i
:ir':. tC,w�M';: ''�F:r...Fy�R::•4:,,' .C;' �►:',•nr}:.�' :".7.5•. :�.
11p 1
�a
cif.• Y .:.�.,.. .:!'
.. er � �,• r..:..,,A:x1`T': ..\F..,.: ....,. ..t.+ - 'af��'l�.yy�,`: 1��;' .tom S; 21
-
S q ,.y.;:: - 1:..�:u�; ¢>LRa ,,.•(�"• .;t"�:�s. � ,.,E ,•r s t::�.,.:
-
•+�' :•:Jl::� `Yt.'t � Th'':��'���.::.::•..... �..'i,':�` .t;t-:.. BSc:T.=;;'+`�1
::;:�.Y_
Skj itV 'JA.^•i'' '+E.?.' ay'At '
C
t - ¢
I
rI'
iJ
�:. (.r,;..,a ..,.. .,.,_.::. ..• .-v :::... - :r'S7r.: - ,+V`:' -
-✓ § '?;d:r �)�,.A" �,'T.:;4�a�'J rR i',7,'-' s•.ay•p1=:.
! -
rC .
y.,:,.:,.,.,. it '.. ..:.. >;:.. :�:•:;.:+ �.
•y
a -
•.,..:4,
q //j//11�!� :r n,' �7`�':t� s:.::.+�1 .� f.�. y'+it:.. '-',sy'•=e'.�' I'
.:, t ":<--ate .r"- `«'�::i�•'�-=:�: �!
«43a�... �':t:�. .� �•� - �1.,::,-- _ ".f ;}u� ,{'-' ,�i'.!�� '�4 /� .v �.. .,��'p�'C�-_tib
��4�' ,ti':vl.l�� 4 r �.ia: .! .:T•;. .•,fit -$r�`�' .'/ '-'. *. •� �' -
......t M.�.:.c.:.•.t:':, (.':,:....,.s.; '.1 ~-,',. v;� -:3''• _�e':.: ,�rr..�����a•.,, y{ ::A' .'�':.. ym.
�rCe'� ly:• ):.Y r, '�a':a�'J. :„Q.•- .�ro �' .•,>4' ,.'FY.' .-:'.�,.A.�' ''�_w� ';� 1/.arr)(l.ti,; (� `��
'xy: �t” :�1us'„}.::a7'�a� •x,,_._;Z. iL:xi;��`t.;� :S�.:y.,�, F�h. _ __3=-_q�j __ .rT�. -n°�.�i��44. e�-r r�l.� _
;..;> ,.,ti}:,. t,7 tl�;'�;•;'�,,.�+4�+aq*'.... .1,17y,}�;; -- t� •5��ti°��.:� �:�,�{;nh.^ -'*4 :. 4;ty ;'���
.Y, ': .,:::4;,.: ;.'�Me!.•-,l..; .s1:\ .'14',lti?':. .•ra.F�!::, '-`�� ,+[ :'iA':.� '�tA -_ -
-r
=�* :1:i: `fit :i(=t. "y`.. =:+.� - _ ,ce•. .a•.. ``
j`�- 'p�;:,e: n'•+a'' 4> Wil:�`t: ,.h+. �.
'%S}._ `'I-;.��'T,�• �� :.;�:.:-:_...�,.w`.;�-• - '�`'Z'-'sem' �."�a:- SGS
�A'?t;-� i2`�'y,,, -1T.�' ::}�-�,,`'.;:Kc'.'"':�U::'.,,.�^�.+•�.,,,/:� :;}�?;:,�' .•{. ,ran n''- �ira'. `�.0 ::7}� :n
t_ 4,
-1k�'�� is _ �1��.'_;'. :-.�,t `�. �;,,•}'.• �.,1�,,:ria: �i;r `�,.'':;.b.,�'
•t�� ,•J :�+•.,i ^.!� ..,►`,.i•:d?:.,, ^k,�,.ti.:' ..` .t.~:4�h iti.: , t T72
'FtBi
t,. - '.'7 ,�I'. :��. - '��. 'ti.,•c :•E`y.. .�:�'�'`. .Fy :: :!`4 '��+t 4:i�'-'r. �• �I "�3}'`
,
,
,X w'G:�+''{� .. t �-_ •"�• -M; nM. '' eY.��-' � �ieA• :I:C.SY :il •"�1
".'.1+.5 :t�• S. �,,YNS.
:i'`!r. :,.,�? a�';t..,. 't,p �`:� -, uv•'• - J •'7S`i+�'y`x..�t`.�
aa�t 3
'r e.
��-• - �s1� - fir'.. J;;:' ,:�t+�,-.._ .5 -v w�>,.,;�,_.
1:,{��,- :w rt .'!a ,I:� -'f�'�'� •�i - r �.• :r �• ':tt�r` �Aga
y. .� .� !'�:'z 1�':)_- yy 'oaf.• xd-+' ,/
y t ikx
-_ a'1•. ,u t. ".+:is.. .,,,`, ` •::3�:'< •.R 1..".b�' r-�'� •M1,S:�.:�d:l�''•'�`�'.f: � .:�F•..
Myt
'i,' Vit. �. �F't•. .�`:• �f" � : -{'�+ 'c.���i',-`-�;.•':,''.- `,Q,�<',�.,f r_ :rfrv.: .I� ''r_f�:.,. ,:�I.;�^,\.'+`:';.:�;�•i�''
;P�
v, •''��S,r•.y�, r. ,.s ..•a, �:_ _ _— _ _ ___ i =f E.:_�. p. - ;'� 1'.'t7;:,_tirr''l_:y�S'+..
f!�r
N
Map Created on 4/3/06 by Contra Costa County Community
Development Department,GIS Group and using data from the 920 280 1
, , W r E
Contra Costa County GIS Program.This map contains O 320 640 1 2,560
copyrighted information and may not be altered.It may be Feet
reproduced in its current form if the source is cited.
RZO53169 -
Gener'alRlanMap -ji
z., A,
Pvl'
• ..F: r.";.., ..:., �. ,... � .:..:. .�: ::,.�.:��,. 'iii'-�y,'.c:� '„v'.
:al.'..
�.
w
v
v .
..v
!:•. -
''4
wY- -
rr).
11�:
,
v:
d.
1f.
..17•
,
_ r
<7
,
w.
r^
,
r
.7
1'
4 ) 1 -
:l
a
, a
A t
ly .i
t
4:
f•. 4'r
v'.
:
!
e.
x
r rv;
r
•1 I
n. •'G
YTW&
,
f urr
v.
.w
J.
t:
t:e:
.-. , ..t.I..t .....r .l,...... .. ... .. , r..... .. . ,n ., .1.1,::.r a_1. :.%r::•;� A.�'�*,-=,-
•.c•: nl? nt r k :H
,
y
r'
.r
rte,
,
•a
7'
?r
2sr..
.�_. ..,;•.Q ...:: ., �:,s
v�• .a�'r •
' -
-
e
zvA•.. .
J
to •fit::
i$
I
i..
yt
0..
S la
,
a ! fTN -
r/ 1
Y
} 4
•�. . .. .. . .S ter, ..� ..:,, ",`
r.
Tri
+fir'
Vi. .
,
t
}'�; / ."/ •lir '.�f
- 'ni. - '•l
Y'n•,
,.;, ;.� :.(l.%,fr' c.' ��,,: r'rc'l�.5'i�rr.. - ;f.••r+.:�+t.,..;.,, .ii` `rp>, °`L;°:•�tv2:?`,:
'4'.. L.
^'c:” L:.,'P�::� rlr:i'Y' 'ill�::'::��:�i:'y:K,'.•
14,
Legend 0 280 560 1,120 1,680 2,240 N
Feet
® site
W E
AL(Agricultural Lands) Map Created on 4r3M by Contra Costa County Community Development Department,
GIS Group and using data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program.This map contains
WS (Watershed) copyrighted information and may not be altered.It may be reproduced in its current form
if the source is cited.
S
\• ; • bite ;; f
kRa
RZO53169 - Zoning Ma'P
!A` fir oa
A-ao .A2 _
/ ydL
N
Legend
0 280 560 1,120 1,680 2,240Feet
W E
A-2 Site
Map Created on 4/3106 by Contra Costa County Community Development Department
+u v A-4 GIS Group and using data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program.This map contains
copyrighted information and may not be altered.It may be reproduced in its current form S
A-$0 if the source is cited.
� z
a
3,[O.ZS
En •� y
s \\ t9 o <
m fir
[0'ssr, �
�(}G / f� _ M•or r,rts 00'91$? 3..0r.90.1N
7.iS[`ZNt�/.�j7pjb1' O6'FlFt •� Cl
n n Gr «w ` ��yH'•�; '� 66rrh ""S � CV o ,
N '� � NO•L'S2•w 4 �Q,� 'r' �
567.75 c
O0� `jw«.
61,
)Jf•LSM rz0 � «�z W w C.i///
r m�ti «a
Gat- C 3.Bt.1
z 617.31 pjN���M.SCr.ON z97 e t �J
n n�Mw NO•J'35"9+ 69'SSti ,o i `p `�`«'w h i ,t>' '
'0
Poo 9[t .tr'su •p „ �'
.n r u'19Z S9'
34Zr95
.90. a
m ¢ ,gtl � ow C X
0 7!
o2S ,'; Y �a+ zs'Let '�r 6z N 5•tL
Zi L ta.ONco
LO C14
ttt ON
1"'"�� O p, "•'"'9tixt, .05'509 1 net
65'016 t.C? 56'SLOt t SL'%L Q 14't1L 52� Q,gT mpL
m '- _ �`t`a0••' n� •7M .� �ti t 4r
� ���� �C � q � '! C.7o Q - ACr•Irx ^ �' M iWQ WW�co�rnWv
a:c�n� _0,9y ryo�i��. �'� i n�. eO �$ a� '•'� �n�rr�:�r����
4Z'9rt
� «z� „`��!t ��'enw � �M•9p.00.QN � t n`g'y�L^i'$vmiz��'�'�^,°
< OHo
m S IhsO[•6tu ,$ A o I t 0
Nom
CL' O.d
at ipt2 t7r" n n •}F° N"
tl�Ztt,, < �• 4`>'� +t; r. ^'` (�� 4ri.ryt• $6
� n a� _..--..-----_. _.— ..� & ty rya o y•, a � M ^:°. � �.--
m t2
r� n,m,. �aZ7•rtx, i ... z <
A s x rx a4 n ` q < 61.x65 _� rn tl �r 00'086 Q
h� d� d a 7ao1 •4��3 Y�s'ziy �o g Zr0.0rx
0.90
CL LL LSD r yaa.
C
1/") CD °t co c� ^ S m& lsnst•9ix^tl - ' t f$Orrl�
•'d r0'LLCt m d
;'„$ 'S .tl;, y.'• Ir$6[I Wed rvi
n M uJ .L.Oh16' m ONBIN
y W cv y •srx `2 YtwS�.��
W - P
Wgig
Wow .29
PF
_60
i
6t z \`O o is
}
LS'Z9U )6'Oft 6995Bt
J
99
N57=
N,�T>>'ao"w
35 pd" 177.90 -- K—Re
. tJ�a 3$ � REE •
N 55'21'00" W N 5T57$ W - -
._ - IIVAT
E� P ..-
cr-
�'� ,\ 'FIE � - `- .--_._----- .�'�,•' .` 'I'tr.� +'_..'"-�
�.,i'�--1'--�ME •\�'' mit/..� ,.,._ .._•,-0"`•, f:;'�J_`� nx�rti �,�, �—
i.
Acc
UTII
50
•
�.
Ev
WAW
11-1 WIN
S,,,
NDEE
NOTIFICATION MATERIALS
t} . Dennis M. Barrv, AIC?
�• m u n ity Con ll - Community Development Director
Development Costa
Department County
County Administration Building
Pine Street
4th .
4th Floor, North Wing P•.�.� ,,••
Martine
z,California 94553-0095
(925)335-1210 : fir" 1 Date:
Phone:
AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST
We request your comments retn
garding the attached application currently under review.
DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows:
_Building Inspection
- HSD,Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner r��lV.(� CDC 6ckLb� t--
HSD'Hazardous Materials
P/W. Flood Control (Full Size) County Filer-)-----) Q� l/ l
_P/W -Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Number:
Date Forwarded � I,
P/W Traffic(Reduced). Prior To: C'
P/W Special Districts (Reduced)
Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs
Redevelopment Agency apply to this application:
_Historical Resources Information System
_CA Native Amer. Her. Comm. t.J Redevelopment Area
CA Fish & Game, Region
_US Fish & Wildlife Service JActive Fault Zone
_Fire District
Sanitary District A./CFlood Hazard Area, Panel#
Water District ,sri►,�11
City J60 dBA Noise Control
_School District '
_Sheriff Office - Admin. & Comm.Svcs. CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site
Alamo Improvement Association
El Sobrante Plg. & Zoning Committee Traffic Zone
_ MAC
DOIT- Dep.Director, Communications CEQA Exempt
_ CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical Exemption Section
Corqmupjty Organizations
x rICJ f-2x7-0tV,, —
%� e� •; ��/ �<_ FSR-�.- �;s�£� i
k. t&uk9-- N�>=7����
Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send
copies of your response to the Applicant & Owner.
No comments on this application.
Our Comments are attached
Comments:
Signature
Agency
S:current plannint�ttempiates/furms/arency curnment request Date
Office Hours Monday.- Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Office is closed the 1st. 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month
365010008 365020038 365030088
GAN SHALOM INC BRADDOCK & LOGAN GROUP II LP DUTRA HETTY TRE
PO BOX 167 4155 BLACKHAWK PLAZA CTR#201 1151 BEAR CREEK RD
LAFAYETTE CA 94549 DANVILLE CA 94506 MARTINEZ CA 94553
365030110 365030111 365030112
THOMAS KEITH & LESLIE THOMAS SUSAN M TRE THOMAS SUSAN M TRE
628 JANET LN 624 HIDDEN LAKES DR 624 HIDDEN LAKES DR
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
365280002
HESS GEORGE A TRE
1141 BEAR CREEK RD
MARTINEZ CA 94553
i
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
MARTINEZ AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,April 11,2006 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Administration
Building, 651 Pine Street,Room 107 (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California,the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning
matter:
KEITH AND LESLIE THOMAS (Applicants and Owners), County File#RZ 053169:
The applicants have requested approval to rezone a 20.89 acre parcel from A-4
(Agricultural Preserve)to A-20(Exclusive Agriculture).
The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa
County, State of California,generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in
the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez,
California):
The location of the subject site is 1170 Bear Creek Road in the Martinez area.
o ses of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),.a
19iffigR&Ad Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no Environmental Impact Report
required as been issued for this project.
If you challenge this matter in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County
at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on
Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 12:30 p.m., in Room 108,Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Martinez,
to meet with any interested parties in order to(1) answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures
used by the Board; (3)clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to
identify,resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting
with staff,please call David Brockbank, Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1237 by
3:00 pan. on Monday, April 10,2006 to confirm your participation.
Date: March 28, 2006
John Cullen, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By
Katherine Sinclair,Deputy Clerk
NOTICE OF A
PUBLIC HEARING' .
You are hereby notified that on TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14,2006 at 7:00 p.m. in Room
107, McBrien Administration Building,651 Pine Street, Martinez,California,the County
Planning Commission will consider a REZONING application as described as follows:
KEITH AND LESLIE THOMAS (Applicants & Owners), County File#RZ053169: The
applicants have requested approval to rezone a 20.89 acre parcel from A-4
(Agricultural Preserve)to A-20(Exclusive Agriculture).The subject site address is 1170
Bear Creek Road in the Martinez area. (A-4) (ZA: K-9) (CT: 3560.02) (Parcel # 365-
030-110).
For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no Environmental
Impact Report required) has been issued for this project.
If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you
or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing.
For further details, contact the Contra Costa County Community Development Department,
651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, or David Brockbank at 925-335-1237.
Dennis M. Barry, AICP
Community Development Director
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
MARTINEZ AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,April 11,2006 at 1:00 p.m.in the County Administration
Building, 651 Pine Street,Room 107 (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning
matter:
KEITH AND LESLIE THOMAS (Applicants and Owners), County File#RZ 053169:
The applicants have requested approval to rezone a 20.89 acre parcel from A-4
(Agricultural Preserve)to A-20 (Exclusive Agriculture).
The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa
County, State of California, generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in
the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez,
California):
The location of the subject site is 1170 Bear Creek Road in the Martinez area.
For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no Environmental Impact Report required)has been
issued for this project.
If you challenge this matter in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County
at, or prior to,the public hearing.
Prior to the hearing,Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, April 11,
2006 at 12:30 p.m., in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, to meet with any
interested parties in order to(1)answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board;
(3)clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve, or
narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call
David Brockbank, Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1237 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday,
April 10, 2006 to confirm your participation.
Date: March 29, 2006
John Cullen, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
1
By
Katherine Sinclair,Deputy Clerk
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
MARTINEZ AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,April 11,2006 at 1:00 p.m.in the County Administration
Building, 651 Pine Street,Room 107 (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning
matter:
.KEITH AND LESLIE THOMAS (Applicants and Owners), County File#RZ 053169:
The applicants have requested approval to rezone a 20.89.acre parcel from A-4
(Agricultural Preserve)to A-20(Exclusive Agriculture).
The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa
County, State of California,generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in
the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building,Martinez,
California):
The location of the subject site is 1170 Bear Creek Road in the Martinez area.
For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no Environmental Impact Report required)has been
issued for this.project. .
If you challenge this matter in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County
at, or prior to,the public hearing.
Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday,April 11,
2006 at 12:30 p.m., in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, to meet with any
interested parties in order to (1)answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board;
(3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and (4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve, or
narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call
David Brockbank, Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1237 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday,
April 10, 2006 to confirm your participation.
Date: March 29, 2006
John Cullen, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By
1n
Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk
i
Anashia Lloyd To KSinc@cob.cccounty.us
<cctlegals@cctimes.com>
cc
03/29/2006 12:27 PM
Please respond to bcc
cctlegals@cctimes.com Subject Re: Publication Request-Thomas
THE FOLLOWING e-mail contains pertinent information; please read it carefully in its
entirety.
Good Afternoon. If you have any questions regarding the legal notice confirmed below, please
reference the LEGAL NUMBER provided. Please only e-mail to cctlegals(acctimes.com
regarding Contra Costa Times, Concord Transcript, or Contra Costa Sun legal notices.
** LEGAL SCHEDULE CONFIRMATION
TYPE: In-Column Liner, Classified Section
LEGAL NUMBER: 5272
PO#: 1147
Publication: CCT
Run Date(s): 04/01
Legal Acct#: 200 4197
Total Amount: $158.20
REVISIONS/CANCELLATIONS: I will need a cancellation request referencing the LEGAL
NUMBER—or all changes attached in a final draft Microsoft Word Document—e-mailed to
cctlegals(acctimes.com by no later than 4 PM tomorrow, Thurs., 03/30. Otherwise, the legal will
publish as you e-mailed. Thanks!
Anashia Lloyd
Legal Advertising Coordinator
(925) 943-8019
(925) 943-8359—fax
Contra Costa Times
ATTN: Legal Dept.
P.O. Box 4718
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
cctlegals@cctimes.com
KSinc@cob.cccounty.us wrote:
Hi Anashia,
Please publish the attached legal notice in the CCTimes:
One day only, Saturday, April 1, 2006
Reference PO#: 1147
Please confirm receipt of request.
Should you have any questions, please call me at the number listed below.
Thank you,
Kathy Sinclair
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
925.335.1902
(See attached file: Thomas-041106.doc)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Thomas-041106.doc
Thomas-041106.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
IN THE MATTER OF:
Keith and Leslie Thomas (Applicants & Owner) County File#RZ 053169, request for approval
to rezone a 20.89 acre parcel from A-4 (Agricultural Preserve)to A-20 (Exclusive Agriculture).
In the Martinez area.
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a
citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited Certified Mail with Contra
Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez,
California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice, on the above entitled
matter to the following:
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LIST
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez,
California.
Dated: March 29, 2006
Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk
365010008 365020038 365030088
GAN SHALOM INC BRADDOCK&LOGAN GROUP II LP DUTRA HETTY TRE
PO 13OX 167 4155 BLACKHAWK PLAZA CTR#201 1151 BEAR CREEK RD
LAFAYETTE CA DANVILLE CA MARTINEZ CA
94549 94506 94553
365030110 365030111 365030112
THOMAS KEITH&LESLIE THOMAS SUSAN M TRE THOMAS SUSAN M TRE
628 JANET LN 624 HIDDEN LAKES DR 624 HIDDEN LAKES DR
MARTINEZ CA MARTINEZ CA MARTINEZ CA
94553 94553 94553
365280002 David Rehnstrom
HESS GEORGE A TRE EBMUD
1141 BEAR CREEK RD HSD,ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Senior Civil Engineer,Water Service
MARTINEZ CA CONCORD Planning
94553 375— 11''Street MS 701
Oakland,CA 94607-4240
ALHAMBRA VALLEY IMPROVEMENT EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK
ASSOCIATION PAT ROCHE DISTRICT
22 WANDA WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. P.O.BOX 5381
MARTINEZ,CA 94553 ADVANCE PLANNING OAKLAND,CA 94605-0381
MS.TINA BATT
MUIR HERITAGE LAND TRUST
P. O.BOX 2452
MARTINEZ,CA 94553
* r i Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC To cctlegals@cctimes.com
11/02/2005 10:00 AM cc
a
T
bcc
Subject Publication Request
Hi Anashia,
Please publish the attached legal notice in the CCTimes:
One day only, Saturday, April 1, 2006
Reference PO#: 1147
Please confirm receipt of request.
Should you have any questions, please call me at the number listed below.
Thank you,
Kathy Sinclair
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
925.335.1902
T homas-041106.doc
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
4
' Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP ;r Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ' County
DATE: APRIL 11, 2006
SUBJECT: HEARING ON A REZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-7) AND TWO
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (D-1) TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (P-1) AND A FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 4766 BLUM ROAD IN THE MARTINEZ
AREA, COUNTY FILE #RZ033135 & #DP033067, JANIN ASSOCIATES INC. (APPLICANT
& OWNER). (SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT II)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. OPEN the public hearing and receive testimony on the rezoning and final development plan.
B. ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for this
project as adequate for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality i
Act.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTE_ E
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED O ER
ADOPTED Recommendations; and added condition, as agreed to by applicant and owner to place a"good
neighbor fence" on the property at 4774 Blum Road adjacent to the entry point of the development.
Speakers: Alice Quigley, resident of Martinez
Eva Regenga, resident of Marinez.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS (ABSENTa,,^ � CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
YES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Ryan Hernandez (925) 335-1206 ATTESTED
Orig: Community Development Department JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: Janin Associates Inc. (Applicant& Owner) SUPERVIS RS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works Department
CDD -GIS BY DEPUTY
File
April 11, 2006
Board of Supervisors
File#RZ033135& DP033067
Page 2
C. ADOPT the recommendation of the County Planning Commission, as contained in Resolution
No. 13-2006, to:
1. Rezone a 11.56-acres from Single Family Residential (R-7) and Two Family Residential
(D-1) to Planned Unit District (P-1); and
2. Approve the final development plan with the recommend conditions and with the addition
of one Condition of Approval that requires the applicant to grant deed the development
rights of proposed lots 25 and 26 to the County.
D. INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 2006-11 giving effect to aforesaid rezoning, waive reading, and
adopt the ordinance.
E. ADOPT the findings contained in the County Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-2006 as
the basis for the Board's action.
F. DIRECT the Community Development Department to post a Notice of Determination with the
County Clerk.
II. FISCAL IMPACT
None, the applicant is responsible for the cost of processing the rezoning request.
III. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The applicant is seeking to subdivide 11.56-acres into 27 lots. Twenty-three of the new lots would
be developed with the detached single-family residences (Lots 1 through 23); one lot developed with
a single-family home would remain as such (Lot 27); two lots would be dedicated as open space due
to development constraints (e.g., steep slopes) (Lots 25 and 26); and one lot would be retained for
future development (Lot 24). The average lot size is approximately 8557-square feet. The project
involves a request to rezone the subject property, from Single Family Residential (R-7) and Two
Family Residential (D-1) to Planned Unit District (P-1) which is consistent with the General Plan
designation of Single Family Residential-High Density (5.0-7.2 units per net acre).
Existing uses on the site include one single family residence fronting on Blum Road. The project
site, generally located on a hilltop overlooking Interstate 680 with southwest slopes ranging from 20
to 30 percent, is comprised of three parcels totaling 11.56 acres that are owned by one party. The
project site is irregularly shaped, and generally resembles a reclining "L" shape that extends
westward from an isthmus from Blum Road located between two existing single-family parcels. The
project site widens as it progresses westward until it extends in a northwestern direction adjacent to
the Contra Costa Canal. Elevations.on the project site range from 82- to 178-feet above mean sea
level.
A Final Development Plan is also requested to establish building footprints, setbacks, lot
coverage/floor area ratio, site improvements, and building design, architecture and detailing. The
residential lots would be located on the north and northeastern side of the new roadway intended to
service the development. No development would occur south of the new roadway, with the
exception of grading to stabilize the hillside underlying the new roadway. Two building plans are
April 11, 2006
Board of Supervisors
File#RZ033135& DP033067
Page 3
proposed (i.e., "Spanish" and "Italian" architectural styles) and would be interspersed throughout the
23 new residential lots, each providing two-story houses with a maximum height of 26-feet. Each
floor plan, ranging from 2200 to 2400 square feet, would provide 4 bedrooms, a two car garage, 2.5 .
bathrooms, and front and rear yard areas. A homeowners association would also be formed as part
of the project to provide the means to improve and maintain site landscaping, including that on the
two open space parcels.
A conceptual landscape plan for the residential development is on file with the Contra Costa County
Community Development Department. All front yards and slope areas would be landscaped at the
time of initial construction. The slopes between the residences and the two open space parcels
would be hydroseeded with grasses and wildflowers, and -planted with shade trees. Similar
landscaping would be planted at the entries to each residence, street trees would be planted along
Blum Drive, and other groundcovers, accent plants, shade trees, and screening trees would be
planted on the site. "Good neighbor" fences (finished both sides) would be built along side and rear
lot lines, and Versaloc retaining walls would be integrated throughout the site, but would generally
be located behind and between units, thereby hidden from public view. Where visible, retaining
walls would be of decorative design with a "versa-loc" style. The homeowners association
established for the project would maintain the landscaped areas.
A. Environmental Review
Mitigations were proposed and agreed to by the applicant that would reduce all potential impacts
to a less than significant level. In other respects, staff determined the project would not result in
any significant environmental impacts and proposed adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration determination for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act.
A mitigation-monitoring program has also been proposed and accepted by the applicant.
B. County Planning Commission Hearing
After determining that the proposed applications successfully integrated individual residences
with the physical constraints of the site and provided for harmonious composition of mass, scale,
color and textures of the houses, staff supported the granting of the applications, including
conditional approval of the subdivision. Approval of the subdivision is contingent on the
approval of the proposed rezoning by the Board of Supervisors.
The County Planning Commission heard the applicant's rezoning, subdivision, and development
plan request on February 28, 2006. There was no opposition to the project at the public hearing.
After evaluating the proposal and the evidence submitted, the Commission voted to approve the
subdivision and recommend approval of the proposed rezoning and final development plan to
the Board of Supervisors. This approval was unanimous.
Following the Commission action, no appeals were timely filed. The only matter before the
Board is action on the proposed rezoning and final development plan. Staff recommends that
the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed rezoning and final development plan.
April 11, 2006
Board of Supervisors
File#RZ033135 & DP033067
Page 4
C. Adding a Condition of Approval that Requires Development Rights to be Grant Deeded to the
County on Proposed Lots 25 & 26
Proposed lots 25 and 26. have been described as "open. space" throughout the project
description, staff report and environmental analysis on this project. It is staffs and the applicants
understanding that the County would retain these development rights, due in part, to the steep
topography of the lots. However, the subdivision Conditions of Approval were not entirely clear.
To that end, staff and the applicant agree to the Condition of Approval below that is to be
incorporated into the Final Development Plan approval:
"Prior to filing of the. final map the applicant shall grant deed all of
development rights over proposed lots 25 and 26. The applicant shall
supply language of the grant deed and a legal description of the two
proposed lots for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator."
IV. CONSEQUENCE OF INACTION OR DENIAL OF PROPOSED REZONING BY THE BOARD
In the event that the Board denies the request, the subject property zoned Single Family Residential
(R-7) and Two Family Residential (D-1) zoning would remain. The County Planning Commission
approved the vesting tentative map for 27 lots contingent upon the Board's approval of the rezoning
and final development plan approval. If the site is not rezoned, the applicant will not be able to
exercise the tentative map approval and the subdivision will be null and void.
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 2006-13
RESOLUTION NO. 13-2006
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDATION
INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE REQUESTED
CHANGE IN ZONING AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY JANIN ASSOCIATES
INC. (APPLICANT AND OWNER), IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION
PERTAINNG TO THE PRECISE ZONING, FOR THE MARTINEZ AREA OF SAID
COUNTY. (COUNTY FILES #DP033067 & RZ033135)
WHEREAS, a request by Janin Associates Inc. (Applicant and Owner) to rezone 11.56
acres from Single Family Residential (R-7), and Two Family Residential (D-1) to Planned Unit
Development (P-1) (County File #RZ03-3135) and a request for approval of a final development
plan (County File #DP03-3067), for which an application was received by the Community
Development Department on October 28, 2003; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was prepared and circulated for review and comments between December 8, 2005
and January 9, 2006 and the County Planning Commission adopted the Negative Declaration at
their meeting on February 28, 2006; and
WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled
before the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 28, 2006, where all persons
interested therein might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 the County Planning Commission having
fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the evidence submitted in this matter approved the
project on consent;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission:
1. FINDS that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for the purposes
of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopts same;
2. FINDS that the proposed rezoning to Planned Unit Development (P-1) district is
consistent with the General Plan including the Single Family High Density land use
designation;
3. FINDS that the proposed development plan is consistent with the General Plan and
constitutes a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will
be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community;
4. RECOMMENDS that the Board of Supervisors ADOPT the proposed rezoning of the
site from Single Family Residential (R-7) and Two Family Residential (D-1) to
Planned Unit Development(P-1) district.
Page 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission FINDS as follows:
A. Rezonin- Findinizs - Section 26-2.1806 requires that the following finding's be made
before a property is rezoned:
1. Required Finding: The change proposed substantially complies with the
General Plan.
Proiect Finding: The project site has two General Plan designations and the
majority of the site lies within the Single-Family Residential High-Density (SH)
land use, however a portion of the site (closest to the interstate) has a Light
Industrial (L-I) General Plan designation. The Planned Unit District (P-1)
rezoning is consistent with both designations. At this time the Light Industrial
portion of the site is not being developed. Only that portion consistent with the
proposed project and the two residential zoning districts, Single-Family
Residential (R-7) and Two-Family Residential (D-1), will be combined to be
rezoned to.the Planned Unit zoning designation. The Planned Unit zoning
district and development of only the Single Family Residential General Plan
designation is substantially compatible with the General Plan.
2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are
compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts.
Proiect Finding: The County Code specifically lists residential uses as being
appropriate for P-1 districts and states that P-1 districts are compatible with
the SH land use designation. The subject property lies between Interstate 680
and Blum Road and is in the vicinity of residential and commercial areas along
Blum Road,just north of the Blum Road and Pacheco Boulevard intersection.
3. Required Finding: The Community need has been demonstrated for the use
proposed.
Proiect Finding: The County demonstrates a need for housing opportunities of
all t}pes. Infill housing developments are needed in order to lessen the pressure
to expand housing development into previously undeveloped parts of the
County. The rezoning of this property to P-1 will allow the higher density
consistent with the SH designation while providing a desirable and aesthetically
pleasing product by maintaining a 200 foot plus setback from the haterstate,
limiting the height of residences to 26 feet, providing landscaping and a tree
lined street with sidewalk.
B. Findings to Establish a Planned Unit (P-1) District
Adoption of P-1 Zoning and Approval of a Preliminary or Final Development Plan.
1. Required Finding: The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-
half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval.
Page 3
Proiect Finding: The applicant has expressed a desire to begin construction
immediately after required permits and approvals have been obtained.
2. Required Finding: The proposed Planned Unit development is consistent with the
County General Plan.
Proiect Finding: The General Plan designation for the project site is Single-
Family Residential High Density. The Final Development Plan describes a
development of 23 single-family units that meets the General Plan density
requirements.
3. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a
residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in
harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community.
Proiect Finding: This section of Blum Road is characterized by residential
development west of Blunt with a section of residential east of Blum, but the
primary use east of Blum is Public/Semi-Public including the Public Works
property and the Mountain View Sanitary District property. The proposed
development will provide amenities that include higher architectural quality, two
open space parcels and ample off-street parking.
The desirability of the project lies in its aesthetic quality and due to its lot
configuration provides for two open space parcels. The project provides for a
density level consistent with the General Plan that also produces single family
residences. The single family residences provide for adequate guest parking and
private yard areas. The addition of the landscaping plan will increase the visual
and aesthetic characteristic of the project. This use of an underutilized property
helps f:dfill the County Housing Element policies within the General Plan.
C. Growth Management Element Performance Standards Findings
1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated 23 additional AM and PM peak hour
trips. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the
1988 Measure C requirements.
2. Drainage and Flood Control: Condition #72 of this permit requires that the applicant
collect and convey all stormwaters entering or originating within the project to an
adequate natural or manmade water course. The Final Map may not be filed until the
collect and convey requirements and improvements have been met.
The site lies within Flood Zone "C".
3. Water and Waste Disposal: The project site is within the Contra Costa Water District and
Mountain View Sanitation District service areas. The districts have indicated that
capacity exists to support the development. Conditions of Approval 13-15 will ensure
the project has water service.
Page 4
4. Fire Protection: Prior to the approval of a final map, the applicant is required to
demonstrate that all of the proposed development is located within one and one-half
miles of a fire station, or that development within the project that is more than one and
one-half miles from a fire station shall be required to provide automatic fire sprinkler
systems. The nearest station is Station 9 located at 209 Center Street, Pacheco, CA
approximately 1.3 miles away. (Ref. COA 24)
5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of
Sheriff facility station per 1,000 population. The small population increase associated
with this project is not significant. Prior to approval of the 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.
AYES: Snyder, Battaglia, Clark, Gaddis, Murray, Terrell and Wong
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Donald Snyder,
Chair of the County Planning Commission
County of Contra Costa, State of California
ATTEST:
S DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary
County Planning Commission,
County of Contra Costa,
State of California
FINDINGS MAP
ORDINANCE 2006-11
Findings Map
I •
Clippef Ln
L 7777
3 Austen Way
Alan Way H-1
I
Ger-Ln
Benita Way
P-1 1
1
A
P1
P-1
Q
N
Rezone From DA 07 To P-1 Martinez Area
I, Snyder Chair of the.Contra Costa County
Planning Commission,State of California,do hereby certify that this is a true and
correct copy of naAe G-13 of the CoOnty's
2005 zoning man.
indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission
in the matter of Janin Associates - RZ033135
ATTEST:
Secretaryof the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission,State of Calif.,
` ORDINANCE NO. 2006-11
(Re-Zoning Land in the
Martinez Area)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
SECTION I: Page G-13 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map(Ord. No.2005-03)is amended by
re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein
(see also Community Development Department File No. RZ033135 )
D-1 Two Family Residential
FROM: Land Use District R-7 Single Family Residential
TO: Land Use District P-1 Planned Development
and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to
Ordinance Code Sec.84.2.002.
GGpPerLn
3 Austen Way
d
Alan way I
P-1 q�kin�
anaerIE Cn
-=
Benita Way
P-1
....................... ..
A
P-1
SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within
15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in
the C,15'^-�,-a. 0_0 b+-A '-i V-Aaz a newspaper published in this County.
PASSED on Cel a rr /I Q OV.6 bythefollowirig vote: .
Supervisor Ave No Absent Abstain
1. J.Gioia pCJ ( ) ( ) ( )
2. G.B.Uilkema
3. M.N. Piepho
4. M.DeSaulnier ( ) ( ) ( )
5. F. D.Glover
ATTEST: John Cullen,County Administrator
and Clerk the Board of Supervisors
Vaiman of the Board.
By Dep. (SEAL)
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-11
RZ0331 35 Janin Associates
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
February 28, 2006
Agenda Item#
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28. 2006—7:00 PM .
Blum Vier Estates
I. INTRODUCTION
JANIN ASSOCIATES INC. (Applicant&Owner), This project consists of three applications:
A. County File #RZ033135 = A request for approval to rezone 11.56-acres from Single
Family Residential, R-7, and Two Family Residential, D-1, to Planned Unit
Development, P-1.
B. County File #SD038784 — A request for a vesting tentative map approval to subdivide
11.56-acres into 27-lots. Twenty-three of the new lots would be developed with the
detached single-family residences (Lots 1 through 23); one lot developed with a single-
family home would remain as such (Lot 27); two lots would be dedicated as open space
due to development constraints (e.g., steep slopes) (Lots 25 and 26); and one lot would be
retained for future development (Lot 24). The average lot size is approximately 8557-
square feet.
C. County File #DP033067—A request for approval of a final development plan to establish
23-single family residences (2200-2400 square feet in size) on 11.56-acres of property.
Approval to remove (17)trees on site is also requested.
The subject site is located at 4766 Blum Road in the Martinez area. (Zoning: Single-Family
Residential, R-7 and Two-Family Residential,D-1) (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 159-230-004;
159-190-031; 159-190-024).
II. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to:
A. That on the basis of the whole record before it, including the Initial Study and the comments
received, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration
reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis.
The documents or other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the
Planning Commission's decision is based may be found at the Community Development
Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA under the custodian of the project planner, Ryan
-Hernandez(925) 335-1206.
B. Find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for the project and adopt the
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Blum View Estates
C. .Recommend that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for this project for the
purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopt the
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
2. Adopt the findings and approve the proposed rezoning to the Planned Unit (P-1)
District.
3. Adopt the findings and approve the proposed Final Development Plan with
conditions.
D. Approve the tentative map including a condition that makes approval contingent on Board of
Supervisors adoption of the proposed P-1 rezoning and Preliminary and Final development
applications.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting_ The proposed project is surrounded by large and small
lot, single-family rural and suburban development to the north, northeast, and south.
Interstate 680 (I-680) is located directly west of the site. Figure 2 provides an aerial,of the
project site and surrounding area, which generally depicts the following surrounding land
uses.
North. To the north of the project site, in the area adjacent to Blum Road, is an existing,
rural single-family neighborhood. The project site wraps around a 2.35-acre vacant parcel
located at the western terminus of Hillside Drive, also designated for similar single family
uses. Northwest of the project site is an additional 9.08-acre vacant parcel located at the
terminus of Emshee Lane that is also designated for future single-family development.
Further north, beyond the large-lot rural single-family development is a paved trailer park
that is bound on its northwestern edge by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad.
East. Across Blum Road, to the east, is the Contra Costa County Public Works Maintenance
and Corporation Yard (County Yard). Southeast of the project site, and south of the County
Yard, is Seasons Cemetery. Northeast of the project site, and north of the County Yard, is
additional single-family development.
South. Immediately south of the project site, in the area west of Blum Road and north of I-
680, are single-family, large-lot rural residences.
West. The western edge of the project site is bounded by the Contra Costa Canal, which is
bound further west by I-680.
B. Site Description:
Existing Conditions and Setting
The project site, generally located on a hilltop overlooking 1-680 with southwest slopes
ranging from 20 to 30 percent, is comprised of three parcels totaling 11.56 acres that are
owned by one party. The project site is irregularly shaped, and generally resembles a
reclining "L" shape that extends westward from a narrow isthmus from Blum Road located
between two existing single-family parcels. The project site widens as it progresses
westward until it extends in a northwestern direction adjacent to the Contra Costa Canal.
Elevations on the project site range from 82-to 178-feet above mean sea level.
S-2
Files#RZ033135,DP033067,SD038784
County Planning Commission
Tuesday,February 28,2006
The existing project site is vacant and undeveloped, excepting the one, single-family
residence fronting Blum Road, and is comprised of native and non-native grasses and trees
(i.e.,Almond and Black Walnut)ranging is size from six-inches to 2-feet in trunk diameter.
Aerial Photo of Subject Site, Figure 2
'.:,r�
s:Yas: 1
1:2.i.1: u': ♦
y `.Y n �'• -i'• .y �M �.X,''
:` .��.•:Y��!,�., ,^ars.. yy
n F.
Access to the site is provided from Blum Road, which intersects with Pacheco Boulevard
approximately %3-mile to the south. The project site is located within an existing single-
family neighborhood and, as such, abuts residential uses to the north, northeast, and south.
To the west, at the base of the southwest sloping hillside, is the Contra Costa Canal, which is
located between the project site and I-680, and transports water from the Sacramento/San
Joaquin Delta to a Martinez treatment facility for use by several cities in the area. The Contra
Costa Canal Regional Trail does not extend north of SR4 and, therefore, is not located
adjacent to the project site. To the east is the Contra Costa County Public Works
Maintenance and Corporation Yard. Further north,at the northern terminus of Blum Road, is
a paved trailer storage park. To the southeast east is the Seasons Cemetery. The Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District Treatment Facility is located approximately %4-mile southeast
of the project site, and Buchanan Field Airport is located approximately 3/4-mile to the
southeast.
The northwestern portion of the project site is traversed by an existing 16-foot fuel line
easement. The fuel line under laying the easement, referred to as the Ozul fuel pipeline, is
S-3
Blum View Estates
owned by the United States Air Force.' The 8-inch pipeline was used to transport petroleum
from a Concord pump station to a petroleum storage facility in Martinez for approximately 40
years.' In 1999, petroleum operations were terminated and the pipeline was drained, cleaned,
and pressure tested to assess if.leaks were present, of which, none were identified.3 To
control internal erosion, the pipeline is.filled with nitrogen gas. To control external erosion, a
cathodic protection system is operated.4 The Defense Logistic Agency (DLA) manages the
pipeline, and is responsible for any monitoring and cleanup activities related to the pipeline.'
The General Plan designation for.the site is Single-:Family Residential High (SH), which
allows 5.0 to 7:2 dwelling units .per net acre; and the site is zoned k-7 (Single-Family
Residential with.6:2 units/acre).and D-1 (Two-Family Residential with 5.5, two-family units
per acre). The proposed project:would develop,the site with single-family lots ranging from
4;7.50 square feet to 19,741 .square feet for.an.average lot:size of 8,557 square feet, or 5.09
units per net acre,consistent with the General Plan.designation for the site. .
C. General Plan: Single..=Family High Density.(SH)'and Light Industrial.(L=I).
D. Existing-Zoning: .R-7:(6.2%units/acre)and D=1 (5.5 two-family units/acre).
E. Adjacent Residential.Project: .The adjacent property to the north is currently proposing a
residential.project.consisting of 11 single-family homes and associated landscaping, private
roadway and parking areas.
F. 60 dba Noise Control: To quantify the existing noise environment at the project site, Charles
M. Salter and Associates conducted noise measurements for a continuous period of 42 to 48
hours. The measurements were taken at various locations to determine how noise levels vary
at.differ6nt lots throughout the project site. Based on the measurements, the dominant noise
source in the area is vehicular traffic along Interstate 680.(1-680). To a lesser extent, noise
from aircraft flyovers and Blum-Road also contribute to the existing noise environment.
IV. PROPOSED PROJECT
Project Specifics: The following section describes the proposed residential project, its associated
site improvements and, preparation, construction and phasing, and requested entitlement
approvals.
A. Residential Development. The proposed project consists of 23 new, detached, single-
family residences on individual lots. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is being
requested by the applicant to reconfigure three existing parcels,totaling 11.56 acres, into 27
new parcels. Twenty-three of the new lots would be developed with the detached single-
family residences (Lots 1 through 23); one lot developed with a single-family home would
remain as such (Lot 27); two lots would be dedicated as open space due to development
constraints (e.g., steep slopes) (Lots 25 and 26); and one lot would be retained for future
' AEI Consultants,2005. Phase 11 Subsurface Investigation Report for 24-Acre Vacant Parcel,APN 159-230-004,
Martinez, California, 94553,August 25.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 ibid. .
s Ibid.
S-4
Files#RZ033135,DP033067,SD038784
County Planning Commission
Tuesday,February 28,2006
development (Lot 24). With an average lot size of 8,557 square feet, individual parcels
would vary from 4,750 to 19,741 square feet, resulting in a net residential density of 5.09
units per acre.
A Final Development Plan is also requested, as depicted in Figure 3, to establish building
footprints, setbacks, lot coverage/floor area ratio, site improvements, and building design,
architecture and detailing. The residential lots would be located on the north and
northeastern side of the new roadway intended to service the development. No
development would occur south of the new roadway, with the exception of grading to
stabilize the hillside underlying the new roadway. Two building plans are proposed (i.e.,
"Spanish" and "Italian" architectural styles) and would be interspersed throughout the 23
new.residential lots, each providing two-story houses with a maximum height of 26-feet.
Each floor plan, ranging from 2200 to 2400 square feet, would provide 4 bedrooms, a two
car garage, 2.5 bathrooms, and front and rear yard areas. A homeowners association would
also be formed as part of the project to provide the means to improve and maintain site
landscaping,including that on the two open space parcels.
B. Landscaping and Open Space. All 17, existing Almond and Black Walnut trees located
on the site would be removed as a part of the approval of the Final Development Plan, in
accordance with the Tree Protection & Preservation Ordinance. A conceptual landscape
plan for the residential development is on file with the Contra Costa County Community
Development Department. All front yards and slope areas would be landscaped at the time
of initial construction. .The slopes between the residences and the two open space parcels
would be hydroseeded with grasses and wildflowers, and planted with shade trees. Similar
landscaping would be planted at the entries to each residence, street trees would be planted
along Blum Drive, and other groundcovers, accent plants, shade trees, and screening trees
would be planted on the site. "Good neighbor" fences (finished both sides) would be built
along side and rear lot lines, and Versaloc retaining walls would be integrated throughout
the site, but would generally be located behind and between units, thereby hidden from
public view. Where visible, retaining walls would be of decorative design with a "versa-
loc" style. The homeowners association established for the project would maintain the
landscaped areas.
C. Transportation, Circulation and Parking. The project would be designed such that a
new road, entitled Blum Drive, would provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the new
houses, extending westward from Blum Road and terminating at a cul-de-sac in the north-
eastern portion of the site. The new road would be located along the southern edge of the
developed portion of the project site, and would be improved to provide parking and a
sidewalk on one side (i.e., northern edge), as well as curbs and gutters to facilitate
stormwater drainage. Blum Drive would be designed to accommodate two vehicular lanes,
curbs and cutters, and a sidewalk on the north side. The overall right-of-way would be 40-
feet wide, with a curb to curb width of 28 feet wide, thus allowing for on-street parking on
the north side of the street only. Each residence would have covered parking within a two-
car garage, as well as driveway width and length large enough to accommodate two,
uncovered parked vehicles. Infrastructural utilities (i.e., sanitary sewer, potable water, gas,
and electricity) would be extended from Blum Road via underground conduits in Blum
Drive to each of the new residences.
S-5
Blum View Estates
D. Site Preparation. Site preparation would include removal of 17 trees, and extensive
hillside grading and slope stabilization to develop the 23 new residential pads and roadway
alignment. The project has been designed to minimize grading qualities and depth to the
greatest extent possible given the 20 to 30 percent southwestern facing slopes of the site by
moving dirt around on the site through cut and fill techniques thereby resulting in an overall
hillside engineered height and slope resembling the existing natural hillside.
E. Construction and Phasing. Details of the construction and phasing are not Irnown at this
time, but are anticipated to,take approximately 15 to 18 months once construction of the
units commences.
V. AGENCY COMMENTS
A. County Geologist. In a report dated June 13, 2005, the :County Planning Geologist
reported on his peer review evaluation of the soils report submitted with the application.
The report was provided by Diablo Engineers provides adequate geologic and geotechnical
data sufficient to define the landslide and grading impacts and to identify detailed
mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring Program that is attached does include the
soils mitigations.
B. Contra Costa County Health Services (Hazardous Materials Programs). In a
memorandum dated January 26, 2006, attached, the Hazardous Materials Programs
suggests the applicant provide the Community Development Department mitigation options
to reduce the potential hazard of the pipeline, specifically if it is placed back into service.
Staff Response: Please refer to the Section E "Existing Pipeline" of the Staff
Analysis/Discussion for measures taken detailing the proposed lots and the existing
pipeline.
C. Other Public Agencies. Comments were received from the Contra Costa Fire Protection
District, Office of the Sheriff, California Historical Resources Information Systems,
Building Inspection (Grading Division), Nation Heritage, Mt. View Sanitary District,
Contra Costa Water District, Transportation Planning,
Staff'Response: These agency comments are attached to the staff report and do not provide
any .significant concerns with project but rather provide requirements that are to be
fulfilled by the applicant.
VI. STAFF ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION
A. Consistency with General Plan Policies:
• Land Use Element—(General)
The General Plan density requirement for the parcel is 5.0 — 7.2 units/net acre. The
proposed project would develop the site with single-family lots ranging from 4,750 square
feet to 19,741 square feet for an average lot size of 8,557 square feet, or 5.09 units per net
acre, consistent with the General Plan designation for the site.
The proposal is consistent with the following general Land Use Element policies:
S-6
Files#RZ033135,DP033067,SD038784
County Planning Commission
Tuesday,February 28,2006
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 3-16.- Community appearance shall be upgraded by encouraging redevelopment,
where appropriate, to replace inappropriate uses.
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.
• Land Use Element—(Specific)Policies for the Vine Hill/Pacheco Area
This project does not conflict with any of the outlined policies in the specific Vine Hill/
Pacheco Area land use element of the General Plan.
• Noise Element
Policy I1-5 Pertains to development in residential areas that are subject to single
events such as nearby Buchanan Field Airport. The project should be
designed so that indoor noise levels due to these single events shall not
exceed a maximum A-weighted noise level of 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB
in other habitable rooms. The applicant shall show compliance by
including needed noise insulation features included in the design. (SUB
COA#48,49,and 50 &MMP Noise 1, 2 and 3)
B. Proposed Zoning (P-1): The P-1 zoning designation is more appropriate than the split zoning
of R-7 and D-1 since the additional design flexibility provides. is consistent with the
surrounding zoning but allows a better designed and amenity filled project. The Planned Unit
District, P-1, district allows more infill housing but also provides a product that protects the
crown of the hill and provides for a significant buffer between Interstate 680/Contra Costa
Canal and the proposed homes. The project also proposes an architecturally pleasing cohesive
design, detailed landscaping providing a tree lined street, a sidewalk, guest parking on one side
of the street,and overall adequate useable yard area.
C. Site Plan and Setbacks: Staff has reviewed the lot layout proposed for the housing and has
determined that the project meets the intent of the General Plan and the P-1 zoning district.
Since the nature of the development is "hillside infill", a typical approach to front, side and rear
yards are not appropriate for.the primary structures. The project has been designed to provide
adequate space between structures and a usable backyard space with a minimum dimension of
14-feet, for the majority of the units. In addition a significant landscape area and sidewalk is
being provided along Blum Drive.
Therefore, the required yards for primary structures shall.be as shown on the revised Site and
Development Plan "House Placement and Setback Plan", Sheet 6-7 revised date received by the
Community Development Department February 16, 2006 and the Single Family R-6 zoning
district shall be a design guide except for the specific guidelines listed in(SUB COA#6).
S-7
Blum View Estates
D. Trees: Tree Inventory/Assessment was completed for this site by Patrick Stewart from Atlas
Tree Service Inc., WCISA Certified Arborist in October 2004. The Arborist surveyed 17 trees,
of which all but three of the trees proposed to be removed are located on the southern property
line along proposed Blum Drive. These include one almond, one redwood with the remainder
of the trees black walnut. The proposed project would require the removal of the trees
surveyed by the arborist. There are additional trees on site but are more the fifty feet beyond
the active construction area and were not surveyed and are to remain undisturbed. The
applicant has proposed a preliminary landscape plan that provides for trees, shrubs,
groundcover, and vines to be installed throughout the project. A condition of the project
approval will consist of requiring an adequate landscape plan to replace the trees that are
proposed to be removed, see preliminary landscape plan attached and condition of approval
(SUB COA#23).
E. Lot 24: Lot 24 is not developable at this time due to the existing General Plan designation of
Light Industrial, L-1. Lot 24 shall require approval of a development plan prior to any
improvements on the site. The intent of creating lot 24 was based on the applicant being able to
formally apply for the required entitlement including but not limited to a General Plan
Amendment for the future development of this lot. Access to Lot 24 shall be provided through .
an easement that is located between lot 22 and 23 over the existing pipeline and shall be paved
to help ensure safety. Public Works has development rights over the property since it does not
comply with the drainage requirements in Title 9, and the development rights shall be retained
by the County until such time as the applicant shows compliance with the applicable drainage
standards.
F. Existing"Ozul" 8-inch Pipeline and 16-foot Easement: The existing pipeline is not currently in
use (as described on pg. S-3) though there is the possibility to unilaterally begin use of this
pipeline by the United States Air Force (Defense Logistic Agency). As such, mitigation
measures, conditions of approval, and a redesign of the project. for lots 20-23 all .have been
incorporated into the project to try and ensure the safety of the new owners and all subsequent
owners.
A redesign of lots 20-23 incorporates a turnaround cul-de-sac over the pipeline with an access
easement that also covers in asphalt the pipeline (towards lot 24 and the freeway). The
reconfiguration of lots attempts to address the safety concerns with the pipeline while
maintaining the 23 lots proposed. The grading design has been modified so that the top of
slope is at the southern pipeline easement edge. The 1.5:1 slope is steep and this will help
.discourage development. Additionally, the applicant shall be required to mark the southern
edge of the pipeline easement after construction is completed that will help delineate the
location of the pipeline easement.
The applicant shall grant deed the development rights over portions of lots 20 and 21 to the .
County. A deed disclosure shall be recorded concurrently with the final map and include the
following items:
The development rights will be mapped by the applicant and submitted for review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator.
The development rights will be bounded by the southerly edge of pipeline easement
extending to the northern property line.
S-8
Files#RZ033135,DP033067,SD038784
County Planning Commission
Tuesday,February 28,2006
The deed disclosure shall incorporate a map that delineates where the development rights
have been grant deed to the County, the pipeline easement limits, will also be recorded
concurrently with the vesting tentative map and incorporated into the deed notification
that will map visually illustrate the limits of pipeline easement. No development(i.e.
pools, sheds, decks, fences)is allowed within this area.
In addition, a disclosure notification is to clearly indicate to future buyers of the property
that there will be no development allowed within the Iimits of this area.
If at some future time development is proposed within either lot,review and approval by
the Zoning Administrator and Public Works shall be required prior to issuance of grading
or building permits.
Mitigation Measures.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
complete a detailed survey that identifies the exact location of the 16-foot pipeline easement.
The boundaries of the easement area shall be clearly marked.during construction activities to
ensure that the construction personnel know when they are working within or close to the
easement so that they may use proper precautions.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: To alert potential buyers to the existence of the pipeline and
associated hazards, deed notification shall be filed for every residential parcel within 50-feet of
the pipeline easement. The notification shall clearly indicate that the pipeline, though currently
not in use,has explosive potential and that an accident involving the pipeline could cause
extensive damage to private property as.well as serious person.injury or death.
G. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): An Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for this project in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Mitigated Negative Declaration
was posted December 8, 2005 with the comment period ending January 9, 2006.
Comments Received Related to the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff
received written comments (attached) from the following agencies: Contra Costa Water
District, Department of Fish and Game, City of Martinez, Department of Transportation, and
the Mt. View Sanitary District. The listed agencies comments are paraphrased with staff
response in italics. Overall the suggestions do not challenge the determination of the
environmental document and as much as practicable the suggestions were implemented into the
conditions of approval. Additionally, the Initial Study and the Mitigation Monitoring Program
are attached for detailed review.
Comments by Department of Transportation, Division ,of Aeronautics. 'The Division .of
Aeronautics has concerns with respect to airport-related noise and safety impacts and regional airport
land use planning and compatibility; specifically to protect airports from incompatible land use
encroachment.
Staff Response: The applicant shall be required to record this notification concurrently with the vesting
tentative map, see condition of approval #12. Buyers of the homes will be notified in the Disclosure
Statement the following:
S-9
Blum View Estates
NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN 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 may be subject to some of the
annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for
example: noise, vibration, or 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 deterrnine whether
they are acceptable to you.
Comments by City of Martinez. The city is concerned with the aesthetic impacts of the proposed
homes on the vacant hillside.
Staff Response: The applicant indicated that he discussed the visibility and sight-line issue with the
City of Martinez planning staff. The city was not aware at the time that there is a detailed
landscape and development plan that screens the proposed homes. There is engineered fill,
landscaping and 350 feet (plus) setback from the interstate. Residences are required to be limited
to 26 feet in height or.less as measured from finished or natural grade, whichever is lower. The
project with these mitigations and conditions of approval incorporated into the design shall have a
less than significant impact to aesthetics.
Refer to Site Development sheet 6 (Section A-A) of the development plan for a scaled "Line of
Sight"exhibit.
Comments by Department of Fish & Game. The Department of Fish and Game recommended
specific actions with regards to native tree removal and impacts to burrowing owls.
Staff Response: The applicant is not proposing to remove any native trees, but is required to replace
the trees that are proposed for removal (17-black walnut). The preliminary landscape plan
indicates that there will be forty 15-gallon trees installed.
The existing mitigations proposed within the Initial Study adequately ensure a less than significant
impact to burrowing owls, if found in accordance with the guidelines described in the Burrowing
Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines(Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993)
Comments by Mountain View Sanitary District. The sanitary District outlined a list of
requirements,but did not comment on the adequacy of the Initial Study.
Staff Response: The applicant is responsible for compliance with all of the standards required by the
Mountain View.Sanitary District.
Comments from Contra Costa Water District. The water District suggested additional mitigations
that will not allow any drainage from homes to enter into the Contra Costa Canal, that.fencing (if not
already provided)will'be installed by the applicant along the Canal, and that all the water District's
treated water regulations are required to be satisfied. However, the District did provide substantial
evidence these requirements are required to lessen a potentially significant impact on the environment.
Staff Response: The proposed lot elevations across the project site varyfrom an elevation of 58
near Blum Road to 155 on the upper pad of Lot 16. Contra Costa Water District has established
water service zones based upon the maximum elevation of property that can be supplied water
with adequate residual pressure remaining in the system for fire protection.
S-10
Files#RZ033135,DP033067,SD038784
County Planning Commission
Tuesday,February 28,2006
The District's Zone 1 serves properties up to elevation 110. Zone 2 serves properties between
elevation 110 and elevation 250. In the past, the Water District has allowed some cross-over of
the zones (e.g., serving a property in the Zone 2 service area from a Zone 1 facility). However,
the District's Board of Directors has decided to prohibit such cross-overfor any new
development, though exceptions may be allowed for a single isolated parcel.
The existing water mains in the immediate vicinity of the project are all Zone 1 facilities. These
water mains can provide service to Lots I through 7, inclusive, only. The remaining lots will
need to be served from Zone 2 facilities. The nearest Zone 2 facility is a main in Arnold Drive,
approximately one mile from the site. In order to construct houses on Lots 8 through 23, the
project proponent will be required to extend a Zone 2 water main from Arnold Drive to the site.
Staff has included a condition of approval requiring the Developer to provide evidence (Contra
Costa Water District will-serve letter or water main extension agreement) assuring construction
of the Zone 2 water main prior to the recordation of the final map for any lot above the CCWD
Zone 1 service area.
Staff contacted the water District and instead of a mitigation measures the following
recommendations shall be conditions ofproject approval. The applicant has provided a written
statement agreeing.to the outlined conditions and the water District is satisfied.
Condition of Approval#10: Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant shall provide
evidence,for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, that water service is available to
all urban-residential lots proposed(i.e. Contra Costa Water District will serve letter or water
main extension agreement).
Conditional of Approval #11:Prior to occupancy of the first residence in the subdivision the
applicant shall survey the boundary between the subject site and Contra Costa Canal for
damaged and/or missing security fencing and shall replace all fencing to District standards at
the applicant's expense.
Condition of Approval#12:Prior to the issuance ofgrading permit the applicant shall provide
evidence for the review and approval of.the Zoning Administrator and Contra Costa Water
District that no drainage from any urban/residential lots within the subdivision will be allowed
to drain to the Contra Costa Canal.
VII. CONCLUSION
With the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the whole of the project does not
adversely affect the environment. This hillside residential infill.project provides adequate buffer
from the interstate and canal with the development wrapping around the hilltop. The hilltop will be
graded into round contours and then hydro-seeded to maintain the top of the hill.
The rezoning to the Planned Unit District is justified for the purpose of implementing the General
Plans Housing Element for underutilized properties and allowing increased design flexibility to
enliven the appearance of the area.
5-11
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAP - COUNTY
FILE #SD038784, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN COUNTY FILE #DP033067. and REZONE
TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT COUNTY FILE#RZ031335:
A. Growth Management Performance Standards
1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated 23 additional AM and PM peak hour trips.
Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure
C requirements.
2. Drainage and Flood Control: Condition #72 of this permit requires that the applicant collect
and convey all stormwaters entering or originating within the project to an adequate natural or
manmade water course. The Final Map may not be filed until the collect and convey
requirements and improvements have been met.
The site lies within Flood Zone "C".
3. Water and Waste Disposal: The project site is within the Contra Costa Water District and
Mountain View Sanitation District service areas. The districts have indicated that capacity
exists to support the development. Conditions of approval 13-15 will ensure the project has
water service.
4. Fire Protection: Prior to the approval of a final map, the applicant is required to demonstrate
that all of the proposed development is located within one and one-half miles of a fire station,
or that development within the project that is more than one and one-half miles from a fire
station shall be required to provide automatic fire sprinkler systems. The nearest station is
Station 9 located at 209 Center Street, Pacheco, CA approximately 1.3 miles away. (Ref. COA
24)
5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff
facility station per 1,000 population. The small population increase associated with this project
is not significant. Prior to approval of the 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.
B. Findings for Approval of a Rezoning
1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the general plan.
Proiect Finding: The project site has two General Plan designations and the majority of
the site lays within the Single-Family Residential High-Density (SH) land use, however a
portion of the, site (closet to the interstate) has a Light Industrial, (L-I) General Plan
designation. The Planned Unit district, (P-1) rezoning is consistent with both designations.
At this time the Light Industrial portion of the site is not being developed. Only that
portion consistent with proposed project and the two residential zoning districts, single
family residential(R-7) and two family residential(D-1), will be combined to be rezoned to
the Planned Unit zoning designation. The Planned Unit zoning district and development
2
of only the single family residential general plan designation is substantially compatible
with the General Plan.
2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible
within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts.
Proiect Finding: The County Code specifically lists residential uses as being appropriate
for P-1 districts and states that P-1 districts are compatible with the SH land use
designation. The subject property lies between Interstate 680 and Blum Road and is in the
vicinity of residential and commercial areas along Blum Road,just north of the Blum Road
and Pacheco Boulevard intersection.
3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this
does not require demonstration of future financial success.
Proiect Finding: The County demonstrates a need for housing opportunities of all types.
Infill housing developments are needed in order to lessen the pressure to expand housing
development into previously undeveloped parts of the County, namely the East County
region. This rezoning of this property to P-1 will allow the higher density consistent with
the SH designation while providing a desirable and aesthetically pleasing product by
maintaining a 200-foot plus setback from the Interstate, limiting the height of residences to
26 feet,providing landscaping and will provide a tree lined street with sidewalk.
C. Findings to Establish a Planned Unit(P-1)District
Adoption of P-1 Zoning and Approval of a Preliminary or Final Development Plan.
1. Required Finding: The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years
from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval.
Proiect Finding: The applicant has expressed a desire to begin construction immediately
after required permits and approvals have been obtained.
2. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County
general plan.
Proiect Finding: The general plan designation for the project site is Single-Family
Residential High Density. The.Final Development Plan describes a development of 23
single-family,units that meets the general plan density requirements.
3. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential
environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and community.
Project Finding: This section of Blum Road is characterized by residential development
west of Blum with a section of residential east of Blum but the primary use east of Blum is
Public/Semi-Public including a Public Works and property owned by the Mountain View
Sanitary District. The proposed development will be of higher architectural quality,
provide for two open space parcels that will be maintained by the home owners association
and off-street parking.
The desirability of the project lies in its aesthetic quality and due to its lot configuration
provides for two opens space parcels. The project provides for a density level consistent
with ;the general plan that also produces single-family residences. The single-family
residences provide for adequate guest parking and private yard areas. The addition of the
landscaping plan will increase the visual and aesthetic characteristic of the project. This
use of an underutilized property.helps fulfill the County Housing Element within General
Plan.
D. Approval of Tentative Map
• Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative rnap unless it
shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and
improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law.
Project Finding. The project is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan. The
land use designation is SH, which allows for single-family high-density development. The
tentative map provides for 23 new residential lots on an 11.56-acre parcel, which complies
with the density requirement.
• . Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative rnap 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. Improvements include the
private road (Blum View Road). The County Geologist stated that the site is suitable for
construction from a geologic standpoint with the implementation of the geologic mitigations.
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
Interstate 680.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General
1. . This approval is based upon the exhibits received by the Community Development
Department generally shown on the revised Vesting Tentative Map and Site
Development Plan dated February 16, 2006 and on the Preliminary Landscape Plan
dated November 2005.
The approval is also based upon the following reports:
A. AEI Consultants, 2005. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment(APN# 159-
230-004, 159-240-006, 159-240-005), July 20.
B. AEI Consultants, 2005. Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report (APN# 159-
230-004),August 25.
C. Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., 2005. Blum View Estates-Residential
Development Environmental Noise Study,August 22.
4
D. Darwin Myers Associates,2005. Geologic Peer Review and CEQA Section
for Blum View Estates, APN 159-190-024 and-031,and 159-230-004,June
13.
E. Diablo Engineers, Inc. (DEI), 2005. Preliminary Geotechnical Report for
Subdivision 8784, Blum Road,Pacheco, April 29.
F. Ellen, S.D. and Wentworth, C. M., 1995. Hillside Materials and Slopes of the
San Francisco Bay Region. US Geological Survey,Professional Paper 1357.
G. Nilsen,T.H., 1975. Preliminary Photointerpretation Map of Landslide and
other Surficial Deposits of the Port Chicago 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Contra
Costa and Solano Counties.
H. Stewart,Patrick,ISA Certified Arborist, Atlas Tree Service,2004. Tree
Survey for Blum Road, Subdivision 8784, Lots 1-13,Martinez, CA, October 5.
1. Wood Biological Consulting, 2004. Biological Assessment for the Proposed
Blum View Estates Project Site, October 21.
J. Wood Biological Consulting, 2005. Botanical Survey for Blum View Estates,
April 18.
2. Approval is Contingent on Consistent Approval of Related Rezoning and Final
Development Plan Applications — This subdivision shall be approved contingent
upon approval of the rezoning request File # RZ033135 from Single-Family, R-7
and Two-Family D-1'to Planned Unit District, P-1 and Final Development File
#DP033067. IF the site is not rezoned this approval shall be null and void. Any
inconsistencies between the Final Development Plan and the tentative map
application will require modification of the tentative map approval prior to any
development being authorized.
3. Applicant Indemnification of County — 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.
4. Compliance Report — At least 45 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of
grading permit, which ever, occurs first, the applicant shall submit a report on
compliance with the conditions of approval with this permit for the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator. The fee for this application is a deposit of
51,000 that is subject to time and materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the
deposit, additional fees will be required.
5
A. Except for those conditions administered by the. Public Works Department, the
report shall list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant
has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. The report shall
also indicate whether the applicant believes that he has done all the applicant is
in a position to do to comply with the applicable condition. (A copy of the
computer file containing the conditions of approval may be available; to try to
obtain a copy, contact the project planner at 335-1206.)
B. Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate
compliance with the condition of this report prior to filing the final map.
Residential Design
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall provide, for the review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator, alternative materials for the required
sound walls and that this plan, at minimum, includes a color and material samples.
6. Prior to occupancy of the first residence the applicant shall construct all sound
wads to the standards outlined in the Mitigation'monitoring Program - Noise 1-3
(conditions of approval 51-53) and shown in Figure 4 of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
7. Prior to recordation of the.final map the reconfiguration of lots 20 through 23 shall
be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Evidence of Public
Works Department approval shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator and
placed into the record.
8. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall provide for the review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator a colors and materials sample. The
materials submitted shall provide sufficient variation to enhance the subdivision
design.
The guide for development shall be the Single-Family(R-6)District, subject to the
Zoning Administrator's review and approval at.the time of issuance of building
permits, except as follows:
A. Stories Maximum of two stories
B. Primary Structure Height . Maximum of 26-feet
C. Primary Structure Setbacks As generally Shown on Sheet 6 of
7 "Site Development Plan House Placement and Setback"
D. Accessory Structure Limited to one on each property:
Rear or Side yard only
Size 300-square feet
Height Maximum 12-feet
Rear and Side
Yard Setback Minimum of 3-feet
9. Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall record a deed
disclosure for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that includes
the standards for development in Condition of Approval#6 of this permit.
6
Creation of Homeowners Association and CC&R's
10. Creation of a Home Owners Association and CC&R's — Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator prior to filing the Final Map. This document shall provide for the
creation of a homeowners association that is responsible for maintenance of the
private streets, sidewalks, drainage, and common areas. Common areas include
the Private Road, Sidewalks, and Blum Road Frontage.
Alternative Street Names
11. Submittal of Alternative Street Names — At least 30 days prior to filing a Final
map, three alternative street names for the proposed private road shall be
submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development
Department, Graphics Section (335-1270). The Final Map cannot be certified by
the Community Development Department without the approved street names.
Grant Deed of Development Rights
12. Prior to the filing of the Final Map the applicant shall provide a deed disclosure on
lots 20 and 21 (in addition to the mitigation disclosures) for review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator the disclosure shall include:
■ Detailed legal description of the grant deed of development rights over
lots 20 and 21 that are to be bounded by the southerly edge of pipeline
easement extending to the northern property line;
■ The deed disclosure shall incorporate a surveyed map, by a professional,
that delineates where the development rights have been grant deed to the
County, the pipeline easement limits, and the pipeline itself,
■ Language that clearly indicates to all subsequent buyers that there is no
development allowed within in the delineated area.
■ Language shall also incorporate options homebuyers have if at some
future time development is proposed within lot 20 or 21, (i.e. review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator and Public Works shall be
required prior to issuance of grading or building permits).
Contra Costa Water District
13. Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant shall provide evidence, for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, that water service is available
to all urban-residential lots proposed (i.e. Contra Costa Water District will serve
letter or water main extension agreement).
14. Prior to occupancy of the first residence in the subdivision the applicant shall
survey the boundary between the subject site and Contra Costa Canal for
7
damaged and/or missing security fencing and shall replace all fencing to District
standards at the applicant's expense.
15. Prior to the issuance of grading permit the applicant shall provide evidence for
the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and Contra Costa Water
District that no drainage from any urban/residential lots within the subdivision
will be allowed to drain to the Contra Costa Canal.
Phasing
16. The applicant may submit a phasing plan for review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator and the Public Works Department.
Lot 24
17 (a). A deed disclosure shall be recorded prior to filing the final map that discloses the
requirement that Development Plan approval from the County.is required prior to
any site disturbance on lot 24 and that the applicant.shall obtain approval of a
Development Plan application and any other relevant entitlements required by the
County at the time of filing.
17 (b). Prior to recordation of the final map a deed disclosure shall be recorded, for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator; that notifies all potential buyers
of lots 22 and 23 that a right of way easement between lots 22 and 23 exists for
access to lot 24.
Sight Obstruction at Intersections
18. Prior to the filing of the final map the applicant shall provide evidence for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that project is in compliance
with Chapter 82-18.
Transportation Demand Ordinance
19. Prior to filing the final map, the applicant shall contact the local transportation,
Contra Costa County Connection to determine services presently provided or
planned in the future. The applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator that the Transportation Demand Ordinance has been
fulfilled.
Notice of Airport in the Vicinity
20. Prior to filing the final map a deed notification.is required to be recorded and
submitted to the Community Development Department with the following
language:
"Notice of Airport in the Vicinity"
The property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is know
as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some
of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity) to airport
8
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. "
High Voltage Wires
21. Disclosure of High Voltage Facilities — Where a.lot is located within 300-feet of
high voltage electric transmission line,the applicant shall record the following as a
deed notification:
"The subject property is located near a high voltage electric transmission line.
Purchasers should be aware that there is ongoing research on possible potential
adverse health effects cause by the exposure to magnetic field generated by high
voltage lines. Although much more research is needed before the question of
whether magnetic fields actually cause adverse health effects can be resolved, the
basis for such a hypothesis is established. At his time no risk assessment has bee
made. "
When a Final Subdivision Map Report issued by the California Department of
Real Estate is required, the applicant shall also request that the Department of Real
Estate insert the above note in the report.
Payment of Any Supplemental Application Fees that are Due
22. This application is subject to an initial application fee of($20,204.00); 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.
Police Service District
23. Election for Establishment of a Police Services District to Augment Police
Services—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
23 residential parcels created by this subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per
parcel annual amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) then established at
the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax
shall be completed prior to 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.
9
Fire Protection District
24. Prior to the approval of a final map, the applicant is required to demonstrate that
all of the proposed development is.located within one and one-half miles of a fire
station, or.that development within the.project that is more than one and one-half
miles'from a fire station shall be required to provide automatic fire sprinkler
systems.
IF the project requires fire sprinkler system then 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 automatic interior fire-
suppression sprinkler system that meets the design standards of the Consolidated
Fire Protection District. This provision is required at least in part so as to allow a
plan consistency determination associated with the approval of the Blum View
Estates subdivision."
Restrictions on Development of Sales Model Units
25. Prior to the issuance of building permits for construction of sale model units, the
applicant shall provide documentation evidencing compliance with the
requirements with the Water Conservation in New. Developments Ordinance
(Chapter 82-26) and Residential Sprinkler System Option Ordinance (718-6).
However, all sales model units shall be require to comply with the improvement
standards and reporting requirements of the Water Conservation in New
Developments Ordinance.
Final Landscape Plan
26. Prior to the filing the final map or issuance of grading permits, whichever occurs
first, a Final Landscape Plan that has been prepared by a licensed landscape
architect shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator and shall be incompliance with the County Water Conservation
Landscape Ordinance 82-26 and shall be installed prior to approval of final
building permit. The plan shall include landscape/irrigation plans that are fullsized
and in color that will include plant colors, locations of signs, and retaining walls.
.Included with the final landscape plan shall be colors and elevations of any and all
signage associated with the project.
Aesthetics
27. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit the retaining wall located on the
perimeter (i.e., south/southwest edge) of the project site shall be constructed of a
material and color that would blend into the natural hillside landscape. (Mitigation
Measure—Aesthetics 1)
28. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the outdoor lighting associated with the
proposed development shall be designed and located to minimize ambient light
10
levels for any given application, consistent with public safety standards. Lighting
shall be placed in areas of pedestrian activity and at building entrances, and shall be
minimized elsewhere. Ornamental, pedestrian scale lighting fixtures shall be
utilized to the degree possible. Lighting fixtures shall be designed to minimize
glare and the direct view of light sources. No lighting shall blink, flash or be of
unusually high intensity or brightness. (Mitigation Measure—Aesthetics 2)
Air Quality
29. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit and throughout construction for all
construction contracts the following measures shall be implemented at all
construction sites for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator to ensure
these measures have been incorporated into the construction plans:
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all
trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on.all
unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers)all paved access roads,parking
areas and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep streets daily(preferably with water sweepers) if.visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent public streets.
• Hydroseed or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.
• Enclose, cover,water twice daily or apply(non-toxic) soil binders to exposed
stockpiles(dirt, sand, etc.).
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
(Mitigation Measure—Air 1)
Biology
30. Prior to any site disturbance and if land-clearing activities are to commence
between February 1 and August 15, a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The purpose of the preconstruction
survey would be to determine if occupied nests are present within the zone of
influence of the project. If land-clearing activities are performed outside of the
nesting season, that is, between August 16 and January 31, no preconstruction
surveys for nesting raptors are warranted. The survey area should include all large
trees, grassland, and scrub habitat within 250 feet of the limits of work. If any
occupied raptor nests are found within the zone of influence, grading and
construction shall be prohibited within an adequate setback (generally 250-feet), as
11
approved by a qualified biologist in consultation with the California Department of
Fish and Game. Work within the setback would have to be delayed until after the
young have fledged, as determined during surveys by a qualified biologist, or until
after the nesting season, as described above. (Mitigation Measure—Biology 1)
31. Prior to any site disturbance and if land-clearing activities are to.commence
between February 1 and August 15, a pre-construction survey for nesting
passerines shall be conducted prior to the destruction of any suitable nesting
habitat. The survey area should include all trees, bushes, grassland and structures
within 100.feet of the limits of work. If land-clearing activities can be performed
outside the nesting season, that is, between August 16 and January 31, no surveys
for nesting passerines would be warranted. If any occupied passerine nests are
found within the zone of influence, grading and construction.shall be prohibited
within an adequate setback (generally, 75 to 100 feet), as approved by a qualified
biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. Work
within the setback would have to be delayed until after the young have fledged, as
determined during surveys by a qualified biologist, or until after the nesting season,
as described above. (Mitigation Measure—Biology 2)
32. Prior to the initiation of any grading, a survey for suitable ground burrows shall be
preformed by a qualified biologist. Survey protocol calls for walking transects
over the property affording 100 percent visual cover of the site. If no suitable
ground burrows are observed, grading may proceed. If suitable ground burrows are
present, a qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction nesting burrowing
owl survey following California Department of Fish and Game protocols, which
call for the performance of four crepuscular (early morning or late evening)
surveys. Any active nests must not be disturbed until the young have fledged.
Compensation of habitat loss, at a mitigation ratio to be determined in consultation
with the California Department of Fish and Game,would be required.
Areas of bare ground or with grasses less than six inches in height may attract
burrowing owls during the winter season. If construction resumes after a period of
construction inactivity following clearing, a habitat evaluation of the site should be
conducted prior to ground disturbance the following season'to determine burrowing
owl occupancy. All burrows containing active nests shall be identified by flagging,
and shall be protected by a no-disturbance buffer zone of 250 feet. (Mitigation
Measure—Biology 3)
Cultural
33. If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered
during project construction activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall
be redirected and a qualified archaeologist shall be contracted to evaluate the
discoveries and make recommendations regarding their potential significance and
extent throughout the site. If such deposits cannot be avoided, they shall be
evaluated for their California and.National Register eligibility. If the deposits are
not eligible, additional mitigation is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, they
shall be avoided or adverse project effects shall be mitigated. Upon completion of
the archaeologist's evaluation, a report shall be prepared documenting the methods
and results of the research, and recommendations for additional mitigation. The
12
report should be submitted to the County of Contra Costa and the Northwest
Information Center (KWIC) at Sonoma State University. (Mitigation Measure—
Cultural 1)
34. If paleontological resources are encountered during subsurface construction
activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a
qualified archaeologist/paleontologist can evaluate the finds and make
recommendations. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, they
shall be avoided by project construction activities and recovered by a qualified
paleontologist. Upon completion -of the recovery, a paleontological assessment
shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further monitoring
for paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include: 1) the
results of any geotechnical investigation prepared for the project site; 2) specific
details of the construction plans for the project site; 3)background research; and 4)
limited subsurface investigation within the project site. If a high potential to
encounter paleontological resources is confirmed, a monitoring plan of further
project subsurface construction shall be prepared .in conjunction with this
assessment. After project subsurface construction has ended, a report documenting
monitoring, methods, findings, and further recommendations regarding
paleontological resources shall be prepared and submitted to the County
Community Development Department. (Mitigation Measure—Cultural 2)
35. If human remains are encountered at any point during project construction, work
shall halt and the Contra Costa County Coroner shall be notified immediately. In
addition, the archaeological monitor shall be contacted to examine the situation. If
human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native
American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. Pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the Native American Heritage
Commission shall identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent to inspect
the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and
associated grave goods. (Mitigation Measure—Cultural 3)
Geology
36. Prior to recordation of the Vesting Tentative Map, all grading and drainage plans
are subject to review of the County Geologist and the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator. All slopes shall be contour rounded to mimic the natural
terrain features, and the project shall have an efficient drainage system. The plans
shall be prepared by appropriately licensed professionals. (Mitigation Measure—
Geology 1)
37. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, provide a grading remediation plan and
report for the approval of the Building Inspection Department (`BID"). The report
shall evaluate all major graded slopes and open space hillsides whose performance
could affect planned improvements. Specifically, the slope southwest of proposed
residences on Lots 18 through 23 shall be subject to this requirement. The slope
stability analysis shall be performed for both static and dynamic conditions using
an appropriate pseudo-static horizontal ground acceleration coefficient for
earthquakes on the Concord and Hayward faults in accordance with standard
practice as outlined in Department of Mines and Geology Special Pub. 117, 1997.
(Mitigation Measure—Geology 2)
I 3
38. All measures identified in the approved geotechnical reports to provide for slope
stability shall be incorporated into the final grading plans. Prior to issuance.of the
grading permit, the project geotechnical engineer shall review the plans to verify
that these measures are incorporated and that there is no unacceptable hazard from
unstable slopes or post-development differential settlement. (Mitigation Measure
—Geology 3)
39. Concurrently with recordation of the Vesting Tentative Map, record a statement to
run with deeds to the property acknowledging the Geotechnical Study by title,
author (firm), and date, calling attention to conclusions, including the long-term
maintenance requirements, and noting that the report is available to prospective
buyers from seller of the parcel. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 4)
40. Grading, erosion control, and building plans shall employ, as appropriate, the
following surface drainage measures in construction: concrete-lined swales to
carry runoff; fill slopes in excess of 8 feet high shall be graded to 2.5:1 (horizontal
to vertical) orflatter; cut slopes in excess of 8 feet high shall be graded to 3:1
(maximum). Where steeper slopes than those indicated above are desired,
supplemental slope stabilization techniques (e.g. selective grading or geo grid
reinforcing) may be required. Selectively graded sandstone bedrock material may
be used to construct 2:1 fill slopes up to 16 feet-in vertical height. Selective use of
sandstone bedrock should be performed under observation of the Geotechnical
Engineer and will require additional strength testing of excavated materials to
verify suitability.
Positive grading of building pads for removal of surface water from foundation
areas; individual pad drainage; avoidance of sprinkler systems (as opposed to drip
irrigation systems) in the immediate vicinity of foundations; grading of slopes to
eliminate over-the-bank runoff, and-re-vegetation of permanent slopes. Interim
protective measures for runoff shall be followed during the construction phases
when slopes are most susceptible to erosion. The final design shall incorporate
subsurface drainage measures, including the installation of subsurface drains within
major new fills and landslide repair areas. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 5)
41. During grading, the geotechnical engineer shall observe and approve all keyway
excavations, removal of fill and landslide materials down to stable bedrock or in-
place material, and installation of all subdrains including their connections. All fill
slope construction shall be observed and tested by the project geotechnical
engineer, and the density test results and reports submitted to the County to be kept
on file. Cut slopes and keyways shall be periodically observed and mapped by the
project geotechnical and civil engineers who will provide any required slope
modification recommendations based on the actual geologic conditions
encountered during grading. Written approval from the Contra Costa County BID
shall be obtained prior to any modification. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 6)
42. During stripping operations, topsoil shall be salvaged for future use as a dressing
on final graded slopes that are within the deed restricted open,space. Specifically,
approximately 6 inches of topsoil shall be track-walked on the final graded slopes
that are within the deed-restricted open space. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 7)
14
43. During grading, unstable colluvial soils and landslide deposits within developed
portions of the properties shall be regraded to effectively remove the potential for
seismically induced landslides in these materials, as recommended in the approved
geotechnical reports. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 8)
44. Prior to issuance of building permits on parcels of this subdivision, submit an as-
graded report of the engineering geologist and the geotechnical engineer with a
map prepared by a civil engineer showing engineering geology/lithology details,
final plans and grades for any buttress fill with its keyway, subsurface drainage,
subdrain cleanouts, disposal and pickup points, and any other soil improvements
installed during grading, as surveyed by the project survey or civil engineer, and in
accordance with requirements of the geotechnical engineer. (Mitigation Measure
—Geology 9)
45. All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season (April
15 through October 15) only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to
minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15, only erosion
control work shall be allowed by the grading permit. Any modification .to the
above schedule shall be subject to reviewed by the Grading Section of the building
Inspection Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
(Mitigation Measure—Geology 10)
46. Pior to the issuance of building permits, submit a final geotechnical report
providing design and construction measures, where appropriate, to minimize
expansive soil effects on dwellings (e.g., pad overcutting to provide uniform swell
potential; and soil subgrade moisture treatment). The required report shall also
provide design criteria for differential fill thickness and differential settlement.
(Mitigation Measure—Geology 11)
47. Prior to issuance of building permits, chemical testing of representative building
pad soils shall be submitted to determine the level of corrosion protection required
for steel and concrete materials used for construction. In order to protect against
corrosion where it is found to be a potential issue, the project shall use sulfate-
resistant concrete and protective linings to encase steel piping buried in native
soils. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 12)
Hazards
48. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall complete a detailed
survey that identifies the exact location of the 16-foot pipeline easement. The
boundaries of the easement area shall be clearly marked during construction
activities to ensure that the construction personnel know when they are working
within or close to the easement so that they may use proper precautions..
(Mitigation Measure—Hazards 1)
49. To alert potential buyers to the existence of the pipeline and associated hazards,
deed notification shall be filed for every residential parcel within 50-feet of the
pipeline easement. The notification shall clearly indicate that,the pipeline, though
currently not in use, has explosive potential and that an accident involving the
pipeline could cause extensive damage to private property as well as serious person
injury or death. (Mitigation Measure—Hazards 2)
r
15
Hydrology
50. The applicant shall construct storm facilities, both on- and, if necessary, off-site in
accordance with the drainage requirements of the County Subdivision Ordinance
(Title 9) to adequately convey storm water run off from the project site to an
acceptable receiving facility or watercourse. (Mitigation Measure — Hydrology
1)
Noise
51. Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant shall record a deed disclosure on
the all lots specified in Table 2 .for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
Windows and doors shall have sound-insulating performance level rates that meet
the requirements shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Required Sound Insulating Performance Ratings for Blum View Estates
STC Ratings
South Other
Location ;Facade Facades
Lots 1 throu h 4 31 26
Lots 5 through 7 33 28
Lots 8 throu h 13 38 32
Lots 14,15,18 and 38 32
19
Lots 16 and 17 26 -
Lots 20 and 21 31 31
Lots 20 and 21 38 NA
South Fagade,
Upstairs
Lots 22 and 23 38 31 a
The recommended minimum sound ratings are based on a window surface not
exceeding 40 percent of the overall wall area and on an average room size basis.
Specifications for window frames, doors, and sliding doors should indicate that
both the frame and glass together in a complete assembly(with operable sash)meet
the STC 31 requirements, not just the glass alone. (Mitigation Measure —Noise
1)
52. With the exception of Lots 16 and 17, all residences shall include separate
ventilation systems so that the window/wall construction is able to meet the 45 dB
NDL interior noise level standard with the windows closed. (Mitigation Measure
—Noise 2)
16
53. In addition to the six-foot tall privacy walls between the lots, additional walls must
be constructed on the project site at specified heights to meet acoustical criteria for
the project. The walls must have a minimum surface density of 3.0 pounds per foot
(lbs/ft)' and must be of airtight construction. Figure 4 indicates the required
location and wall height and is attached. (Mitigation Measure—Noise 3)
Utilities
54. Implementation of conditions of approval 30 through 32 (Mitigation Measures
Biological 1, 2, and 3) would reduce potential impacts to the special-status animals
to less than significant levels. (Mitigation Measure—Utilities 1)
Child Care
55. 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
56. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay a park dedication fee
in the amount of$2,000 per residential unit.
Construction
57. Construction Period Development Activity Restrictions — Contractor and/or
developer shall comply with the following construction noise, dust, litter, and
traffic 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 as listed below:
New Year's Day (State and Federal)
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal)
Washington's Birthday (Federal)
Lincoln's Birthday (State)
President's Day(State)
Cesar Chavez Day(State)
Memorial Day(State and Federal)
Independence Day(State and Federal)
Labor Day (State and Federal)
Columbus Day (State and Federal)
Veterans Day(State and Federal)
Thanks Giving Day(State and Federal)
Sound Transmission Class(STC)—A single-figure rating standardized by ASTM and used to rate the sound insulation
properties of building partitions. The STC rating is derived from laboratory measurements of a particular building element and as
such is representative of the maximum sound insulation. Increasing STC ratings correspond to improved noise isolation.
17
Day after Thanksgiving (State)
Christmas Day(State and Federal)
For specific details on what day the State and Federal Holidays fall on,please visit
these web url's:
hqp://wvv-,A,.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp
hM2://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm
B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit
all internal combustion engines with mufflers that are in good condition and
shall locate stationary noise-generation equipment such as air compressors
and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible.
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
9:00 A.M. and 4:00 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. 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.
A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community
Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the
names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying
the area noticed.
G. Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of a grading permit, the
applicant shall provide a letter to the Community Development Department
indicating that he has fully disclosed these requirements to all contractors and
subcontractors within this project.
18
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 8784/PERMIT DP 03-
3067
COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO
RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP
General Requirements:
58. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall
conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any
exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval state-
ment. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require
the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the
revised Tentative Map dated February 16, 2006.
59. 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
60. Applicant shall construct curb, 5-foot sidewalk (width measured from curb face),
and necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage facilities, street lighting,
pavement transitions and any necessary signing, striping and safety improvements
along the project frontage of Blum Road. The face of curb shall be located 10 feet
from the west right of way line.
Roadway Improvements—Blum Drive
61. Applicant shall construct curb, 5-foot sidewalk (width measured from curb face),
and necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage facilities within the project as
shown on the tentative map. Sidewalk will only be required on one side of streets
as shown. Pavement and right of way widths shall conform to those shown on the
tentative map as well. Although the street is to remain private, it shall be
constructed to County public road standards as to horizontal and vertical alignment
(using a 30 mile per hour design speed) as well as the pavement structural section.
A 20-mile per hour design speed may be used at the intersection with Blum Road
and within 200 feet of the street terminus. The turn-around shall conform to Public
Works and Fire District standards.
Roadway Improvements—Private Road for Lots 16 & 17
62. Applicant shall construct curb, 20 feet of pavement and necessary longitudinal and
transverse drainage facilities within a 25-foot minimum easement to serve the
subject lots. A driveway depression is acceptable at the intersection with Blum
Drive in lieu of curb returns. Although the street is to remain private, it shall be
constructed to County public road standards as to horizontal and vertical alignment
(using a 20 mile per hour design speed)as well as the pavement structural section.
19
Access to Adjoining Property:
Proof of Access
63. Applicant shall furnish necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or
easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and
private road and drainage improvements.
Encroachment Permit
64. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit
Center, as necessary, for all construction activity within the right of way of Blum
Road.
Parking:
65. "No Parking" signs and pavement markings shall be installed along one side of
Blum Drive and both sides of the private road serving Lots 16 and 17 subject to the
review and approval of Public Works.
Sight Distance:.
66. Provide sight distance at the intersection of Blum Road for a through traffic design
speed of 30 mph.
Utilities/Undergrounding:
67. All new and existing utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground.
Street Light Funding:
68. Property owner shall apply for annexation to County Service Area L-100 Lighting
District by submitting a letter of request; a metes and bounds description; and, pay
current LAFCO fees. Annexation shall occur prior to filing of the Final Map. The
applicant shall be aware that this annexation process must comply .with State
Proposition 218 requirements that state that the property owner must hold a special
election to approve annexation. This process takes approximately 4 to 6 months to
complete. Annexation into CSA L-100 does not include the transfer of ownership
and maintenance of street lighting on private roads.
Maintenance of Facilities:
69. 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 roadways.
Pedestrian Facilities:
70. All public and private pedestrian facilities and access ways shall be designed in
accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access) and the Americans with Disabilities
20
Act. This shall include all sidewalks, paths, trails, driveway depressions, as well as
handicap ramps.
71. All Curb ramps shall be designed and constructed in accordance with current
County standards. A detectable warning surface (e.g. truncated domes) shall be
installed on all curb ramps. Adequate right of way shall be dedicated to
accommodate a minimum 4 foot landing at the top of any curb ramp proposed.
Drainage Improvements:
Collect and Convey
72. Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires that all storm waters entering or
originating within the subject property shall be conveyed, without diversion and
within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having defin-
able bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility that
conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse.
73. Storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in
compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department.
Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements:
74. Storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner
shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk(s)and driveway(s).
75. The applicant shall create private 10-foot wide drainage easements over those
portions of the underground and surface drainage system that convey storm water
run-off from more than a single lot or parcel.
Restricted Development Areas
76. Applicant shall grant deed development rights to Contra Costa County over those
portions of Lots 17, 20, 21, 22 and 23 that do not drain towards Blum Drive. The
purpose of this restricted development area is to prevent the construction of future
improvements on these lots where storm water runoff does not comply with the
drainage provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). This
requirement may be waived, all or in part, by the Department if the applicant
secures drainage releases from the downstream property owners in compliance with
the provisions of Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code; or if drainage
facilities and respective easements are secured via future development of the
neighboring downstream properties.
77. An exception to the collect and convey requirements will be allowed over Lot 24
provided the applicant grant deeds development rights over said lot to Contra
Costa County. The purpose of this restricted development area is to prevent the
construction of future improvements on this lot where storm water runoff does not
comply with the drainage provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title
9). This requirement will be waived, all or in part, by the Department if the
applicant secures drainage releases from the downstream property owners in
21
compliance with the provisions of Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code, or
if drainage facilities and respective easements are secured to accommodate future
development. The only allowable exception beyond any granted herein will be for
a diversion of the storm water runoff from the future developed/paved area of Lot
24 to connect to the proposed in-tract storm drain facilities, provided the owner
verifies the adequacy and capacity of said facilities and other downstream
improvements to otherwise comply with the drainage requirements of Title 9. The
future site development plan shall be subject to review of Public Works and
approval of the Zoning Administrator. The County will retain the development
rights for the remainder of Lot 24 where storm water runoff-does not otherwise
comply with the drainage provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title
9).
Stormwater Management and Discharge Control
78. This project is subject to the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge
Control Ordinance. As part of these requirements this project shall incorporate Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable into the design
of the project, implement them and provide for perpetual operation and
maintenance for all treatment BMPs.
?2
y,j h
F V
_ z1
s
J
i y
1 1 d
� 9
v �
I � g
xr \1
I
G 1
I�
23
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 E7tACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF
THIS PERMIT.
This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000,
et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or
exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-
day period after the project is approved.
The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of
any dedication,reservation,or other exaction required by this approved permit,begins on the date
this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code
Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the
approval date of this permit.
B. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal construction and industrial
activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board or any of its
Regional Water Quality Control Boards(San Francisco Bay—Region II).
C. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the
applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville,
California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish
and wildlife resources,per the Fish and Game Code.
D. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the
applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if
.a permit is required, and if it can be obtained.
E. This subdivision will .be subject to compliance with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance
requirements for the Martinez Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee
must be paid prior to issuance of building permits.
F. Applicant shall comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 57 as adopted by
the Board of Supervisors.These fees must be paid prior to filing a Final Map.
G. Portions of this project are located in a Special Flood Hazard Area as designated on the Federal
Emergency Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of the requirements of the
Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Ordinance
No. 2000-33) as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property.
H. Comply with the requirements of the Mt.View Sanitary District.
24
I. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Water District.
J. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District.
K. Comply with the requirements of the County Office of the Sheriff.
L. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Permits are required prior to
grading and construction.
The fees include but are not limited to the following:
Park Dedication $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.
M. 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.
N. Vesting Tentative Map Rights—The approval of this vesting tentative map confers a vested right
to proceed with development in substantial compliance with ordinances,policies, and standards in
effect as of July of 2005, the date the vesting tentative map application was accepted as complete
by the Community Development Department. The vested rights also apply to development fees,
which the County has adopted by ordinance. These fees are in addition to any other development
fees,which may be specified in the conditions of approval.
SD037884--2/13/06
rah
CEQA COMMENTS
I��. hli, IEW ����•��
MINI n�
c�� January 4, 2006
Maninet.Califo nla'Founded 1923
Department
- _ -:.,x:., -r•---_ _ - Community Development
4' Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street North Wing, 2nd Floor
BORRUTF..OIREC ORS ^_ Martinez, CA 9.4553
-
tan ey R:Caldwell
�`. Attn: Ryan Hernandez
- •:�; :;'David'PIvlaggi.=;'.�;,
?" Senior Planner
'iGiegory:T':Pykai'� -
; .''DooVyiM sakazaki: ,? '=`•.;
Raridell E willarns` Re: Application Review for
Blum View Estates
APNs: 159-190-024,159-190-031;
Da4idR Contreras''_i 159-230-004
DISTRICT:'IVIANAGER`
Stieii'LiRiddle
BonxD scc>i initr<; ` Dear Mr. Hernandez,
' We have reviewed the referenced application and have the following conuTlents:
:'J.��Daniel•ldarns•-'i;'�
>✓EcnL.CouNsii.: .'. 1. The applicant will be required to construct a new sewer main in Arkinlander Drive
from Blum Road to the end of the development.
Randolph:W.I.eptian
2. Public sewers shall be located in the proposed streets. Backyard sewers are
ENGINELR
discouraged.
3. Fifteen (15) foot easements must be dedicated to the District over all public sewers not
located in public streets. All weather vehicular access must be provided to all
manholes.
4. Existing septic tanks on this site should they be discovered shall be abandoned in
accordance with the requirements of the District and the County Health Department.
5. The developer shall submit plans prepared by a California registered civil engineer to
the District Engineer for all new sanitary sewer construction required by this
development. Plans shall conform to the District's Standard Specifications.
6. The developer shall be required to obtain permits, post security and construct sewer
improvements as required.
7. Any charges incurred by the District for review of the previous applications on this
site will be transferred to the current application and will become payable at the time
of issuance of the first sewer construction permit.
8. Fees shall be charged pursuant to the Ordinance in effect at the time that the permit is
MT.VIEW SANITARY DISTRICT issued. Fees are subject to revision by the District Board without notice.
3800 ART II UR ROAD .
P . 0 . B 0.X , 7 5 7 We note that a copy of the Vesting Tentative Map was not included with the Notice and
MARTINEZ. CA 94553 must assume that it conforms to the Development Plan (Figure 3) in the Initial Study.
9 - S - . 28 . 56 ; 5
F } 7 5.8 S \\Clerical-1\clerical-I\Clerical I\N.IVSD\LETTERS\10564Hemande7-Blum View.Estates Application.review.doc
!
Please provide the District with a copy of the Vesting Tentative'Map at your earliest
�•I
Sfl B I 1 B B V convenience.
,1 Subject to the foregoing, the Sanitary District has no objections to the project as proposed.
j' I S i B I C i �:� Please feel free to contact the undersigned at 925 228 4218 voice, 925 228 4638 fax, or
6lannetCaliiania•Foandedl9 _ randy.leptien(iblcc-inc.com email,should there be any questions.
ir: 1 V ry ly yours,
..
C 41nc.= ptien
n ne r
.'s.•�,k�i•"xn r,'�2,n�r,'s.�g,,q ti.S,,r 1
��R�•1>riy"+''�•3�r til=A'.e ,�_1;55a .! .
•l�:T.`•(•r :;t.:J`i� -:1_x:.1'•':..
t}vG'.:. �C..F�`xi �yA
Via facsmile no. 925 335 1222
Original to follow by mail
61A
Cop D. Contreras (D. Riddle) via will call
• _�`fir_ - .,..
Al RWL:rckl
IN
\\Clerical-1\clerical-I\Clerical 1\bi\'SD'--ETTEIZS\105(4Hemandez-Bium View Estates Application review•.do--
January 20, 2006 •
Maninn Califomia-Founded 19?
Community Development Department
-
- Contra Costa County
_ ty
651 Pine Street,North Wing, 2nd Floor
B0HHWOFOIRECTORS`= Martinez, CA 94553
Stanley:R:Caldwell';
David P'I Iag Attn: Ryan Hernandez
:Gre o' T:Pyka:''`` Senior Planner
Dorothy'M!;S akazaki':"
Re: 01/04/06 Letter to County
'`Rand"ell EWllaIIts:;.=:';:,:•:;
Application Review for Blum View Estates
APNs: 159-190-024,159-190-01
Dav1id:'R=:Contreras'= ? 159-230-004
..:t;
S`.-.DISTRICT 1VlANAGER;y.:;i..:.
Stiei;'I:'Rdd►e Dear Mr. Hernandez,
` " . Reference is made to our previous letter of January 4 2006. Please delete "in Arkinlander
Drive"from condition no. 1.
_J-'Daniei-Adams;'::'.
LEGAL Couilsl . Please feel free to contact the undersigned at 925 228 4218 voice, 925.228 4638 fax, or
randv.leptiennIcc-inc.com email, should there be any questions.
Randolph:W..Leptien .
ENGINEER
Ve truly yours,
LC , Inc.
dolph . Leptie
strict Engineer
Encl. 01/04/06 letter
Via facsmile no. 925 335 1222
Original to follow by mail
MT. VIEW S.ANIT.AR1•DISTRICT Copy: D. Contreras (D. Riddle)via will call
3800 ARTHUR ROAD
P . 0 . B 0 x 2 7 5 7 RWL:rck]
M.A R T I N E "L, CA 94553
9 ' 5 -"- 8 - 5 6 3 i
F ' b '''8' \\Clerical-Mclerical-1\Clerical 1\A4VSD\LETTERS\I0564Hemandez-Blum View Estates Application review 2.doe
_ APP .
CONTRA COSTA
WATER DISTRICT
n. .
1331 Concord Avenue ` F .
P.O.Box H2O
Concord,CA 94524
(925)688-8000 FAX(925)688-8122
January 10, 2006
Directors VIA FACSIMILE (925) 335-1222
Joseph L.Campbell
President Hard Copy to Follow
Elizabeth R.Anello
Vice President Ryan Hernandez
Community Development Department
Bette n Contra Costa County
John A.. Burgh ouny
Karl L. Wandry �': 1 r"n.E: �•lrt`.C.,.. .' ol;_t V%,�l:C-,. 2,0 T
Walter J. Bishop Martinez, CA 94554
General Manager
Subject: IS/MND Blum View Estates
Dear Mr. Hernandez:
'The Contra. Costa Water District (CCWD) is in receipt of the Notice of Public Review
and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Blum View
Estates project. On November 26. 2003 CCWD provided comments on this project to
.Andrew orse Construction; the developer for this project and copied Contra Costa
County Community Development. The November 26, 2003 letter is attached to this
correspondence. CCWD is concerned that urban drainage from this development
may potentially impact the Contra Costa Canal that is located below the site. CCWD
is concerned that Blum View Estates is in close proximity to the Contra Costa Canal
and that property security fencing needs to be in place for public safety and security.
CCWD is the retail water service provider for this location and service can only be
provided if all of CCWD's regulations are satisfied and all required rates and charges
are paid. CCWD Engineering an.tictpates that extensive new water facilities will be
required to provide water service to the new proposed subdivision located above
elevation 110 feet (above the District Treated Water Service Zone 1).
CCWD recommends that Contra Costa County include three mitigation measures in
the ISIMND related to protection of the Contra Costa Canal and for treated water
service.
Contra Costa Water District Mitigation Measure 1: No drainage from any new
homes or lets within Blum View Evtates will he allowed to enter the Contra Costa
Canal.
Contra Costa Water District Mitigation :Measure 2: Blum 1,"iew Estates will
install, at its expense, Canal.sec•uriAl fencing for all portion's of the Ceinal located
Ryan Hernandez
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
January 10, 2006
Page 2
below and parallel with the proposed development area consistent with CCWD Code
of Regulations.
Contra Costa Water District Mitigation Measure 3: Blum View Estates must
satisfy all of CCWD's Treated Water Service Regulations including possible approval
for Modified Pressure Service as required. Modified Pressure Service approval is
subject to review by CCWD's Board of Directors.
Should there be any further questions regarding CCWD's requirements for Blum
View Estates please contact me at (925) 688-8119.
Sincerely,
e /G
Mark A. Seedall
Senior Planner
M S/rlr
Attachment
'4616 CONTRA COSTA
.�� WATER DISTRICT
1331 Concord Avenue
P.O. Box H2O
Concord,CA 94524
(925)688-8000 FAX(925)688-8122
November 26, 2003
Directors
Joseph L.Campbell Andrew Morse, President
President
Andrew Morse Construction
Elizabeth R.Anello 957 Stow Lane
Vice President Lafayette, CA 94549
Bette Boatmun
James Pretti Subject: Blum View EstatesSubdivision 8784
Karl L.Wandry Estates (Subdivision
Walter J. Bishop Dear Mr. Morse:
Genera!Manager
Thanks for taking the time to meet with CCWD to discuss the Blum View Estates
project (subdivision 8784). It was very useful to receive a full size readable map to
help with our review. CCWD understands that this project is undergoing review by the
Contra Costa County Community Development Department (County Staff Ryan
Hernandez, County file nos. RZ033135, SD038784, DP033067). Blum View Estates is
located just. east and above the Contra Costa Canal (Canal). As we noted in our
discussion'CCWD had the following comments on the proposed project:
1) CCWD wants to ensure that no urban drainage enters the Canal. We support the
use of a concrete "V" ditch to be located below Lots 17 thru 21 and having all
drainage from these properties be returned down Blum Drive to Blum Road. As
we discussed, the plans should reflect a Concrete "V" ditch to capture runoff from
all of lot 17.
2) A property line fence along the Canal right of way is required if one is not already
in place below the proposed subdivision. CCWD regulations require a chain link
fence be located along the Canal property line below the proposed subdivision. It
is possible that there is already a 5 feet chain link fence below the proposed
subdivision and if so no further fencing improvements are required. If only a
barbed wire fence is along the Canal property line or chain link fence less than 5
feet, then it will be necessary to install a new 6 feet chain link fence.
3) To the extent that Blum View Estates requires treated water service from CCWD
please contact Diane Lange (688-8014) or LeeAnn Cisterman (688-8013), in the
CCWD Engineering Department, who can provide further information regarding
the costs to provide such service.
Andrew Morse Construction
Blum View Estates (Subdivision 8784)
November 26, 2003
Page 2
Again thanks for taking the time to discuss the planning related Blum View Estates. I can be
reached at 688-8119 should you have further questions. .
Sinc rely, �
ji
Mark Seedall
Senior Planner
cc: Ryan Hernandez (Contra Costa County Community Development)
�v: M yRTi�
City of Martinez
y1 5 Henrietta Street, Martinez, CA 94553.2394
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (925) 372-3515
1876
December 20, 2005i.
I n r
Ryan Hernandez DEC C �'�l
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street,North Wing, 2"d Floor co!::;...:
Martinez, CA 94553
Subject: Comments regarding Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for
"Blum View Estates" (County Files: #RZ033135, SD048818, DP04443004)
Dear Mr. Hernandez:
The above project site is adjacent to I-680,and appears to be highly visible from the southbound lanes and
somewhat visible from the northbound lanes. The City of Martinez values the aesthetic quality of the few
remaining ungraded hillsides along the I-680 corridor, and hopes the County will work to preserve as much
of the current visual character as possible.
The Initial Study discussion under AESTHETICS states that "the project has been designed....such that the
overall natural grade of the site would be retained, and the visual impacts from creating the pads and new
roadway would be minimized. " But the grading adjacent to the freeway appears to be conventional
engineered slopes, and the transition(s)to natural grade is unclear. Furthermore,the impact of the houses
themselves has not been evaluated.
In order to reach the conclusion that there will be"no significant aesthetic impacts"resulting from
development of the site; the City is requesting that the Initial Study include photos of the site from the
perspective of north-and southbound 1-680 travelers. Photos of existing conditions and project
simulations (especially from the southbound perspective)will help determine the appropriate level of
mitigations needcd. In addition to requiring"earthtone"sound walls(the one mitigation measure
proposed), adjustments to the grading scheme, additional landscaping and/or restrictions to the
size/color/massing of the houses themselves may be appropriate mitigation measures if warranted.
If you have any questions,please call me at(925)372-3518.
Sincerely,
Corey M. Simon,
Senior Planner
R:Community DeMopWl ProiecwC0l1\TY REFERALS LETTEMMajor SubdmonslBlum View Estates- CEOA onlv.doc
State of California—The Resources Agency ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,Governor
+• DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
http://www.dfa.ca.gov
POST OFFICE BOX 47
YOUNTVILLE,CALIFORNIA 94599
(707)944-5500 —
December 29, 2005
Mr. Ryan Hernandez
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Hernandez:
Blum View Estates
4766 Blum View Road, Martinez
SCH #2005122041
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) personnel have reviewed the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND).for Blum View Estates. The project involves the subdivision of three existing
parcels on 11.56 acres into 27 new lots, 23 of which will be developed with new, detached,
single family residence. .The project site is undeveloped and is comprised of native and non-
native trees and grasses, all of which will be removed as part of the project.
The grading and new construction on the site will result in the removal of 17 trees. In
order to avoid the potential for impacts, tree removal should be timed to avoid the bird nesting
season (February through August). DFG recommends that for each native tree that is removed
or destroyed, trees should be replaced with native trees on-site at a minimum 3:1 ratio
(replacement: loss). For each non-native tree that is removed or destroyed, trees should be
replaced with native trees on-site at a minimum 1:1 ratio (replacement: loss).
In addition, the area has been identified as providing suitable habitat for burrowing owls.
There are two types of mitigation necessary for any impacts to burrowing owls: mitigation for
the loss of burrowing owl breeding and foraging habitat, and mitigation to avoid take of
individual burrowing owls and their nest sites. in order to determine whether or not owls breed
on or near a specific project site, a burrowing owl survey must be conducted according to the
surrey guidelines described in the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines
(Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993) between April 15 and July 15. If burrowing owls are
observed during surveys, the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site should be delineated by
a qualified ornithologist:
If burrowing owls are found on the project site, we recommend that the project be
reconfigured to allow impact avoidance. If impacts to burrowing owl habitat cannot be avoided,
we recommend that a minimum of 6.5 acres of off-site habitat be preserved for each pair of owls
or each unpaired owl impacted by the project. At least two enhanced or artificial burrows need
to be provided for each burrow impacted. Land identified to off-set impacts to burrowing owls
must be protected in perpetuity either by a conservation easement or fee title acquisition.
Burrowing owl mitigation lands should be identified within the northern San Benito County or
southern Santa Clara County area.
Conserving California's Wildlife Since 1870
.Mr. Ryan Hernandez
December 29, 2005
Page 2
Mitigation for take of individual burrowing owls and their nest sites is fulfilled by
conducting a pre-construction survey for the species no more than thirty days prior to
construction. Pre-construction surveys must be conducted according to the guidelines
referenced above. Any impacts to the species during the breeding season (February 1 to
August 31) must be avoided. If there are construction activities proposed during the owl
breeding season, and if.burrowing owls are observed on, or within, 250 feet of a project site
during pre-construction surveys, a 250-foot protective buffer must be established with the
placement of a barrier fence, which shall remain in place for the duration of the breeding
season. If pre-construction surveys are conducted during the non-breeding season and
burrowing owls are observed on the site, DFG will authorize owl eviction only after a habitat
mitigation plan� and mitigation agreement have been finalized.
DFG has reviewed the document for the subject project. Please be advised this project
may result in changes to fish and wildlife resources as described in the California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Section 753.5(d)(1)(A)-(G). Therefore, an environmental filing fee of
$1,250 for a Negative Declaration as required under Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)
should be paid to the Contra Costa County Clerk on or before filing of.the Notice of
Determination for this project. Please note that the above comment is only in regard to the need
to pay the environmental filing fee and is not a comment by DFG on the significance of project
impacts or any proposed mitigation measures.
If you have any questions, please contact Marcia Grefsrud, Environmental Scientist, at
(707) 944-5559; or Scott Wilson, Habitat Conservation Supervisor, at (707) 944-5584.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Floerke
Regional Manager
Central Coast Region
cc: State Clearinghouse
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS—M.S.#40
1120 N STREET
P. O.BOX 942873 rlex your power.
SACRAMENTO,CA 94273-0001 Be energy efficient.
PHONE (916)654-4959
FAX (916)653-953.1. _
TTY(916)651-6827 y'
January 6, 2006
Mr. Ryan Hernandez
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Hernandez:
Re: Contra Costa County's Negative Declaration for the Blum View Estates; SCH# 2005122041
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics (Division), reviewed
the above-referenced document with respect to airport-related noise and safety impacts and regional
aviation land use planning issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
Division has technical expertise in the areas of airport operations safety, noise and airport land use
compatibility. We are a funding agency for airport projects and we have permit authority for public
and special use airports and heliports. The following comments are offered for your consideration.
The proposal is for the construction of a twenty-three unit residential subdivision on 11.56 acres
approximately 4,500 feet northwest of Buchanan Field Airport's Runway 14R-32L.
In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21096, the Caltrans Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook (Handbook) must be utilized as a resource in the preparation of environmental
documents for projects within an airport land use compatibility plan boundaries or if such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of an airport. The Handbook is a resource that should be applied
to all public use airports and is published on-line at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/pIannina/aeronaut/-
humlfile/l anduse.php.
As discussed in the Negative Declaration, the project site is located within the Airport Influence Area
(AIA) as designated in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Buchanan
Field Airport. Please note, Section 1 i010 of the Business and Professions Code and Sections 1102.6,
1103.4, and 1353 of the Civil Code (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.htm]) address buyer notification
requirements for lands around airports. Any person who intends to offer land for sale or lease within
an airport influence area is required to disclose that fact to the person buying the property.
As further discussed in the Negative Declaration, the project site is located well outside the 55 decibel
(dB) Community.Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for the airport. The project site is, however,
located beneath the designated traffic pattern for Runway 14R-32L as depicted in Exhibit 51 of the
ALUCP and will therefore be subject to aircraft overflights. The project site is also located within the
Helicopter Flight Training Noise Footprints as depicted in Exhibits 5J and 5K.
The protection of airports from incompatible land use encroachment is vital to California's economic
future. Buchanan Field Airport is an economic asset that should be protected through effective airport
land use compatibility planning and awareness. Although the need for compatible and safe land uses
"Caltrmis improver nwbility across California"
Mr. Ryan Hernandez
January 6, 2006
Page 2
near airports in California is both a local and a State issue, airport staff, airport land use commissions
and airport land use compatibility plans are key to protecting an airport and the people residing and
working in the vicinity of an airport. Consideration given to the issue of compatible land uses in the
vicinity of an airport should help to relieve future conflicts between airports and their neighbors.
These comments reflect the areas of concern to the Division of Aeronautics with respect to airport-
related noise and safety impacts and regional airport land use planning issues. We advise you to
contact our district office concerning surface transportation issues.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. 'If you have any questions,
please call me at (916) 654-5314.
Sincerely,
-8ANDY-4-j�SNARD
Aviation Environmental Specialist
c: State Clearinghouse, Buchanan Field Airport, Contra Costa County ALUC
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT
TIME 01/06/2006 14:27
NAME
FAX
TEL
SER.# BROD5J246134
DATE DIME 01/06 14:27
FAX NO. /NAME 89253351299
DURATION 00:00:50
PAGE(S) 02
RESULT OK
MODE STANDARD
ECM
AGENCY COMMENTS
WILLIAM B. WALKER, M.D. ;, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS
HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR �'��""''' -•?°3
�F- 4333 Pacheco Boulevard
DIREECTORCTOR
RAL. SAWYER Martinez, California
94553-2229
C O N T RA C O S TA, Ph (925) 646-2296
1 : Fax (925) 646-2073
Ryan Hernandez H E A L T H SERVICES L
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
Current Planning Division
651 Pine Street
N. Wing—2nd Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
January 26, 2006
Re: Blum View Estates Project County File#SD038784
Dear Mr. Hernandez;
Contra Costa County Health Services (CCHS) examined the information that you
provided concerning the Blum View Estates proposed housing development and the
existing eight-inch pipeline that runs through portions of the proposed development. It is
our understanding that this pipeline is currently not in use, but could be in the future. The
portions of the drawings reviewed by CCHS indicate that four of the proposed lots, 20,
21, 22, and 23 are within fifty feet of the pipeline easement. Federal Regulation Title 49,
Volume 3, Chapter 1, Part 195, Subpart D Construction, Section 195.210 indicates that:
(a) Pipeline right-of-way must be selected to avoid, as.far as practicable, areas
containing private dwellings, industrial buildings, and places of public assembly. (b)No
pipeline may be located within 50.feet (15 meters) of any private dwelling, or any
industrial building or place of public assembly in which persons work, congregate, or
assemble, unless it is provided with at least 12 inches (305 millimeters) of cover in
addition to that prescribed in Sec. 195.248.
Section 195.248 indicates that for industrial, commercial, and residential areas, the cover
should be thirty-six inches. Which brings the total to four feet of recommended cover.
Since the pipeline is already in place, rather than regulation, this becomes a guideline for
construction of a housing development over or near a pipeline.
CCHS recommends that the development company provide CDD with mitigation options
to reduce the potential hazard of the pipeline, specifically if it is placed back into service.
If you have any questions, please contact Donald R. Nixon of my staff at (925)-646-2907.
Sincerely,
Randall R. Sawyer
Director Hazardous Materials Programs
t • Con;ra Costa Alcohol and Other Drugs Services • Contra Costa Emergency MEncal Services • Contra Costa Gnv:ronmental Health • Contra Costa health Piar
Costa H27argous M�Trials Precrams •Contra Costa Mental heal;�t • Contra Costa Pubiic health Cerra_osta Regional Medical;=eraer • Cgntr:.Costa Hea�:h Center
,,: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
651 Pine Street, North Wing - 4t), Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Telephone: (925) 335-1278 Fax: (925) 335-1300
COUNt
TO: Ryan Hernandez, Current Planning Division
FROM: Hillary Heard, Transportation Planning Division
DATE: November 14, 2005
SUBJECT: Blum View Estates Subdivison Application (SD038784)
Staff has reviewed the description of the subdivision application and performed the trip generation.
analysis. It does not appear that this project has the potential to generate 100 plus peal:hour trips in
the morning or evening commute hours (see the attached trip generation analysis).
Staff would like to make the following recommendations for consideration regarding potential
mitigations and conditions of approval for this subdivision in accordance with the County's
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (03-02) and Park Dedication Ordinance (78-5).
• Transportation requirements: The applicant should be requested to consult with the local transit
operator, County Connection to see what service they presently provide and/or plan to provide in
the future along this section of Blum Road. Should transit service exist or is planned the
applicant should be conditioned to contribute monies to or if warranted construct a bus turnout
and shelter alonL,this section of Blum Road. These facilities will enhance the amenities provided
to the residents within this development and provide adequate infrastructure promoting the use of
alternative forms of transportation such as walking, bicycling and taking transit.
• Park requirements: Transportation planning staff maintains an inventory of County park facilities
for measuring compliance with the Measure C Growth Management Program. This inventory
does not list any facilities in this unincorporated area of the County. Consideration should be
given to using pari:dedication revenue collected from this project and other developments in the
area to provide additional neighborhood park facilities in the area. The potential to condition
approval of these development applications to forni an assessment district to fund maintenance
of new park facilities in the area should be explored by staff sometime in the near future.
It is my understanding that staff in the Public Works Engineering Services Division is in the process
of reviewing the potential impacts to traffic for this project. Staff would be willing to participate in
any meeting you may arrange to ensure that they and other divisions within Public Works concur
with our comments or to discuss other development-related traffic concerns in the area.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this memorandum.
Attachment
c: S. Goetz, CDD
L. Gossett, PWD
E. Whan. PWD
G:',Transportation`,Hillary\i�,ien,os'.Drafts',Blun,%-ie Estatcs.doc
Blum View Subdivision
Trip Generation Analysis*
Weekday Trip Generation Rates
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily Trip Trip
Development Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Blum View Estates
(Single-Family Detached 220 0.75 4 13 17 1.01 15 9 23
Housing, ITE Code 210)
*Figures have been rounded
G:\"lransportalion`•,Hillar�'i Drip Generation miai}sis161um_\%ic _n•ips.doc
SflNliRR4 �� , _ �
December 31; 2003 .
Mama.California•rounded 19'_+
Mr. Ryan Hernandez
Project Planner
Contra Costa County
`UORRUUFUIRECTORS: .. Community Development
Stanley R::caldtvel►.. 651 Pine Street,41h Floor
Arthur:J Castro . .: Martinez, CA 94553
David P.Maggi
Re: Application Review for
Gregory T.Pyka Blum View Estates
Dorothy WSakazaki . .. APNs# 159-190-024,159-190-031,
159-230-004
David R.Contreras
DISTRICT MANAGER
Sheri L.Riddle
Dear Mr. Hernandez,
BOARD SECRETARY We have reviewed the referenced application and have the following comments:
Maurice E.Huguet,Jr. 1. The condition and capacity of the downstream sewer mains in Arkinlander Drive and
ATTORNEY Blum Road will need to be verified. Replacment sewers if necessary must be
designed and constructed by the applicant.
Randolph W.Leptien 2. Public sewers shall be located in the proposed streets. Backyard sewers are
ENGINEER discouraged.
3. Fifteen (15) foot easements must be dedicated to the District over all public sewers.
All weather vehicular access must be provided to all manholes..
4. Existing septic tanks on this site should they be discovered shall be abandoned in
accordance with the requirements of the District and the County Health Department.
5. The developer shall submit plans prepared by a California registered civil engineer to
I--
the District Engineer for all new sanitary sewer construction required by this
development. Plans shall conform to the District's Standard Specifications.
6. The developer shall be required to obtain permits, post security and construct sewer
improvements as required.
7. Any charges incurred by the District for review of the previous applications on this
site will be transferred to the current application and will become payable at the time
of issuance of the first sewer construction permit.
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.
MT.VIEW S.ANITARI IMTRICT
3800 .aR.Ht'It ROAD
P . O . B o 1 5 i
1I.A R11 N E7. CA 94553
5
F.a,?:: 91 S 1 5 \\Clerical 1\C\Clerical 1\MVSD\LETTERS\10564Hemandez-Blum View Estates Application review.doc
1 ' j
Mi. �f IEW y Subject to the foregoing, the Sanitary District has no objections to the project as
t 1 proposed. Please feel free to contact the undersigned at 925 228 4218 voice, 925 228
Sfl H I i R fl 4 4638 fax, or randLleptien @ lcc-inc.com email, should there be any questions. Thank you
MINI for inviting us to participate in the pre-application review for this project.
. I
ManinezMom-Founded IT3
Very truly yours,
LCC,Inc.
" h ';1
RAndolp W.Leptien
r District Engineer
y.#;r�., G. Say •' •z,,'� .
U' Via facsmile no. 925 335 1222
Original to follow by'mail
Copy: D. Contreras (D. Riddle) 925 228 7585
R. Angrisani,Permco 925 672 2959
:: :.,. 5;rx:,�,.•,�<:=A•�= � ;�::
s; .s: - RWL:rckl
•>
F�$s'k1C.i.....k;CSF;:Y:e 1,.,
IN
'` .;-tr,;.yy.��kJL6•Sy,l,;d1}�':;�r •'�.�^:i
"*,gat � "y��V •
_ Fr
\\Clerical 1\C\Clerical I\MNISD\LETMRS\10564Hemandez-Blum View Estates Application review.dti=
Dennis M.Barry, AICP
Community Contra v ELL 'Community Development Director
Development Costa RECEIVED
Department County RECEIVED
County Administration Building NOV 0 6 2003
651 Pine Street LCC,M.
4th Floor,North Wing �� \ MVSD
Martinez,California 94553-0095 dib ;-:.•��
Phone: (925)335-1210 �. Date:
AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST
We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under review.
`` DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows:
�13uilding Inspection
_HSD, Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner �� P '
_HSD,Hazardous Materials D �
P/W-Flood Control (Full Size) County File
K.
/W-Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Number: ,S f)a5157� 7 1_ �j j(}L;�
Date Forwarded—P/WTraffic(Reduced) Prior To: Novextui�Lr
_P/W Special Districts (Reduced)
Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs
Redevelopment Agency apply to this application:
historical Resources Information System
1LICA Native Amer.Her. Comm. Redevelopment Area
_CA Fish & Game,Region
_US Fish &Wildlife Service Active Fault Zone
Fire District �L��!�,���r 0
Flood Hazard Area,Panel#
'Water D' trict li-zr Ca.s
�c�r�7
.ZCity CA r- 1 n e 2. 60 dBA Noise Control
-Z�chool District ,Ifw? p
i�heriff Office-Aamin. & Comm.Svcs. ! CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site
_Alamo Improvement Association
El Sobrante Pig. & Zoning Committee Traffic Zone
MAC
_DOIT-Dep.Director, Communications CEQA Exempt
CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical Exemption Section
Comm ty Oraa ons
(�In
Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send
copies of your response to the Applicant & Owner.
o comments on this application.
Our Comments are attached .
Comments:
Signa r �
eZ2� ! Ci
Agency
f�2130 03
:currentoiannin- c6nunentreauest Dail
' S/BEET /3
d1 S OJ t-11
S�
1'411 C
9'T a G
q[ 4 J
a dy
'.oOf
c.g£
b
M
�.0
76 0
l ltos.sl ��
ye
M 1
9.0ZLt ff / y N
N 0 4 1�� , le -1
� e �
ria r�Yn m�o I n bu p p O 1
/ ae oe ^ I
Y n W p g i0o of .�L/ +' .,,I Lho� G00
177-
ph O
a.r2
W
� ^ N
V V /� I1 \
e
14
q \
N � Mu
i n
o
� n r
rl El xa
jGC t7 LV t4
no )H3z b
ac^c[H9ar�tln
�MYh a -
V[n N U
• )H b 9 -
.,..
dH[H�y.,100
._ ... _. —_.__.___---_— C-1 �..��rs.�•a ?'�� rev•-c=v.�.:��T7/
1 FIW:r)HH •tT I �. � �9� �0�
id jHI tJTO L9�y4 �~ N NZ
• � ti o�A � `0
4. '.'.tnJ.n�nYry ITr
.•iia � HN � I
H H 1
+1r..zo
OOHYMfi I
OH � "
`n^�z M" O I
.. .'rel ren to c78 O .
�q
_.oll; zD I
N
' u warEtee%ev MAY
D
REDUCED COPY
ro /0•/-9/ N/LLS/OE OR.
0 12-£3-96 DACH&CO BLVD.,EMs#,r6 LAI !
1
i
1
Community Contra Dennis,M. Barry, AICP
Commudity Devetopment Director
Development Costa
Department
County
County Administration BuildingNOV
SEAQ
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez California 94553-0095 ""Nan
Phone: (925)335-1210 �� Date: ��4 C �
tour
AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST
We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under review.
DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows:
wilding lInspection
_HSD,Environmental Health, Concord Project Plannerk�all �P � '�R _ . r
HSD,Hazardous Materials
_PSV-Flood Control (Full Size) County File
I
-Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Number: '
Date Forwarded
_ P/W Traffic (Reduced) Prior To:
P/W Special Districts (Reduced)
_Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs
Redevelopment Agency apply to this application:
_Ie:::'13istorical Resources Information System ,
jZ"CA Native Amer.Her. Comm. Nom' Redevelopment Area
CA Fish & Game,Region
US Fish &Wildlife Service ' Active Fault Zone
Fire District C %�?�z /�C��' G✓
�!S anitary District V j�_7 LO Flood Hazard Area,Panel#
Water District � �'�:,� In�� c.� -
_ZCity 1F iyi r-rt.n �_ '�60 dEA Noise Control
School DistrictI�GI
Sheriff Office -Admin. & Comm.Svcs. !` C.4 EPA Hazardous Waste Site
Alamo Improvement Association
El Sobrante Plg. & Zoning Committee Traffic Zone
_IVZ4C
DOIT - Dep.Director, Communications CEQA Exempt
_CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical Exemption Section
Commum,tvy Oraa ' 'ons
i�i ,
Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send
copies of your response to the Applicant & Owner.
No comments on this application.
_Our Comments are attached
Comments: fir.:-. 3 '��.- ,a.�% a t� ��.:• ty�_l ir--�
ignature
Agency
b sf c?-'
S:current nlanninz/temnlates/formsra-,ency conunent request Date/ `
i1^G �O -3 -rid:n
Of,. Bio N. n - �.r.
n
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
SITE DATA REPORT SHEET
f
Parcel No: Date ;?
Locatior. �' �.k� �.. •�.-= Subdivision
Street '-s� t� f�%�. �6� :vt _ Cross
(Fill in the blanks and answer the questions. Be as brief as
possible but cover the site completely. If some knowledge is
.unobtainable, mark a check in front of the number. )
GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY
1. Terrain (ridges , terraces, hummocks, knolls,'! canyons,
etc. )
2. Steepest natural slopes (angle)
r
3 . Height of slopes ''
4. General remarks and description (pasture land, orchards,
etc. ) =`:r'f.� s=
SOIL CONDITIONS
5. Topsoil type (clay, sand shale, silt, rock) s�-r=„Z�
6. Bedding material type (from nearby cuts and
past experience) (rock., conglomerate, sand,
clay, shale, gravel)
C
` .Size of slides: length widthheight
hickness volume
8 . Height of scarps
r
9 . Reactivated - old or new slide k "`_�:
s - ops 1 —
Site Data Report Sheet Page 2
11. Natural, cut, or fill slopes
12 . Direction .-slope is facing 3-5. &,c-Pr— r- IE:5 -4/E ►x, F ��'
13 . 6Wet ,,�or dry 1_gAZ�&iN6_-,11s E
DRAINAGE
14 . Basin boundaries ,
15 . Basin area
IF
16. Excellence of run-off (good, poor, bad) r rn
17 . - Evidence of past flood or standing water 14C-
18 . Approximate number of acres draining to area i�� c—F.;:1ir_
19 . Stream channels (permanent or intermittent) N C-1
20. Any concealment of, or interference with natural channels
SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE
21. Depth of water table
22 : Movement of ground water �cttifl
23 . Seepage and springs (sizes and rate of flow)
r
VEGETATION
24 . YP
25 . Distribution
26. Could the proposed grading be hazardous to any nearby
property?
GENERAL REMARKS ON ANY ABOVE ITEM: List item number' and any .
additional information acquired from past experience in the area .
MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. SITE CHECK COMMENTS
No comments
2 . (a) A grading permit mawill.' be, required for the
earthwork necessary to evelop all parcels in the
above minor subdivision.
[ ] 2. (b) Submit four (4) copies of plans showing the existing
contours, the extent of the proposed grading,
f drainage improvements and general site development.
[ 3 . Plans accompanying the application for building
permits shall show the existing contours, the extent
of the proposed grading and drainage improvements
and shall• be .reviewed by the Grading Section prior
to issuance.
4 . (a) Prior to . issuance of building and/or grading permits
in above minor subdivision, a preliminary soil
investigation report prepared by a licensed soil
engineer will be required. It shall report on the
ability of the site to support the improvements
anticipated, and shall include recommended foundation
designs to achieve maximum stability of the proposed
structures.
[ ►� ] 4 . (b) A licensed soil engineer may be .required to control
grading operations and to report on the ability of
the site to support the improvements anticipated.
( ) 5. The depth and location of the uncompacted fill on
parcel (s) shall be
indicated on the plans accompanying the application
the application for building permits in the above
minor subdivision.
[ ] 6. The existing cut and/or fill on parcel (s)
are in violation of the Contra Costa
County Ordinance ' Codes and shall be corrected prior
to the issuance of building permits in the above
minor subdivision.
[ t✓ ] 7. Typical cross-sections of the proposed access- road
improvements shall be . shown on the above plans.
[ ] 8 . Building foundations shall be designed to counteract
swelling and uplift characteristics of.the expansive
soil at this site.
[ ] 9 . Due to the size of the parcels, we have no specific
recommendations at this time. Grading permits may be
required for future development.
10.
C?t.,?�� •.�.. ��[�.C, ALN= ���'��.i r���-� ��a:�..r.�-`_5,
/17
S, ZFE
' V�' -yrs--��� P K -=1� T .�.'' �- ��.IM V+•�I"i �^(e-aC C� �^k��MiC-S lig
Grading_ Inspector -L , kT, .1u
fix-- ��� •
Contra .Costa County `d" Fire Protection District
Fire RICHTER
KEITHH RIHYDRANT I FIRE SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
TO: ��N��V dCl �}��� DATE: - 7, 2 o
� 7 S o A/ , RE:
L- + C VM
ATTN: /� NQR�• ��5 F l' Cf�C�
F.D. PROJECT#: t� 3
Regarding the subject property, it shall be necessary to provide the following:
FIRE HYDRANTS
❑ Not required
Required (Location(s) as etermined by this office. ❑ submitted.)
See SfF1 S �r/ S for locations.
Number of hydrants T Public or ❑ Private
Specified to be ODS gallons per minute supplied by I hydrants
flowing simultaneously for a duration of I q--0 minutes.
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM
❑ Not required
❑ Required
Residential fire sprinkler systems are required in all homes and require a 1" meter.
Remarks:
Signature for
Protection Agency Date
Print Name K W1 A) Title /' Y
W S.007
Rev.4/03
2010 GEARY ROAD • PLEASANT HILL, CALIFORNIA 94523-4694 TELEPHONE (925) 930-5500 • FAX 930-5592
4527 DEERFIELD DRIVE • ANTIOCH,.CALI FORN IA 94531 • TELEPHONE (925) 757-1303 • FAX 754-8852.
WEST COUNTY AREA TELEPHON= (510) 374-7070 _ .
Contra Costa County p `a Fire Protection District
Fire Chief
KEITH RICHTER
December 2, 2003
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street 4th Floor North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Attention: Ryan Hernandez
Subject: RZ033135, SD03-8784, DP033067, Subdivision 8784, 4765 Blum Road
CCCFPD PROJECT NO. 102283
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the vesting tentative map and development plan application to
establish a 21 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 simultaneously while maintaining
20 pounds residual pressure in the main. (903.3)CFC
This includes the reduction for the installation of automatic fire sprinklers.
2. . The developer shall provide 4 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
❑ 2010 GEARY ROAD • PLEASANT HILL, CALIFORNIA 94523-4694 • TELEPHONE (925) 930-5500 • FAX 930-5592
1 4527 DEERFIELD DRIVE • ANTIOCH, CALIFORNIA 94531 • TELEPHONE (925) 757-1303 • FAX 754-8852
WEST COUNTY AREA TELEPHONE (510) 374:7070 ._
Contra Costa County -2- December 2, 2003
3. 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)CFC
Note: Access roads of 20 feet unobstructed width shall have NO PARKING
signs posted and curbs painted red. Roads 28 feet in width shall have NO
PARKING signs posted, allowing for parking on one side only, and curb
painted red. Roads 36 feet in width allow for parking on both sides.
Driveway to lot 10 shall be constructed of grooved concrete due to grade in
excess of 16 %.
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 for review and approval prior to construction. (902.2.2.1) CFC
6. Access roads and hydrants shall be installed and in service prior to construction.
(8704.1)CFC
7. Approved premises identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall contrast
with their background and be readily visible from the street. (901.4.4)CFC
8. Where open. space is maintained for public or private use, the developer shall
provide access into these areas from the public ways. These access ways shall
be a minimum 16 feet width to accommodate fire department equipment. All
open spaces, when left in their natural state, shall meet the Fire District's weed
abatement standards.
9. The developer shall provide roof coverings with a minimum Class C rating.
Untreated wood shake or shingles are not allowed. (1503)T-24,CCR
10. No flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks shall be located on the
construction site without obtaining approval and necessary permits from the Fire
District.
11. All 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
Contra Costa County -3- December 2, 2003
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.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Kevin Joell
Fire Prevention Technician
KJ/amd
FILE PROJECT 102283.Itr
c: Andrew Morse Construction
957 Stow Lane
Lafayette, CA 94549
CALIFORNIA '< ^,i . .`•: ALAMEDA MARIN SAN MATED Northwest Information Center
HISTORICAL ''; :, COLUSA MENDOCINO SANTA CLARA Sonoma State University
CONTRA COSTA MONTEREY SANTA CRUZ 303 Maurice Avenue
RESOURCES LAKE NAPA SOLANO
SAN BENI70 SONOMA Rohner[Park, California 94928-3609
=�'��'���'�•
INFORMATION '`"`s'•`, '''•., SAN FRANCISCO POLO Tel:707.664.0880• Fax:707.664.0890
E-mail:nwic®sonoma.edu
SYSTEM
December 1.2003 File No.:03-CC-37
Ryan Hernandez, Project Planner
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
Fourth Floor,North Wing
Martinez,CA. 94553-0095
re: SD03-8784: RZ03-3135,DP03-3067,4765 Blum road,Applicant: Janin Assoc.
Dear.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 contains or is adjacent to the archaeological site(s) ( ). A study is
recommended prior to commencement of project activities.
The proposed project area has the possibility of contacting unrecorded archaeological site(s). A study is recommended
prior to commencement of project activities.
The proposed project area contains a listed historic structure ( ). See recommendations in the comments
section below.
Study# identified no historical resources.. Further study for historical resources is not recommended.
XX There is a low possibility of historical resources. Further study for historical resources is not recommended.
XX Review for possible historic structures was limited to the Northwest Information Center documents and should not be
considered comprehensive. Since the Office of Historic Preservation has determined that any building or structure 45
vears 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.
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 archaeological sites should be evaluated using the Cal Register criteria.
_ We recommend you contact the local Native American tribe(s)regarding traditional.cultural.and religious values. For
'a complete listing of tribes in the area of your project,please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at
916-6534082.
Comments:
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
'sAm\k CONTRA COSTA
WATER DISTRICT
s 1331 Concord Avenue
P.O. Box H2O
Concord,CA 94524 `
(925)688-8000 FAX(925)688-8122
November 26, 2003
Directors
Joseph L. Campbell Andrew Morse, President
President
Andrew Morse Construction
Elizabeth R.Anello 957 Stow Lane
Vice President Lafayette, CA 94549
Bette Boatmun
James PrettiSubject: Blum View Estates Subdivision 8784
Karl L.Wanandry � � )
Walter J. Bishop Dear Mr. Morse:
General Manager
Thanks for. taking the time to meet with CCWD to discuss the Blum View Estates
project (subdivision 8784). It was very useful to receive a full size readable map to
help with our review. CCWD understands that this project is undergoing review by the
Contra Costa County Community Development Department (County Staff Ryan
Hernandez, County file nos. RZ033135, SD038784, DP033067). Blum View Estates is
located just east and above the Contra Costa Canal (Canal). As we noted in our
discussion CCWD had the following comments on the proposed project:
1) CCWD wants to ensure that no urban drainage enters the Canal. We support the
use of a concrete "V" ditch to be located below Lots 17 thru 21 and having all
drainage from these properties be returned down Blum Drive to Blum Road. As
we discussed, the plans should reflect a Concrete "V" ditch to capture runoff from
all of lot 17.
2) A property line fence along the Canal right of way is required if one is not already
in place below the proposed subdivision. CCWD regulations require a chain link
fence be located along the Canal property line below the proposed subdivision. It
is possible that there is already a 5 feet chain link fence below the proposed
subdivision and if so no further fencing improvements are required. If only a
barbed wire fence is along the Canal property line or chain link fence less than 5
feet, then it will be necessary to install a new 6 feet chain link fence.
3) To the extent that Blum View Estates requires treated water service from CCWD
please contact Diane Lange (688-8014) or LeeAnn Cisterman (688-8013), in the
CCWD Engineering Department, who can provide further information regarding
the costs to provide such service.
Andrew Morse Construction.
Blum View Estates (Subdivision 8784)
November 26, 2003
Page 2
Again thanks for taking the time to discuss the planning related Blum View Estates. I can be
reached at 688-8119 should you have further questions.
;ry
,
Mark Seedall
Senior Planner
cc: Ryan Hernandez (Contra Costa County Community Development)
E C�
��•://.----gi' p \
f \\
ill
`�i
&1111111i o (1--mils Lli vT -,Iz1
November 10, 2003 (13tt 1f1` of Or '1I!`1`t1 t
4
Mr. Ryan Hernandez— Project Planner warren E.Rupf
Community Development Department Sher
651 Pine Street
4"' Floor, North Wing
Martinez, Ca 94553
Dear Mr Hernandez,
Subject: Subdivision of 8.1 acres into nine single-family lots, ranging in size from 7,034 Sq Ft
to 29,488 Sq Ft. The site is located at 476.5 Blum Rd, in the unincorporated area of
Martinez
RE: County Files #SD03-8784, RZ03=3135, DP03-3067.
Project Description:
This is a request to subdivide 8.1 acres of land into nine single-family lots. A private cul-de-sac will also
be incorporated into this subdivision.. The surrounding area is.comprised of residential property.
The Office of the Sheriff has no objection to this subdivision or the associated rezoning issue. However,
this office has a significant concern with the current configuration of lot 410. This parcel appear to be set
back in such a way as to be completely obscured once construction of lots six thru nine are completed.
Obscured lots, such as lot#10 of this proposal, offer reduce security visibility and have a higher tendency
toward crime. If ultimately approved by Community Development, the Office of the Sheriff will
recommend strong access control and territorial reinforcement when plans for construction are
distributed.
If you should have any additional questions regarding this report, please feel free to,contact the number
listed below.
Sincerely,
Warren E. Rupf. Sheriff.
Office of the Sheriff—Contra Costa County
By:
Michael Voss
Crime Prevention Specialist
Office of the Sheriff-Contra Costa County
Homeland Security Unit
(925) 313-2723
cc Lieutenant Charles Skuce-Muir Station Commander
Sergeant Roger Wilson—Supervisor. Homeland Security Unit.
Janin Associates—Applicant
File
1980 Muir Road • Martinez, California 94553-4800
(925) 313-2500
"C;onzntuni'tr Policing; Since 1850....''
11/ V r/ cuua yJ.LJ r--LA nto DOI oJnu :vAtil. WJuud
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
915 Capitol Mall, Room 364
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone (916) 653-4082
Fax(916) 657-5390
To: Dennis Barry From: NAHC:Julie Bradley
Co.: Contra Costa County Pages: 2 including the cover page
Fax: Date: November 7,2003
Tel: 925-335-1210 CC:
Re: Your Letter dated October 28,2003
O Urgent ❑ For Review
0 Please Comment 13 Please Reply x Per Your Request
• Comments:
We have received a letter(s) dated October 28,2003 (copies attached) asking this office to identify
the Most Likely Descendants and advise of the presence of Sacred Sites in your project area.
Unfortunately,we cannot Riocess your reauest without all of the following information:
1. County in which your project is located.
2. USGS Topographic Quadrangle(topo).
3. Township(shown on topo map). Ex:5N
4. Range(shown on topo map). Ex:9E
5. Section(shown on topo map)..Ex: 25
Thank:you:
If YOU did not r6ceive all pages,-picase call (916)
.0.
11/07/2003 15:25 FAX 916 657 5390 NAHC 16004
Community Contra Dennis M.Barry, AICP
Community Development Director
Development Costa
Department County
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor,North.Wiing
Martinez,Cardornia 94553-0095 _
Phone: (925)335-1210 Date: �G Zs-, C�s
AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST
Werequest your comments recrarili-na the attached application currently under review.
DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as ollows:
wilding Inspection
HSD,Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner
HSD,Hazardous Materials ,�31
gff-Flood Control(FuIl.Size) County F D.e _
/R'-Engineering Svcs aF ull Size) Number: 5 '�� J (c-7
Date Forwarded
PIW Traffic(Reduced) Prior To:_ 1Vny&*i ,r 24 2&x
P/W Special Districts (Reduced)
Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs
Redevelopment Agency' apply to this application:
_Le�tistorical Resources Information System
Ny.Redevelopment Area
CA Fish& Game,Region
US Fish &Wildlife SerQice Active Fault Zone
_
Fire District - s%0 ,'0L
unitary District i✓',U Flood Hazard Area,Panel#
Water D15trict SCO,147-.- s
_ZCity (Ft Ca r+s, P _YeS 60 dEA Noise Control
,ZI—chool District N(4i viz
�SheriFf Office-Admin. '& Comm-Svcs. CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site
_Alamo Improvement Association
El Sobrante Plg. &Zoning Committee Traffic Zone
MAC
DOIT-Dep.Director, Communications CEQA Exempt
CAC_ R-7A Alamo Categorical Exemption Section
...Comm 'tp Or `oma - --- .- - - -• - - ---- - - - - ---- — - - -- -
r ..
Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are rewired by law or ordinance- Please send
copies of your response to the Applicant &Owner.
No comments on this application.
Our.Comments are attached
Comments:
Signature
Agency
S:wrrent planning/templatevforms"enc comment request Date
Office Hours Monday - =riday:8:00. 2.m,-.Bion p.m.
. - - ., '1�....r:•.c r+lnenn !nc �^. �. _. =tom. -urn-mrinV-
957 Slow(Lane
JANIN ASSOCIATES, INC. CA94549
Office FIAM 9348124
Fax(92Ei)931-3947
December 8, 2005
Ryan Hernandez
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine St.,4t' Flr.
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: Blum mew Estates, Pacheco; County File#SD038784
Dear Mr. Hernandez:
We have reviewed the"Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration" by LSA Associates, Inc.
dated December, 2005. In this study, a number of mitigation measures are proposed and we have
carefully reviewed each of them..
We agree with the Mitigation Measures and will incorporate them into Blum View Estates and implement
each of these measures..
Sincerely yours,
Andrew Morse
President
Community Contra Dennis NtT-Dene opine .
I � Commuriify�evelopmenC„f�irector
Development
Costa - _: _.. _-_ :__: __
_� I I
Department
County
1 DEC 0 8 2005
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street -_4:: S.L. ��s_�
4th Floor, North Wing ;;i.`%:;... t.., <. to r,
Martinez,California 94553-0095 =! - CON
ft”,(.r ^° `' � 1
�/ �: f y
6 ��i t?T
Phone: s>;-`�:our•�
(925) 335-1210 DATE: December 9, 2005
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
County File #RZ033135
County File # SD038784
County File # DP033067
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:
Janin Associates Inc. (Applicant & Owner),This project consists of three applications:
A. County File #RZ033135 — A request for approval to rezone 11.56-acres from Single Family
Residential, R-7, and Two Family Residential,D-1, to Planned Unit Development, P-1.
B. County File #SD048818—A request for a vesting tentative map approval to subdivide 11.56-
acres into 27-lots. Twenty-three of the new lots would be developed with the detached
single-family residences (Lots 1 through 23); one lot developed with a single-family home
would remain as such (Lot 27); two lots would be dedicated as open space due to
development constraints (e.g., steep slopes) (Lots 25 and 26); and one lot would be retained
for future development(Lot 24). The average lot size is approximately 8557-square feet.
C. County File #DP043004—A request for approval of a final development plan to establish 23-
single family residences (2200-2400 square feet in size) on 11.56-acres of property.
Approval to remove all trees (17) on site is also requested.
The subject site is located at 4766 Blum Road in the Martinez area. (Zoning: Single-Family Residential,
R-7 and Two-Family Residential, D-1) (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 159-230-004; 159-190-031; 159-
190-024).
The initial studyfor the proposed development identified potentially significant impacts in the following
environmental areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils,
Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Noise, Utilities/Service Systems, and
Mandatory Findings of Significance.. Environmental analysis determined that measures are available to
mitigate potential adverse impacts to insignificant levels. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Office Hours Monday-- Fridav: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 o.m.
Office is ciosed the 1 s . 3rd & 5th =ridays of each month
(MND) has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)(2), 21064.5 and Article 6
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15071), the MND describes the
proposed project; identifies, analyzes and evaluates the potential significant environmental impacts that
may result from the proposed project; and identifies measures to mitigate the adverse environmental
impacts.
With the.inclusion of the mitigation measures the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment. The applicant has agreed to all of the required mitigation measures.
A copy of the negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration may be
reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department and Application and Permit Center at
the McBrien Administration Building, North 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., Monday, January 9, 2006. Any comments should be in writing and
submitted to the following address:
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street,North Wing,2"d Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Attn: Ryan Hernandez
It is anticipated that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a
meeting of the County Planning Commission on January 24, 2006. It is anticipated that the hearing will
be held at the McBrien Administration Building, Room 107,Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez.
Since ely,
Ryan Hernandez
Senior Planner
2
DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
BLUM VIEW ESTATES
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
LSA
December 2005
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
BLUM VIEW ESTATES
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
Ryan Hernandez, Senior Planner
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, Administrative Building, 2nd Floor—North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-1295
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
2215 5th Street
Berkeley, California 94710
(510) 540-7331
LSA Project No. CCC531
LSA .
December 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION................................................................................1
A. SUMMARY INFORMATION ................................................................................................3
I. AESTHETICS...............................................................................................................14
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES...............................................................................15
III. AIR QUALITY............................................................................................................16
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .....................................................................................20
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS...........................................:.................................................26
VII. HAZARDS...................................................................................................................32
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.................................................................36
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING...................................................................................39
X. MINERAL RESOURCES..............................................................................:.............40
XI. NOISE..........................................................................................................................40
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING................................................................................45
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES....................................................................................................46
XIV. RECREATION.............................................................................................................47
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.................................................................................47
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.....................................................................50
XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .....................................................52
C. REPORT PREPARERS .........................................................................................................53
D. BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................53
P'.000533'•PRODUCTS'•dS.MND`.Yublic'•Yublic Dhall Blum Estates IS-A1NDAuc 112/7':005, ]
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional and Project Location.................................................................................................4
Figure2: Aerial View..............................................................................................................................8
Figure 3: Proposed Final Development Plan.........................................................................................10
Figure 4: Recommended Wall Heights..................................................................................................44
TABLES
Table 1: Existing and Estimated Future Noise Environment for Blum View Estates..........................41
Table 2: Required Sound Insulating Performance Ratings for Blum View Estates.............................42
P:'.CCC537lPR0UliCISUS.MYD'Public`Public Drag Blum Eswcs IS-MVD.dm(1217,1:005) ]�
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Name. Blum View Estates
Project Location. The project site is located in Contra Costa County in unincorporated Martinez,
approximately '/2-mile northeast of the State Route(SR)4 and Interstate 680 (I-680) freeway interchange.
Figure 1 provides local and regional vicinity maps of the project site. Figure 2 provides an aerial view of
the project site and its surrounding context. The site is accessed from Blum Road, which is oriented in a
north-south direction from its intercept with Pacheco Boulevard approximately %2-mile south of the
project site (northeast of the SR 4/I-680 interchange).
Description of Project. The proposed project includes the subdivision of three existing parcels on 11.56
acres into 27 new lots, 23 of which would be developed with new, detached, single-family residences.
One of the new parcels(Lot 27)is currently developed with a single-family residence, fronting Blum
Road, and would remain as such when the 23 new units are constructed. Two of the remaining lots(Lots
25 and 26)would be dedicated as open space, and Lot 24 would be a remainder lot that could be
developed with similar single-family units in the future. No entitlements for the development of Lot 24
are requested as a part of the proposed project. The proposed Final Development Plan is shown in
Figure 3.
The project site is located on a hill overlooking I-680, with the grade of the natural slopes generally
ranging from 20 to 30 percent in a southwest direction. The proposed development would maximize use
of the existing grade to the greatest extent possible, utilizing appropriate engineering methods to stabilize
the slope to accommodate the project,including the residential pads and a new roadway.
The project would be designed such that a new,private road,entitled Blum Drive, would provide access
to the homes, extending westward from Blum Road and terminating at a cul-de-sac in the north-eastem
portion of the site. The new road would provide the southern edge of the developed portion of the project
site, and would be improved to provide parking and a sidewalk on one side(i.e.,northern edge), as well as
curbs and cutters to facilitate stormwater drainage. The residential units would be located on the
north/northeastern side of the new roadway. No development would occur south of the roadway, with the
exception of grading necessary to stabilize the hillside underlying the new roadway. Two building plans
are proposed(i.e., "Spanish"and"Italian"architectural styles)which would be interspersed throughout
the 23,new residential lots, each providing two-story houses with a maximum height of 26 feet. Each
floor plan would provide 4 bedrooms, a two car garage, 2.5 bathrooms, and front and rear yard areas. A
homeowners association would also be formed as part of the project to provide the means to improve and
maintain site landscaping, including that on the three open space parcels.
The project site is undeveloped, and is comprised of native and non-native grasses and trees, all of which
will be removed as a part of the project.
The proposed residential use and density is consistent with the existing General Plan designation for the
property.
P`.CCC533',PRODUCrSUS-MND`Public\Public Draft Blain Esula IS-MNDAd (1217,120051 1
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Findings. It is hereby determined that,based on the information contained in the attached Initial Study,
the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. However,mitigation
measures necessary to avoid or reduce to a less-than-significant level the project's potentially significant .
effects on the environment are detailed on the following pages. These mitigation measures are hereby
incorporated and fully made part of this Mitigated Negative Declaration..The project applicant has
hereby agreed to incorporate as part of the project and implement each of the identified mitigation
measures,which would be adopted as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Date..
Ry Hernandez, Senio r
C munity Development Department, Contra Costa County
P%CCC533PRODLCTS•.IS-MNI)Public;Public Drag Muni F.sutn IS-MNDA.I I:i7:005)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. SUMMARY INFORMATION
1. Project Title:
Blum View Estates Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contra Costa County
Administrative Building
651 Pine Street
2nd Floor—North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-1295
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Ryan Hernandez, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Administrative Building
651 Pine Street
2nd Floor—North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-1295
Phone (925) 335-1206
4. Project Location:
As shown in Figure 1,the project site is located within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County,
northwest of the City of Concord and east of the City of Martinez, in the neighborhood also referred to as
Martinez, approximately '/2-mile northwest of State Route 4 and Interstate 680 freeway interchange.
APN: 159-230-004; 159-190-031; 159-190-024
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Andrew A. Morse
Janin Associates Inc.
957 Stow Lane
Layfayette, CA 94549
6. General Plan Designation: Single-Family High Density(SH) and Light Industrial (L-I)
7. Zoning: R-7 (6.2 units/acre) and D-1 (5.5 two-family units/acre)
P CCC533 PRODUCTS`IS-MND`.Public\Public Draft Blum E=Ies IS-MND.dx(12/7/2005) 3
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Figure 1: Regional and Project Location
8x11 color
P'.CCC533�PR000CTS`.IS-'AND..PublinPublic Draft Blunt Esuics IS-M\O.dm i 1217%20051 4
--------------
MARTINEZREGIONAL LOCATION
GUN CLUB
-
AQ Vawv&
Napa
CENTRA `
9y
"a
O Pq
L/F DR. to D
U4 5U P 4 Cawad�
Aaloch
ey dusk
� OUV � Demd6e .
J
San YO
Hayward elmaa
P
EMSHEE `
x"41 LN.
-+--i---i-' C i PER L AUISMN WY. .
ALAN WY. v,. .
SENITA WY. Se .
�( CDSTACO. i
_i ePG RUIN WDRf(5 WAT�,
MW-Ho
Gtr �B
CORPORATION
L�' $9amDa j YARD ..
—__
MIDWAY DR.
J qRl P RANSON
C7
e°aa
zCI° j - lPP45 .. °ate•
'D gt1DGEPp
dt;
mSTA
Fl
c
P0.N0L0 E P A C H E C O �' $ a BUCHAlVl1N'
/raL•,� � � go` �.
., • .«'.�fi w r gyp.
a ro p
MUIR RD' U
Sr
9 t a co 5 HELP/
R.
MARTINDALE DR. N
MPI 6RYCE r a p HAYDEM c �y .t • .-" ..
PARK
DR.
g A p o ��\i80 i � � PMSG - ,.� :j7 r-•�'F''i
V' '� D •j5� a'a tN, %
i ER � � ..J •,
HIDDEN SPRIN LAKE'- •```-"
'..
VALLEY
.:
I
PARK _ v
-- -I Hidden` LAOS/ QPa`~ SPeca
L SA FIGURE I
P` Blum View Estates Project
]v I/� PROJECT SITE Project Vicinity and
0 1000 2000 :i !!! Regional Location
10
FEET
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILEASSOCIATION;LSAASSOCIATES,INC.,2005.
I:/CCC533 blum estates/figures/Fig_l.ai(10/17/05)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
8. Description of Project:
Existing Conditions and Setting
The project site, generally located on a hilltop overlooking I-680 with southwest slopes ranging from 20
to 30 percent,is comprised of three parcels totaling 11.56 acres that are owned by one party (see Figure
2). The project site is irregularly shaped, and generally resembles a reclining"L"shape that extends
westward from a narrow isthmus from Blum Road located between two existing single-family parcels.
The project site widens as it progresses westward until it extends in a northwestern direction adjacent to
the Contra Costa Canal. Elevations on the project site range from 82 to 178 feet above mean sea level.
The existing project site is vacant and undeveloped,excepting the one, single-family residence fronting
Blum Road, and is comprised of native and non-native grasses(e.g.,wild oats,black mustard,creeping
wild rye,narrow-leaf milkweed) and trees(i.e., Almond and Black Walnut)ranging is size from 6 inches
to 2 feet in trunk diameter.
Access to the site is provided from Blum Road,which intersects with Pacheco Boulevard approximately
'/3-mile to the south. The project site is located within an existing single-family neighborhood and, as
such, abuts residential uses to the north,northeast, and south. To the west, at the base of the southwest
sloping hillside,is the Contra Costa Canal,which is located between the project site and I-680, and
transports water from the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta to a Martinez treatment facility for use by
several cities in the area. The Contra Costa Canal Regional Trail does not extend north of SR-4 and,
therefore, is not located adjacent to the project site. To the east is the Contra Costa County Public Works
Maintenance and Corporation Yard. Further north, at the northern terminus of Blum Road, is a paved
trailer park. To the southeast east is the Seasons Cemetery, The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Treatment Facility is located approximately '/4-mile southeast of the project site, and Buchanan Field
Airport is located approximately 3/4-mile to the southeast.
The northwestern portion of the project site is traversed by an existing 16-foot fuel line easement. The
fuel line under laying the easement,referred to as the Ozul fuel pipeline, is owned by the United States
Air Force.' The 8-inch pipeline was used to transport petroleum from a Concord pump station to a
petroleum storage facility in Martinez for approximately 40 years.' In 1999,petroleum operations were
terminated and the pipeline was drained, cleaned, and pressure tested to assess if leaks were present, of
which, none were identified.' To control internal erosion, the pipeline is filled with nitrogen gas. To
control external erosion,a cathodic protection system is operated.' The Defense Logistic Agency(DLA)
manages the pipeline,and is responsible for any monitoring and cleanup activities related to the pipelines
The project site has two General Plan designations: Single-Family Residential High and Light Industrial.
The General Plan designation for the portion of the site to be developed with residences is Single-Family
Residential High(SH), which allows 5.0 to 7.2 dwelling units per net acre, and the site is zoned R-7
1 AEI Consultants,2005. Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report for 24-Acre Vacant Parcel,APN 159-230-004,
Martinez, California, 94553,August 25.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
P:\0005331PRODUCISVS-MNDU'ublic\Public Draft Blum Ei atcs IS-MND.dm(12/7/2005) 6
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(Single-Family Residential with 6.2 units per acre)and D-1 (Two-Family Residential with 5.5,two-
family units per acre). The proposed project would develop the site with single-family lots ranging from
4,750 square feet to 19,741 square feet for an average lot size of 8,557 square feet, or 5.09 units per net
acre, consistent with the General Plan designation for the site.
Proposed Lots 24 and 25 are designated Light Industrial (L-n,however no development is proposed on
either of these two parcels at this time. Lot 24 would be developed at some future date, and Lot 25 will
be dedicated as open space as part of approval of the proposed residential subdivision.
Proposed Project
The following section describes the proposed residential project, its associated site improvements and
preparation, construction and phasing, and requested entitlement approvals.
a. Residential Development. The proposed project consists of 23 new, detached, single-family
residences on individual lots. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is being requested by the applicant to
reconfigure three existing parcels,totaling 11.56 acres, into 27 new parcels.Twenty-three of the new lots
would be developed with the detached single-family residences(Lots 1 through 23); one lot developed
with a single-family home would remain as such(Lot 27); two lots would be dedicated as open space due
to development constraints(e.g., steep"slopes) (Lots 25 and 26); and one lot would be retained for future
development (Lot 24). With an average lot size of 8,557 square feet,individual parcels would vary from
4,750 to 19,741 square feet, resulting in a net residential density of 5.09 units per acre.
A Final Development Plan is also requested, as depicted in Figure 3,to establish building footprints,
setbacks, lot coverage/floor area ratio, site improvements, and building design, architecture and detailing.
The residential lots would be located on the north and northeastern side of the new roadway intended to
service the development. No development would occur south of the new roadway,with the exception of
grading to stabilize the hillside underlying the new roadway. Two building plans are proposed(i.e.,
"Spanish"and"Italian"architectural styles)and would be interspersed throughout the 23 new residential
lots, each providing two-story houses with a maximum height of 26 feet. Each floor plan,ranging from
2200 to 2400 square feet, would provide 4 bedrooms, a two car garage, 2.5 bathrooms, and front and rear
yard areas. A homeowners association would also be formed as part of the project to provide the means
to improve and maintain site landscaping, including that on the two open space parcels.
b. Landscaping and Open Space. All 17 existing Almond and Black Walnut trees located on the site
would be removed as a part of the approval of the Final Development Plan, in accordance with the Tree
Protection&Preservation Ordinance. A conceptual landscape plan for the residential development is on
file with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. All front yards and slope areas
would be landscaped at the time of initial construction. The slopes between the residences and the two
open space parcels would be hydroseeded with grasses and wildflowers, and planted with shade trees.
Similar landscaping would be planted at the entries to each residence, street trees would be planted along
Blum Drive, and other groundcovers, accent plants, shade trees, and screening trees would be planted on
the site. "Good neighbor"fences(finished both sides)would be built along side and rear lot lines, and
Versaloc or similar type retaining walls would be integrated throughout the site,but would generally be
located behind and between units, thereby hidden from public view. Where visible,retaining walls would
be of decorative design with a"versa-loc" style. The homeowners association established for the project
would maintain the landscaped areas.
P:\CCC53I\PRODUCfSVS-MND\P.blicV'ublic DnR Blum Estam IS-MND.d.(17/72005) 7
i .
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Figure 2: Aerial View
8x11 color.
P:`CCC533\PRODI;CTS`IS-MND'•PublicV'ublic Draft Blum Esutm IS-MNDdm(1::72005) 8
' �M1r.ri"�' � 'r5�%:�"s',o:�:.''\r:'�5't w,,'').:�.� 7���ta{'•I t+'.
t, �r1 •'}•'Z�.U�.AiS ,:t<•;- •: ..Y„l7 .;A r; �.R• •y r.• 'n .•i
I4�:+t.,v:,`:,�;;SL�yi�L:'✓:R;'v,,,JA ..St•��.i ��`;,:.:{''1- :r`.may• ,.y!�._,�y1 ':\'. ••+A,:�t.���S � •
,yr. w4.�u,Y�>�)!t+•w '".'J :Y:,:Yr.`''7'v,;', .,ir.i`e'-K1�',,.'"'•N:' r,` :,1 r.LtA ..
,?�at 3. r.:K:;" �+`a".y;.'.}. _.wi .t,,, •R,- :F�:::::.,tr;::. � ��y��_ -y� _
:•.S'!�,\' 'i'y`..'` �:J^h•:'+s• .�,1;. `"'?,'' -)', T,,.�"..r''`•` • LM:':r y��.-s :'t:'±,::.•,,• JA':Y�4.�1-
•'{"T't � »�'- 1':•�g7::a„fir,''�;i•. `�'�!•. •.>;�?"-`-'�J !>y '` t�•,.,.�..w�:- �.1,
t='.j� 'a• r! ';�;y,. `��'`' �is`'-c`;::L.'.''->+t.':x•`r .::C,.;, '�i: �:� .N.:.r•. 'i:.,
_ ,Ysi;:>��{-_ �.gyf�`. �.%At,'f°+ry+'"1 �y;�.3'..�'_r,.Y; - r.�'b",- :',•.` Vt�:',`, :� !:.:.7'"+=- iY d�r
�ja:y,.�.q .'•'-:'T. _ .,e.'�'r'i _ '!'j v:t.: ', _ ,l =A 7 � '�R �4;, �i..
,M�; .lv��+,a,(j�:.+:yd#,•...'- rJ:::. ;�.:t'" 4,J:y<;s,: , ''i�' :,s
.:,q,w: y....r:r��• �7` �:�.....-+:,•l._ !Iia,,�.yi• ,.•�. '.... ",h 4'�' ,t i::. .t �?'t:.•,.. _ •'�j• }}\\ ,�.1^ q •Zi 1.(•r.
',}'.;'' >�a yn.,,t y '!Y. y'�ft_�2 .•�: '�>�L :':R:. 'r I. •y., r. .�'�.
r '� •r ',1 -ir 's: .."•d 'f• -•d;:�:�.,' ry.;:�.+'},.� 't'� •'�4',r-; �"�'�•,,,:�.`.. •rt�•'ts
:' �• .^' t'<...:-,� ,� `• '�•'• :{ 'F'a'n. ti1r�'��aJ•<�..;;i4,r°af•'i+ 1s'.^:s :h=a�. •{,� �,t.., .:ry;•J:.: .t.
.4f „4; �K:•"•.:
'r >x�s,.?t[-t':, <r_ p .y`w.tgr+rS.• ^r. _1'.}iC..: .:z:Y ,+:`�y,.;?,;;6:.. �z ''s" .�\:ys.. :.aar ,J' cA:•,,
.•� ,. y J: _ ...5, a'f••„ ,jry..
•'�c.. ..'�-"� ?t'�i=`,'v i'� ,`f'�t't s'¢' `,�,NT
.�_,: ,73 :rg1�'�f�'t °3'. .-_" •1; .Lrrry'x_.._.�'Mf`"w,�f�n. .Ll� -fi"`•:±f-.:it '.t:�:�`.:i �k..'' '�t, ,�3. .�,a�3r,=i':..
r. .s J•:r
r •s1_ r .�, •. u.: .:�`.'.', �h'4'x;??;a :Q'.. +t^.tt 1TM,s t' - - 'S,:�Y... ':it,
i
.y,F •
t #�
� •a
.} ''Y..'}!' •'t�•• `..ice+::.:}�
6,..1-. v1'n...�l";:.•s`"...• moi`?. :%r�N.. .. s' .,.: .-�.^s:., :,�•','i.:i
;1' Y. '`i.�'• .F3' tt `'a. .. r„1•'r::1'� t' 'r�.,a�:•,'.�':� :/..r�,.e, �, \` .a•:°,,:
F'a. 16.:••1 \^' '''` rf\:�•/�i'.r••`•,7 ia1. .1:� M - ' : ..J .y + ^?. .yX
`KT ;7'. .y;>�1":.,`+v"'�t_s,��;.° .i' '; �`' �'" ,, ,� j' "`�.�r% ",k,3r,,;Gg; .i�;':`i -•r,:"•9•'�.sEi: �a
.,.r��:.. ' .t.; 1•{ � q: "` i='?S �r,'-.e�'`•''1:!h. �: f' � .,tier{,::.r, ��'F
"'\,., ,'f•F.:.'�+yet::_'::l�v. f" yd:;^ �' _ ,j'•µ �'a t t�.;
J ,:.r. �,'4-J.•j: 1=' .%;:�
,
t "'a::; f ,f..`.. `'q;'k ,-<1,.s�, „'S�^,, t�„' w+�:.•. r� <.'rti .
�`:�d yt�t�Ar4s:ji.Fv? �J'Y ����'.Y ?, :.• '#�` A;? yyr,'=,• ,"J�T�c. J, '`�;��+:+f�i���.�� 'ft�-Jti;..'" �,,� 5�.:.:;,
- ,'x,. ..;�ty°,';1 i: ani,'. `..t t �t�.#..t}�j�,V `f�� .,,, _ `�y l�''j �i. .�� •, �•31M�:�•.'f,.+��''y
YYY.. - -v-ty:,_�'l!S,;• �.;'i., .';qs.`r
\• '�`t`t+'�a.'.:1'=.
i+••:!• ':ty� ., ,. '�1''. .•�:l`F� �',2. ''•" �.'
'" '�.��,;,'`..,-:(:V:S4��` n'��`;'4�'',ti�•' '�:� � "��, YVl1r �'.' '`�'''.`_' :t�'�•1 }_�.. :Ati.
?'' '
.,\ Y vl-:_.,.i�t.�. . •�- ate ',}ate •^; _ y1� ,,s'
>..''v st,.J:_•.• .w :�s,,,, � _ 1=4 r4, •Gi2`t 1 �f'?.�' :f,.�' r-.�:..
:.L' :r.;}'.s;: r 7'•'{. �l.a,a;.:.,{t. `.:_.:' ?r';;a'f.+. :.` �':?:R .:4 k,�..at';,
:s:$;:a:`. '•i(}I+ ..1ti1 v ,\..�^ +>te `.;c.., ,3,;�,:� :f= ~a. jg, .-:1 _ c.' 1. ,'t.
�}1ti. i' °.,:,.•.rCt.,
i>., z;, ...} ,�y';,��:�.:1 '.',Vf?. s`' V;+,,'r.:t'� ems. r�C `Y�.1�••"'� _ ..� .Jr,':4„. ..r;P �.7•"
•.��tif,, +ci,'f �/ KS�a .•''4s-t' K,'Y:. !:}•: V-, '�• _./:, / f�.t�'r:i iAll,
'"'�i'v�'�+a}'�•'
.a i.c"Yc;i' r try• :t. ,..1,";{;.X,k�:n S, :r� :\' ✓d• _ 't.;1+2,'.•,,E�:�.•� Yj'/�� -'.
-.lw>•:rt4.•'+r i< [[�� '�ySs�s� i�•'a7,• ,..r,e ..k:v'""'>•:'. ,'/ • ^`"°''^.j• '�f ` :iR:.. (%;`si^y�.:`�e �,?`..,
'ti w -:,.a:,.V,./!-}I:.,.�.='ay :tia. .. _ ti 11/.i;� - .Z S •... -,y r. s
_ sr�`: .: •''iil;t�•-''?�.,- 'c-:• t� w- �, a,.".i,�f�a , ?;y':�;^ '.xfi��'..:.-! im:`•':+� .It�:
�S.R%�*:`'�: �'J ,.Y i"-i�3p..: .� ,+1i': c��`'rj•'.� - � mn.
,,•.Et;"�jT":.�i•t+";"1,�.,.C,.,�.5�`.?�V.:',>•*,�(Y�':�s,��::.rE>•'••ay,,��nV:. ').,;,;�#2",•-`,'�'�.,.,,',P�� ...^'K:�',,,'dr�,,s-���,x.�•' r,::•',r:tt'•r;,-t.,...-:'.-.wM..-`�',.�,\+.!,.. f ; i`'`,:..{Li. csY'.::a:-1.i:'a-'.� ,(-w'.,%"icf, ''„;•'.�.lF#�'.•4i''a.;S:.�..".�'r',Sj.'s,t=j.'$'•..+�s-'•>'yr,..r.�,•x,•.'' :�M�
, L
71. :,':s,�r-TF'i,-Ifs-t..;'.t'-,•„•
_a1ti; .:�Ji:� '•s:;��, �,tr
{ +. i✓'v"&1 �r:Fr ;.''Z, @�: Z; .. .,t`'% ::'r :_',yi,....i. ;� 14=-':.pr
'# _ � .7+'t ,.s ..x,•. - _�. ;:n-:�. .`ua•:!�. w, ti'c �" .l.. ''R.+ys.yy uz �'., �•`•+.t' :�-��E:
i!:� r�` "ti)�" - ..:� ,':�' Y"�•kt.+r?. r: ..l ....�-"n;l,-,n
n� � �..%.��/�"Q,
•,.`,p', :7 ��,,2 t,> `w '�,' i;... •t'` • l :V-`--1 t:. � t*L�.,�'.�:�,..5.,••. •�i{'`{�s•?}{'. �,,�'°i.,y'<',.
i Y__•,L - .6'�M�r'� .� ' �`.•.G { .. �5�. -y}.`tw�fu-'1y1 `'i•<A .. i�I..y7'•'J^•?:�"4.i, fR.
.F. -r `,.� n'h 4'�i.al„•f) :`�y 'S'• !�� -Rte.:• !•s� - _ '-.i ',<:�br:�1,'T•, .f.';�':�.. `�ti;�• :�.,:.•.�iF� ��t�.,;',(h.','�,s�,...+
'r. � /-�R tt.. i .�r� 's:: .7.• 6' r.' '� S' V,i
J.,,C, �:,•: ` .yam t\��:'' vJ=;,. . ts.,` 1��R"'� ii'� �.t �'. .. C kR ;-� ��:5�"..� :a(
' So,., .y.:,.tig 'a �v.i:,c v.' r£j�.4 �� :.u' ,}r .C•,, ,Ml`-'cp�"a'"�,'yyr$.id!/�. ,!sfyf•. 7 r/: � "S'• j y ��,'4.
;,l:l.^,1°[[ +'�1`C.� / K'� Y'i s.{a`::�.isi'4 ',4 � K-t•:, .1+: t� •:;� _ .M1 -��` v'.i:�., ,;•i7,a,• (/ / ♦ '.'lY.t 4y+,.\_•�`�s_+.
, "ly' a.+l+• r•:/R.�:ti' �:�•` .:.Y•4'C? �r 'k.' 'iI- 'n'r C;�":4:._,2',=i' ::� - =1.V'+�.1�•' '•,Ir; 1.i>:: J�=';�'� '.
'{'?jY •"�. •�• 'iJ'. '"'�/ ,� ,?.., ..•,�; `'�. �•� ...E r,r�•�-p•.< :�• .;\".�'",'}^ �;Z'•;'.Q:'^ :'-r;�,t' �t':%5,�,,,r •.1�t. .t'�•.�i
W.,lt, ',
6: 3 ". .t .J' •�•�•'t; :. •;+
a FFF >'f,,v: 4• J't' (p�� ''••+S f 'Y y 1'M
(�.�_yi .\1,::�, ;�- ;t. a ti..,`1st.r•`n �, � (� .s:+��,l�KK,Ck'. �;�'� i«;n 't+�5=.', '✓i.'' V`.�.
ilk, ` `•!i'�v :a_f,�y, �';�t� ,.#'h.na •''a \,,n%•`;t, �`•^ C�.. � .^..1�'-r- "�,; y, �.`•' :;J,,., � a\���yy�,�F; } o..
�`�.,;?+�2 ♦ RD{.,x.,, •v ,s,n7.-,'o-*'-'`G':`. ��.,`}.•.•', . ,` :. yz'31•L py"..Rlt...
:4,:•, '�� * `:�. �Fi:� 'wry+;+.,?�v'Ti`,..a.r?t':� '`+„`y`_ ,yam •� �•i t'.,.>�w��.31s�v..:
ii,4u ♦ �j1s �gi a' w ._4t `� i s
ridFey J tys w
n,:!t ''�.• �. ;'�t; - tL�;;N�...�'',ks: �,,�"!tqt `,� '. r,<•_ ,: ; T' ♦ "i4
Nli
`p'" �''�`L 'kr4t=:�'',;�:::.'+":/;;_.',� ,,'.: ';y ,,r � r ++tic• ! -f.� � '�'�",'�; 'w.�
as, 'f. ,'S:k'_ tr �, s• � ,;' k;,,h 5'`+ir�'rJ
•9is:, ,'. •.i^;, `'?� ":1:, •-iF` /jay �;:ts9!tt'+.::lkw 4 .•. ii .t"�'.fP- '„aj' .` F� : •:i moi'.'. $ �rJ+'
-'• i.-�!r s.''� 1 .-k^•r ;l ;� '«- ..:? 3.,ds';ti,;ti' `�''•t!`:,'.:J�,..3J.' ?'' � e;..,.. •.,::
lt. •�' vi S
4S7
-°ti.'S'-.�;,.4; _� +y.,. �; ><;� 'ur�":�a.s:. .•.�,E :,�.•�t•,""":.�• i.±. h'S. F:r� .�. i= 1 .y ,
?,y+yrr�;:, l.� `�' . !`4 '�q,ti', r;,��: .".'•rte`; Ic�y{�.�;� ::R�.:a+;-.;,,:.i _ ;.•r`°+'.k� ,{ `''��'.;- �'"•.�j;`! '�'e�.': `�� '-t;�./� ._+.fi,
:,,,�., '�A. cat�.�� f.�,nq k:��;•, Ye ,r •.r^�. q�..,,. ~,,�;,\ r�'��'� •te�.�'����a.' ��� ��' •� ,:�.'^�ff't'
.._ �Cl• a.. > a,�I.D... � -y'" ,:i•' K' �JJ `y�-. 1 ��r,'t.' .. ` e.
f:r}. s:�`t`:. 71" ,,�.:}.;`:4. ` �'•_1'. •fJ> '� '� ,?F
tel':;.=` S+• ,."�•L`� .:�:•__a �1• .. .
y _ � \�`',;�.5 s ,;.. :� ,err 5a�. �n:Y ,k° �+;,.-:� 'r,}i(��r•.
"a?'-,K. ! .'ia'ty. `i ,i�� •6I � :'}+�.�. '�`r` ,...r�•• ��:a,» _ .I,• ��.. - "',j`��'�f
"5� .`.v' ::. Y• {y a0•Ws-."'1 `� a 3{n hi, �'1. `��� r,5
''{ ':s nx f• l :fi ��',y��4 .
.:�f:'., 1 '. � :t:'.%�z�.•J -:6,r., 1°!',*'F. � �, ,,�,y,��'�•�� r '+` .�i 441:5.
,� �' � s - �4`` �: .fir 'd =w -C;^ t�` -:: .,.,, s;.i•.
,S'q.: .LRM'`.,.sr,#q' �' •`_ �«�Y� 'tifi +�7 _ ��,P q:�'� �' .�`}:',:a r,,.'�.�a•.�i5,,�,,. ��:;� >,�,�.'.i• +.
i `a!-:%;•i.;.,•art. ?{':�'?'..'J r� ♦ ,��,a,. ,�;- Afm ,tr��,tr.Q'f*l��t _ v 'a. '. -,rn.t':1.), V�; �•�'- +•-` .'��J
f at•4•- r.j•, .`.,15;t ,1,• dJ,'.'=.CL �a fn' d '�' T=,�J�; d��_,`` tit�i✓ "r�ti',t~<',a�.j�'7�`3.';A'.,�/q(f...!- '.,;�J/t'irr''.
a `-if". :.��, 4'i ,4-,i �.:.v�,jf�'� ,A�y,, a n Win'' ;r"ra'.•��` "r'',I�t ��-'f il.,. "",�` y� `. _ i i.
h •.�s.� �`. A,�,W ���id "Y -`�\ } > ��.:i:^:."^ „ rw�i' t.4i .17 = "Vf+;��':+. _, }. ry>� '�'' .:Fy.' �'iJ��'
,{ ;f ��=• £). - fir,' 4 , .� >F �,'.�> .u" �,.,„.-..�,i,*
A%'.. _ - 'r�•: .0:�,nr' i�' - >:. ,n i a�'.��:. . Z,,,)S'�v)�" \R+ �`�_ ..a:+.} � :�s;;=i>;
�A'�:'J-,.}i5+`' ""4' •• �+� � .i '1 ,\ '' jot t+�,} '`'W.��„�' Oar '�\J,\\::%:�'.+Y��'4��.
f;.,'•^•'t4� r,'d J. .N •:;,','"M:. a'S. .� i'' '{�•}. ��� .4x"a�h'i.• ('SY�RY
,.. ti.- i •F ':s..:s= 4:s'a r-+F• �4' ` y'' �; �^j4SV
.:•'f ;�`. .^."x•.,�'•a,;;�,,:.. „�!r •5, + :. t'�C 1G%7. iM1'x Q' �ZeW sta
tes Project
V e, w
G� pg,OJ6 'AREA
N
660
330
FEET PLORER+2004
GLOBEX teslP�E 2ai��jj2105�
jO(CCC53 blum estateslfiSu 1
ell
Cn
o Pa
o� N
` %TH' O
IPR
i
\L \
.i
t f rd i
� a
� o
d
lur '
LJi
s,. y
N
\\ \\ H d
\ U
Al
P
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
C. Transportation,Circulation and Parking. The project would be designed such that a new road,
entitled Blum Drive, would provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the new houses, extending
westward from Blum Road and terminating at a cul-de-sac in the north-eastern portion of the site. The
new road would be located along the southern edge of the developed portion of the project site, and would
be improved to provide parking and a sidewalk on one side(i.e.,northern edge),as well as curbs and
gutters to facilitate stormwater drainage. Blum Drive would be designed to accommodate two vehicular
lanes, curbs and cutters, and a sidewalk on the north side. The overall right-of-way would be 40 feet
wide, with a curb to curb width of 28 feet wide,thus allowing for on-street parking on the north side of
the street only. Each residence would have covered parking within a two-car garage, as well as driveway
width and length large enough to accommodate two,uncovered parked vehicles. Infrastructural utilities
(i.e., sanitary sewer,potable water, gas, and electricity)would be extended from Blum Road via
underground conduits in Blum Drive to each of the new residences.
e. Site Preparation. Site preparation would include removal of all trees,and extensive hillside
grading and slope stabilization to develop the 23 new residential pads and roadway alignment. The
project has been designed to minimize grading qualities and depth to the greatest extent possible given the
20 to 30 percent southwestern facing slopes of the site by moving dirt around on the site through cut and
fill techniques thereby resulting in an overall hillside engineered height and slope resembling the existing
natural hillside.
E Construction and Phasing. Details of the construction and phasing are not known at this time;but
are anticipated to take approximately 15 to 18 months once construction of the units commences.
g. Approvals. The applicant has requested the following County approval of the following
entitlements:
• Rezoning of site to Planned Unit District(P-1)
• Final Development Plan
• Vesting Tentative map
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The proposed project is surrounded by large and small lot, single-family rural and suburban development
to the north,northeast, and south. Interstate 680 (I-680) is located directly west of the site. Figure 2
provides an aerial of the project site and surrounding area, which generally depicts the following
surrounding land uses.
• North. To the north of the project site, in the area adjacent to Blum Road,is an existing,rural single-
family neighborhood. The project site wraps around a 2.35-acre vacant parcel located at the western
terminus of Hillside Drive, also designated for similar single family uses. Northwest of the project
site is an additional 9.08-acre vacant parcel located at the terminus of Emshee Lane that is also
designated for future single-family development. Further north,beyond the rural single-family
development is a paved trailer park that is bounded on its northwestern edge by the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe railroad.
• East. Across Blum Road, to the east, is the Contra Costa County Public Works Maintenance and
Corporation Yard(County Yard). Southeast of the project site, and south of the County Yard, is
P'•CCC533%PRODUCTSVS-AIND`IPublic\Public Drall Blum Egaim IS-MND.dm(12,'7/2005) 11
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 9005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Seasons Cemetery. Northeast of the project site, and north of the County Yard, is additional single-
family development.
• South. Immediately south of the project site,in the area west of Blum Road and north of I-680, are.
single-family, large-lot rural residences.
• West. The western edge of the project site is bounded by the Contra Costa Canal,which is bound
further west by I-680.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required or may be necessary (e.g., permits,financing
approval, or participation agreement) for the proposed project include:
• Contra Costa County Public Works
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
P:`.CCC573•BRODUCTS\IS.MND�.Public\Public Draft Blum Estaim IS-MND.dm(11,'7,2005) 12
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. - BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
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.
■ Aesthetics O Agricultural Resources ■ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Geology/Soils
■ Hazards&Hazardous Materials ■ Hydrology/Water Quality O Land Use/Planning
O Mineral Resources ■ Noise O Population/Housing
O Public Services O Recreation O Transportation/Traffic
■ Utilities/Service Systems ■ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Determination.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
O I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be pre-
pared.
O I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
O I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact'or"potentially signifi-
cant unless mitigated"impact 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. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only.the effects that
remain to be addressed.
O I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because
all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required.
4wf oy-
Signature Date
Ryan Hernandez, Senior Planner
Community Development Department, Contra Costa County
P:\CCC533\PRODUCIS\IS-MND\Public\Public Draft Blum E=im IS-MND.dm(12n;7005) 13
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Potentially
Checklist Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not
limited to,trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
The Contra Costa County 2005 General Plan identifies scenic resources,routes, and corridors as areas
that are aesthetically pleasurable and geologically or historically important, such as major ridges,
waterways,rock outcroppings, isolated hilltops, strands of trees, and other natural features. The project
area consists of a steeply sloped, undeveloped hillside. The proposed project is a residential development
with 23, two-story detached single-family residences.
While the project site is not in the vicinity of a scenic resource nor is it a designated scenic resource in the
General Plan,it would develop a vacant hillside site located adjacent to I-680,thereby impacting views of
the site as seen from the traveling public. Open Space Element policy 9-14 requires high quality
engineering of slopes to minimize damage to the site's visual quality, and that slopes of 26 percent or
more, such as that on the project site, are not desirable for conventional cut-and-fill pad development.
The proposed project has been designed,however, such that the overall natural grade of the site would be
retained, and visual impacts from creating building pads and the.new roadway would be minimized.
Implementation of the following implementation measure would ensure that design and materials used for
the retaining wall visible from I-680 would blend into the hillside landscape,thereby ensuring that views
of the site. As a result, impacts to scenic vistas from the proposed project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure AESTHETICS-1: The retaining wall located on the perimeter(i.e.,
south/southwest edge)of the project site shall be constructed of a material and color that would
blend into the natural hillside landscape.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
The project site does not include any portions of a State scenic highway and is not located in the vicinity
of a State scenic highway.'
6 California Department of Transportation,California Scenic Highway Program--http://www.dot.ca.gov
P:,000530,PRODUCfSUS-MND`%Public\Public Draft Blum Esulu IS-MND.da(177!1005) 14
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
The existing visual character of the project site is represented by an undeveloped, steeply sloping hillside
covered with native and non-native grasses and trees. The proposed project would develop the site with
23 new,detached, single-family residences and would include the removal off all existing vegetation.
The character of the site would change from hillside open space to a hillside, suburban neighborhood.
The existing visual character of the surrounding area is comprised of large-lot rural/suburban.
neighborhoods, and the proposed project would be similar in character. This proposed change to the
project site's character is consistent with the existing General Plan designation and zoning for the site,
and would not degrade the character of the site.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
The proposed project would create a new source of light and glare in the area. Preliminary landscape
plans for the project site include streetlights, and there would be additional exterior lighting associated
with the new residences and landscaping. The following mitigation measure would reduce this potential
light and glare impact to less than significant levels:
_Mitigation Measure AESTHETICS-2: Outdoor lighting associated with the proposed development
shall be designed and located to minimize ambient light levels for any given application, consistent
with public safety standards. Lighting shall be placed in areas of pedestrian activity and at building
.entrances, and shall be minimized elsewhere. Ornamental,pedestrian scale lighting fixtures shall
be utilized to the degree possible. Lighting fixtures shall be designed to minimize glare, direct light
downward onto the project site, and shall be shielded to prevent overspill of light onto other
.properties. No lighting shall blink, flash or be of unusually high intensity or brightness.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially. finless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
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 a non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a
Williamson Act contract?
P`•cCC533\PRODUC'rSUS-MND\Public\Publi,DWI 81—E=lm IS-MND.d.(121712005) 15
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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?
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 a non-agricultural use?
While the project site may have originally been used for agricultural purposes,it has not been utilized as
such for approximately 40 years. Additionally,the project site is classified as"Urban and Built-Up Land"
by the State Department of Conservation, and is not identified as agricultural land in the County's 2005
General Plan Conservation Element. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not
convert Farmland to non-agricultural uses.
b) Conflict with existing zoningfor agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
The project site is not zoned for agricultural uses and is not operated under a Williamson Act contract.
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?
As described in Section Il.a, above,the project site is not identified as Farmland and, therefore,would not
result in the extension of infrastructure into an undeveloped area or other physical changes that would
result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the fol-
lowing determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
P:\CCC533%PRODUCTS`IS-MND\Public\Public Draft Blum Ematm IS-MND.dm(:-';7/20051 16
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standard(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concen-
trations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ® �.
of people?
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county,or region
classified as a nonattainment area. The main purpose of an air quality plan is to bring the area into com-
pliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality standards. To bring the San Francisco Bay
Area region into attainment, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD)has developed
the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2000 Clean Air Plan(CAP). The air quality plans use the
assumptions and projections of local planning agencies to determine control strategies for regional
compliance status. Since the plans are based on local General Plans,projects that are deemed consistent
with the applicable General Plan are usually found to be consistent with the air quality plans.
Development of the proposed project would not significantly change the overall buildout scenario for
Contra Costa County envisioned in the County's 2005 General Plan and, therefore,would not conflict
with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD's 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan or the 2000 Clean Air
Plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would occur over the short term in associa-
tion with construction activities such as grading and vehicle/equipment use. Long-term emissions would
result from vehicle trips associated with use of the project site. The following discussion describes
potential air quality violations that could occur as a result of. construction equipment exhaust emissions;
fugitive dust; long-term vehicular emissions; and local carbon monoxide hot spots.
Construction Equipment Exhaust Emissions. Construction period emissions would result from
implementation of the project. Construction activities are a source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in
adhesives,non-waterbase paints,thinners, some insulating materials and caulking materials would evap-
orate into the atmosphere and would participate in the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone.
Asphalt used in paving is also a source of organic gases for a short time after its application.
P:tCCC533\PRODI;CTS'JS.MND`hblicWublic D,.R Blum Ewt.IS.MNDA.(12.17/2005) 17
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
During construction various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment would be in use. In 1998, the Cali-
fornia Air Resources Board(ARB) identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air
contaminant(TAC). ARB has completed a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks
for a range of activities using diesel-fueled engines. High volume freeways, stationary diesel engines
and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic(e.g., distribution centers and truck stops)
were identified as having the highest associated risk.
Health risks from toxic air contaminants are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure.
Unlike the above types of sources, construction diesel emissions are temporary, affecting an area for a
period of days or perhaps weeks. Additionally, construction-related sources are mobile and transient in
nature, and the bulk of the emission occurs within the project site at a substantial distance from nearby
receptors. Because of its short duration, health risks from construction emissions of diesel particulate
would be a less-than-significant impact.
Construction Dust. Construction dust would affect local air quality at various times during construction
of the proposed project. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months creates a high
potential for dust generation when and if underlying soils are exposed. Clearing, grading and
earthmoving activities have a high potential to generate dust whenever soil moisture is low and
particularly when the wind is blowing.
The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of particu-
lates downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the potential to create a nuisance at nearby
properties or at previously completed portions of the proposed project. In addition to nuisance effects,
excess dustfall can increase maintenance and cleaning requirements and could adversely affect sensitive
electronic devices.
Emissions of particulate matter or visible emissions are regulated by the BAAQMD under Regulation 6
"Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions." Specifically,visible particulate emissions are prohibited
where the particulates are deposited on real property other than that of the person responsible for the
emissions and cause annoyance.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce fugitive dust-related air quality
impacts to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, the following measures
shall be required of construction contracts and specifications for the project and implemented at all
construction sites:
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at
least two feet of freeboard.
• Pave, apply water three times"daily, or apply(non-toxic) soilstabilizers on all unpaved access
roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
7 California Air Resources Board,Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled
Engines and Vehicles,October 2000.
P:\CCC533\PRODUCTS`IS-MND�Public\Public Draft Blum Enatm IS-MND.da(12/72005) 18
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
• Sweep daily(preferably with water sweepers)all paved access roads,parking areas and staging
areas at construction sites.
• Sweep streets daily(preferably with water sweepers)if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent public streets.
Hydroseed or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.
Enclose, cover,water twice daily or apply(non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles(dirt,
sand, etc.).
Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Long-Term Emissions. The proposed project would develop 23 new, single-family homes on a
predominately vacant site with one, existing single-family home located adjacent to Blum Road. Based
on ITE Trip Generation average rates,the project would generate approximately 220 daily trips and 23
peak hour trips to the local roadways. The increase in long-term vehicular emissions generated by the
proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the BAAQMD's operations threshold and would have a less-
than-significant impact on local and regional air quality.
Local CO Hot Spots. The primary mobile source pollutant of local concern is carbon monoxide(CO),
which is a direct function of vehicle idling time caused by traffic flow conditions. While CO transport is
limited,it does disperse over time with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions.
Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations proximate to a congested roadway
or intersection may reach unhealthy levels affecting local sensitive receptors (e.g.,residents, school
children, the elderly, and hospital patients). Typically,high CO concentrations are associated with road-
ways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes.
The distance of 1-680 from the project site is far enough,however, that CO hot spots on the freeway
would disperse to less than significant levels before reaching the homes at the project site. Intersections
in the project area are operating at acceptable levels of service, and the minimal increase in traffic as a
result of the proposed project is not expected to change those levels. Potential impacts related to CO
emissions would be less than significant.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
As described above in Section III.b,the proposed project would result in temporary increases or minimal
long-term increases in air pollutants,these increases would not result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any air pollutants.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
The rural and suburban single-family homes located to the south,north, and northeast of the project site
are comprised of sensitive receptors. Construction of the proposed project may expose surrounding,
sensitive land uses to airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of pollutants
P.\CCC533lPRODUCISVS-MND\Public\Public Drall Blum Esimm IS-MND.dm(12n.,7005) 19
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
associated with the use of construction equipment(e.g., diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment).
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, described above, would reduce construction-related
emissions to a less-than-significant level. As discussed in Section M.b, the proposed project will not
result in any long-term air quality impacts. Therefore,nearby sensitive receptors would not be exposed to
substantial pollutant concentrations.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Some objectionable odors may be generated from the operation of diesel-powered construction equipment
and/or asphalt paving during the project construction period. However,these odors would be short term
in nature and would not result in permanent impacts to surrounding land uses, including sensitive recep-
tors in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore,no significant impacts related to objectionable odors
would result from the proposed project.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications,on any species identified as a Candi-
date,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans,policies, or regulations, or by the California Depart-
ment of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans,policies, and regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ ❑
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,
etc.)Through direct removal, filling,hydrological interrup-
tion,or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with estab-
lished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
P:,CCC533'•PRODUCTSVS-MND�Public\Public Drag Blum Emm IS-MND.duc 112.712005) 20
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan
or other approved local,regional,or State habitat conserva-
tion plan?
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?
Wood Biological Consulting completed a Biological Assessment for project site in October 2004, and a
Botanical Survey in April 2005. These studies are available for public review at Contra Costa County
Community Development Department. The following discussion is excerpted from these studies.
While the project site itself contains only.11.56 acres, the biological assessment examined a larger, 29-
acre area, extending southwest to I-680 and north to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. The
study area is bisected by the Contra Costa Canal,which.is bounded on either side by a fence,and flows
north along the west side of the hillside's ridge at an elevation of approximately 78 feet above mean sea
level. The parcel located above and to the east of the canal is dominated by non-native grassland on a
north-south running ridge, extending from Blum Road to the railroad, and rising more than 170 feet at
two locations and dipping to 80 feet at its mid-point. The second parcel consists of a smaller hillside also
dominated by non-native grassland, and bounded by a fence,a row of walnut trees, and a dirt road. The
third parcel studied(which is not a part of the proposed project)includes the land west of the canal,
including the low slopes of the ridge and a low lying area adjacent to I-680. This low-lying land drains to
the north and includes a culvert positioned to carry seasonal precipitation off site, and is comprised of a
mixture of native and non-native grasslands and several wetland habitats presumed to be of artificial
origin, since they originate directly below the canal. This low-lying parcel,below the canal, would be
preserved under the proposed project.
Impacts to Special-status Plants. The project site has been subjected to fairly intense human disturbance
and alteration,both recently and historically. As a result,the upper portion of the site where the proposed
development would occur is not considered to be significantly constrained by the presence of regulated
biological resources. No special-status plant or animal species have been detected on site. Additionally,
the botanical survey completed in April 2005 confirmed that no special-status plant species were detected
on the project site, and none are considered to have any potential to occur on the site. The proposed
project would not result in any significant adverse effects upon special-status plant species, and no further
surveys or mitigation measures relevant to plant species are warranted.
Impacts to Special-status Animals. Based on the existing conditions and available suitable habitat,
nesting birds, including raptors,passerines, and burrowing owls,may occur within or adjacent to the
project site. A total of seven special-status animal species are considered to have some potential to occur
within the project area. With respect to these species,three potential impacts resulting from future
development of the site have been identified.
P\CCC533\PRODUCISVS-b1ND\Public\Public Draft Bluni Esutm IS-MND doc(12/712005) 21
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Nesting Raptors. Several large trees and dense grassland located within or adjacent to the project site
provide suitable habitat for raptors. Grading,tree removal, or pruning could result in direct or indirect
impacts to raptors by causing destruction or abandonment of occupied nests. Impacts to nesting raptors
would be reduced to less than significant levels by implementing the following mitigation measure:
Mitigation Measure 13I0-1: If land-clearing activities are to commence between February 1 and
August 15, a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors shall be conducted by a qualified biologist.
The purpose of the preconstruction survey would be to determine if occupied nests are present
within the zone of influence of the project. If land-clearing activities are performed outside of the
nesting season,that is,between August 16 and January 31,no preconstruction surveys for nesting
raptors are warranted. The survey area should include all large trees, grassland,and scrub habitat
within 250 feet of the limits of work. If any occupied raptor nests are found within the zone of
influence, grading and construction shall be prohibited within an adequate setback(generally 250
feet), as approved by a qualified biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish
and Game. Work within the setback would have to be delayed until after the young have fledged,
as determined during surveys by a qualified biologist,or until after the nesting season, as described
above.
Nesting passerine. The proposed project could result in the removal of potential passerine nesting bird
habitat in the trees, shrubs, and grasslands on the site. Disturbance during the nesting season could result
in the potential nest abandonment and mortality of young. Implementation of the following mitigation
measure would reduce impacts to passerine nesting habitat to less than a significant level:
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: If land-clearing activities are to commence between February 1 and
August 15, a pre-construction survey for nesting passerines shall be conducted prior to the
destruction of any suitable nesting habitat. The survey area should include all trees,bushes,
grassland and structures within 100 feet of the limits of work. If land-clearing activities can be
performed outside the nesting season, that is, between August 16 and January 31,no surveys for
nesting passerines would be warranted. If any occupied passerine nests are found within the zone
of.influence, grading and construction shall be prohibited within an adequate setback(generally, 75
to 100 feet), as approved by a qualified biologist in consultation with the California Department of
Fish and Game. Work within the setback would have to be delayed until after the young have
fledged, as determined during surveys by a qualified biologist, or until after the nesting season,as
described above.
Burrowing owls. The project site is within the range of burrowing owls and supports suitable habitat for
the species. Although none were detected during the biological assessment of the site in October 2004,
the species could move onto the site prior to the initiation of grading. If this were to occur, disturbance
during either the wintering or nesting seasons could result in the take of adult burrowing owls,nest
abandonment, and mortality of young. To further evaluate presence or absence of burrowing owls,
implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 13I0-3: Prior to the initiation of any grading, a survey for suitable ground
burrows shall be preformed by a qualified biologist. Survey protocol calls for walking transects
over the property affording 100 percent visual cover of the site. If no suitable ground burrows are
observed, grading may proceed. If suitable ground burrows are present, a qualified biologist should
conduct a pre-construction nesting burrowing owl survey following California Department of Fish
P:ICCC57TPRODUCISUS-MND,,Public%Puhlic Draft Blum Estates IS-MND dm(12/W2005) 22
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
and Game protocols, which call for the performance of four crepuscular(early morning or late
evening) surveys. Any active nests must not be disturbed until the young have fledged.
Compensation of habitat loss, at a mitigation ratio to be determined in consultation with the
California Department of Fish and Game,would be required.
Areas of bare ground or with grasses less than 6 inches in height may attract burrowing owls during
the winter season. If construction resumes after a period of construction inactivity following
clearing, a habitat evaluation of the site should be conducted prior to ground disturbance the
following season to determine burrowing owl occupancy. All burrows containing active nests shall
be identified by flagging, and shall be protected by a no-disturbance buffer zone of 250 feet.
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 offish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community was identified on the project site. Special status
natural communities including patches of seasonal wetland,ruderal seasonal wetland, freshwater marsh,
and Central Coast riparian scrub were,however,identified in the low-lying area located in the area
located between(south of)the canal and 1-680. The proposed project,however, does not include this
low-lying area (on the other side of the canal)and, therefore, would not result in or have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive community located there
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?
As described in Section IV.b, above, the proposed project does not include any wetland area. The low-
lying area located on the other side of the canal contains seasonal wetlands,ruderal seasonal wetlands,
freshwater marsh, and Central riparian scrub would not be impacted from the proposed project because it
is not a part of the proposed project and it is physically separated from the site by the canal and the
fencing erected on both sides of the canal. As such, the proposed project would not result in the direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means of alteration to any federally-protected
wetlands.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratoryfish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
No wildlife corridors would be adversely affected by the proposed project. No native resident or
migratory fish move through the project site as no streams or other bodies of water are present. Most
wildlife movement in the area will likely continue within the parcels dedicated as open space(Lots 25 and
26)and the undeveloped hillside are north of the project site after project completion. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, the project will not substantially interfere
with the movement of wildlife or the function of a nursery site.
P:%CCC533'PRODUCf SUS-MND\Public\Public Draft Slum E.Ut61S-MND.d.(17!711005) 23
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
A tree inventory/assessment was completed for the project site by Patrick Stewart,ISA Certified Arborist
(#3322)in October 2004,and is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community
Development Department. The project site is subject to the County Tree Protection and Preservation
Ordinance, County Code Section 816-6.6. The Arborist surveyed 17 trees on the project site,including
16 Black Walnut trees and one Almond tree. The proposed project would require the removal of all trees
on the site and the applicant is required to replace the code protected via conditions of approval associated
to the approval of the Final Development Plan,
J) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation
plan. No such plans are in place for the site
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of .
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site.or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred out-
side of formal cemeteries?
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section
15064.5?
There are no known significant historic resources or events associated with this site.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
There are no known archaeological resources on the project site, and the project site has been identified as
being largely urban on the County General Plan Archeological Sensitivity Map (General Plan Figure 9-2).
However,it is possible that unique archaeological resources, as defined by CEQA Section 21083.2(g),
P:`•000533\PRODUCTSUS-MND`Public`.Public Draft Blum Fvalm IS-MND.dm(12/712005) 24
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
could be encountered during construction activities:, Implementation of the following mitigation measure
would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are
encountered during project construction activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be
redirected and a qualified archaeologist shall be contracted to evaluate the discoveries and make
recommendations regarding their potential significance and extent throughout the site. If such
deposits cannot be avoided, they shall be evaluated for their California and National Register
eligibility. If the deposits are not eligible, additional mitigation is not necessary. If the deposits are
eligible,they shall be avoided or adverse project effects shall be mitigated. Upon completion of the
archaeologist's evaluation, a report shall be prepared documenting the methods and results of the
research, and recommendations for additional mitigation. The report should be submitted to the
County of Contra Costa and the Northwest Information Center(KWIC) at Sonoma State
University.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
There are no known paleontological resources, or unique geologic feature or sites on the project site, or
within the immediate vicinity. However, should paleontological resources be uncovered during grading
or other on-site excavation(s), the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to these resources
to less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure CULT-2: If paleontological resources are encountered during subsurface
construction activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a qualified
archaeologist/paleontologist can evaluate the finds and make recommendations. If the
paleontological resources are found to be significant, they shall be avoided by project construction
activities and recovered by a qualified paleontologist. Upon completion of the recovery, a
paleontological assessment shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further
monitoring for paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include: 1)the results
of any geotechnical investigation prepared for the project site; 2) specific details of the construction
plans for the project site; 3) background research; and 4) limited subsurface investigation within the
project site. If a high potential to encounter paleontological resources is confirmed, a monitoring
plan of further project subsurface construction shall be prepared in conjunction with this
assessment. After project subsurface construction has ended,a report documenting monitoring,
methods, findings, and further recommendations regarding paleontological resources shall be
prepared and submitted to the County Community Development Department.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offormal cemeteries?
The project is proposed in a location that has already been disturbed from historic agricultural uses.
Therefore, the probability of finding human remains is minimal. Section 7050.5 of the California Health
and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location
other than a dedicated cemetery,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 the county in which the
human remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner's
authority. Consistent with Section 7050.5, implementation of the following mitigation measure would
reduce impacts to human remains to a less-than-significant level:
P:\CCC537NRODUCTS'JS.MND�Publick.Public Draft Bium Esuim IS-NINDAm H 217P20057 25
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mitigation Measure CULT-3: If human remains are encountered at any point during project
construction,work shall halt and the Contra Costa County Coroner shall be notified immediately.
In addition,the archaeological monitor shall be contacted to examine the situation. If human
remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission within 24 hours of this identification. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98,the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify a Native American Most Likely
Descendent to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains
and associated grave goods.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving:
i) 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.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction?
iv)Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that .
would become unstable as a result of the project,and poten-
tially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, sub-
sidence,liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of 13
the uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks
to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of sep-
tic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving: i)Rupture of a know: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 Pub-
P:\CCC533TRODUCISVS-MND\Public\Public Draft Blum Ecutm IS-MND.dx(12772005) 26
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. - ELUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
lication 42; ii)Strong seismic ground shaking; iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including lique-
faction; iv)Landslides?
A Geologic Review was completed for this site by the County's geologist,Darwin Myers Associates,in
June 2005,which peer-reviewed a Preliminary Geological Investigation completed by Diablo Engineers
Inc. (DEI)in April 2005. Both of these studies are available for public review at the Contra Costa County
Community Development Department. The discussions below summarize the findings of these prior
studies.
i) Fault Rupture. The project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone designated by
the State. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons or structures to
substantial adverse effects due to the rupture of a know earthquake fault.
ii) Groundshaking. The San Francisco Bay region is a seismically active region that is subject to large
earthquakes; there are 30 known faults in the Bay Area that are considered capable of generating earth- .
quakes. The nearest active fault to the project site it the Concord fault, which passes approximately 4,000
feet northeast of the project site.
Because it affects a much broader area, ground shaking,rather than surface fault rupture, is the cause of
most damage during earthquakes. Three major factors affect the severity(intensity)of ground shaking at
a site in an earthquake: the size(magnitude) of the earthquake; the distance to the fault that generated the
earthquake; and the geologic materials that underlie the site. Thick, loose soils, such as bay mud,tend to
amplify and prolong ground shaking.
According to the General Plan Safety Element' 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.9 Compliance with building and grading
regulations can be expected to keep risks within generally accepted limits.
iii) Ground Failure and Liquefaction. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with
saturated soil layers located close to the ground surface. These soils lose strength during ground shaking.
Due to the.loss of strength, the soil acquires a"mobility" sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical
movements. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated,
fine-grained sands that lie relatively close to the ground surface..However, loose sands that contain a
significant amount of fines(silt and clay fraction)may also liquefy.
The project site is underlain by the Martinez Formation and upper Meganos Sandstone, an interbedded
sandstone and shale series of marine strata deposited during the Paleocene Epoch(59 to 64 million years
ago). These rocks are normally resistant to erosion that allows the formation of steep, stable hillsides.
According to the General Plan Safety Element,10 the site is rated "generally low" liquefaction potential.
In addition, as discussed above,the proposed project would be constructed in compliance with applicable
construction codes and requirements intended to mitigate any adverse impacts resulting from ground
8 Contra Costa County,2005. 2005-2020 General Plan,Public Safety Element,page 10-23.
9 See 1997 Uniform Building Code,Volume 2,Division 5,page 2-23.
10 Contra Costa County,2005. 2005-2020 General Plan,Public Safety Element,page 10-27.
P:\CCC533\PRODI:CISVS-MND\Public\Public Draft Slum Enna IS-MND.dac(12,17,12005) 27
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
failure and liquefaction. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to human
safety associated with ground failure and liquefaction.
iv) Landslides. The project site is an upland property that is within the outcrop belt of Martinez
Formation of Early Tertiary age. Based on reconnaissance level data(chiefly geologic interpretation of
the angle aerial photographs),the US Geological Survey" concluded that a landslide was located near the
northwest property corner. Another publication of the USGS" concludes that the soil mantle and clayey
bedrock can be expansive and possess adverse engineering characteristics.
The primary conclusion by DEI13 is that the project is feasible,based on limited subsurface data. Figure 3
of the DEI report provides an Original Geologic Map of the site,but it does not provide an assessment of
geological conditions along the southwest property line, and there is no geologic cross-section or
corrective grading plan that provides data on fill placement southwest of the proposed building site on
Lots 18 through 23. DEI considers this preliminary report to be adequate for recordation of the requested
Vesting Tentative Map(VTM)without further subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and engineering
analysis. DEI recommends that they be provided the opportunity to review plans prior to issuance of
construction permits to ensure consistency with the intent of geotechnical recommendations;and that the
geotechnical engineer observe grading and perform testing to provide documentation of the as-built
condition;and to make supplemental recommendations if exposed conditions require changes to the
approved grading plans. The County's peer review geologist(Darwin Myers)considers the geologic and
geotechnical data sufficient to define the landslide and grading impacts and to identify detailed mitigation
measures.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential landslide impacts to a less-
than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prior to recordation of the VTM, all grading and drainage plans are
subject to review of the County Geologist and the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. All slopes shall be contour rounded to mimic the natural terrain features,and the
project shall have an efficient drainage system. The plans shall be prepared by appropriately
licensed professionals.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Prior to issuance of the grading permit,provide a grading remediation
plan and report for the approval of the Building Inspection Department(`BID"). The report shall
evaluate all major graded slopes and open space hillsides whose performance could affect planned
improvements. Specifically, the slope southwest of proposed residences on Lots 18 through 23 shall
be subject to this requirement. The slope stability analysis shall be performe&for both static and
dynamic conditions using an appropriate pseudo-static horizontal ground acceleration coefficient
for earthquakes on the Concord and Hayward faults in accordance with standard practice as
outlined in Department of Mines and Geology Special Pub. 117, 1997.
Mitigation Measure GEO-3: All measures.identified in the approved geotechnical reports to
provide for slope stability shall be incorporated into the final grading plans. Prior to issuance of the
11 Nilsen, 1975.
12 Ellen and Wentworth, 1995.
13 Diablo Engineers,Inc.(DEI),2005. Preliminary Geotechnical/nvestigalion,Subdivision 8784,Blum Road,April.
P:`.CCC533tFRODUCrSUS-MND`Publicthblic Draft Blum Estatm IS-MND.dm(12(12005) 28
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
grading permit, the project geotechnical engineer shall review the plans to verify that these
measures are incorporated and that there is no unacceptable hazard from unstable slopes or post-
development differential settlement.
Mitigation Measure GEO-4: Concurrently with recordation of the Vesting Tentative Map,record a
statement to run with deeds to the property acknowledging the Geotechnical Study by title, author
(firm), and date, calling attention to conclusions, including the long-term maintenance require-
ments, and noting that the report is available to prospective buyers from seller of the parcel.
Mitigation Measure GEO-5: Grading, erosion control, and building plans shall employ, as
appropriate, the following surface drainage measures in construction: concrete-lined swales to
carry runoff; fill slopes in excess of 8 feet high shall be graded to 2,5:1 (horizontal to vertical)or
flatter; cut slopes in excess of 8 feet high shall be graded to 3:1 (maximum). Where steeper slopes
than those indicated above are desired, supplemental slope stabilization techniques(e.g. selective
grading or geogrid reinforcing)may be required. Selectively graded sandstone bedrock material
may be used to construct 2:1 fill slopes up to 16 feet in vertical height. Selective use of sandstone
bedrock should be performed under observation of the Geotechnical Engineer and will require
additional strength testing of excavated materials to verify suitability.
Positive grading of building pads for removal of surface water from foundation areas; individual
pad drainage; avoidance of sprinkler systems (as opposed to drip irrigation systems)in the
immediate vicinity of foundations; grading of slopes to eliminate over-the-bank runoff; and re-
vegetation of permanent slopes. Interim protective measures for runoff shall be followed during the
construction phases when slopes are most susceptible to erosion. The final design shall incorporate
subsurface drainage measures,including the installation of subsurface drains within major new fills
and landslide repair areas.
Mitigation Measure GEO-6: During grading, the geotechnical engineer shall observe and approve
all keyway excavations, removal of fill and landslide materials down to stable bedrock or in-place
material, and installation of all subdrains including their connections. All fill slope construction
shall be observed and tested by the project geotechnical engineer,and the density test results and
reports submitted to the County to be kept on file. Cut slopes and keyways shall be periodically
observed and mapped by the project geotechnical and civil engineers who will provide any required
slope modification recommendations based on the actual geologic conditions encountered during
grading. Written approval from the Contra Costa County BID shall be obtained prior to any
modification.
Mitigation Measure GEO-7: During stripping operations,topsoil shall be salvaged for future use as
a dressing on final graded slopes that are within the deed restricted open space. Specifically,
approximately 6 inches of topsoil shall be track-walked on the final graded slopes that are within
the deed-restricted open space.
Mitigation Measure GEO-8: During grading, unstable colluvial soils and landslide depositswithin
developed portions of the properties shall be regraded to effectively remove the potential for
seismically induced landslides in these materials,as recommended in the approved geotechnical
reports.
PDrag Blum Estala IS-MND.dm(12/712005) 29
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mitigation_Measure GEO-9: Prior to issuance of building permits on parcels of this subdivision,
submit an as-graded report of the engineering geologist and the geotechnical engineer with a map
prepared by a civil engineer showing engineering geology/lithology details, final plans and grades
for any buttress fill with its keyway, subsurface drainage, subdrain cleanouts, disposal and pickup
points, and any other soil improvements installed during grading, as surveyed by the project survey
or civil engineer,and in accordance with requirements of the geotechnical engineer.
Mitigation Measure GEO-10: All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry
season(April 15 through October 15)only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to
minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15, only erosion control work shall
be allowed by the grading permit. Any modification to the above schedule shall be subject to
reviewed by the Grading Section of the building Inspection Department and the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil is greatest during the period of earthwork activities and
between the time when earthwork is completed and when new vegetation is established, or asphalt is laid.
A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(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 and maintained throughout the winter
rainy season. Implementation of a SWPPP and an Erosion Control Plan, submitted by the applicant and
reviewed and approved by the County,would result in impacts to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil that
would be less than significant.
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, lique-
faction or collapse?
Review of the existing geologic data by the County Geologist indicates that the project would be feasible.
Two borings and 15 test pits penetrated sandstone and siltstone bedrock at relatively shallow depths.
However,the extreme southwest portion of the site may be underlain by clayey bedrock, and it is this area
where a relatively small land slide has been mapped by the US Geological Survey. Furthermore, it is this
extreme southwest portion of the site that would function as a"balance area" for the project; any fill
placed in this portion of the site would need to be keyed into competent material in order to achieve long
term stability, or the surplus fill would need to be hauled from the site. The DEI report provides
preliminary standards and criteria for site grading, drainage and foundation design,but does not address
the specifics of placing engineered fill in this area. In addition to geologic issues associated with slope
stability, there are potential issues regarding the aesthetic affects of grading so near to the travel lanes of
1-680. The mitigation measures provided in Section VI.a.iv would reduce potential impacts from unstable
geologic units to less than significant levels
P.'•.CCC533,YRODUCfSUS-MND�Fublic\Public Dell Bium Estrus IS-MND.dm O Y7120051 30
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
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?
Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture change that can cause heaving and cracking of
slabs-on-grade,pavements and structures founded on shallow foundations. DEI states that soils on the
site are not expansive,but that assessment is based on the site being 100 percent in the outcrop belt of
Martinez formation sandstone and siltstone. Shale beds are known to occur in this formation within the
Central County area, and the shale may be moderately to severely expansive. Building damage due to
volume changes associated with expansive soils can be reduced by placing slabs on select,granular fill or
over-excavation to create uniform subgrade conditions, or by use of rigid mat or post-tensioned slabs.
General foundation design criteria are provided in the DEI.report.
The potential building sites and roadways are inferred to be underlain, at least locally,by expansive soils
that are subject to soil creep and some soils in the vicinity are corrosive. The Diablo Engineers Inc. (DEI)
report has provided recommendations for foundations,but further evaluation of foundations is warranted
to address differential fill thickness,total and differential settlement within building pads, and measures to
control moisture around foundations. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would
reduce potential risks from expansive soils to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure GEO-11: Prior to the issuance of building permits, submit a final geotechnical
report providing design and construction measures,where appropriate,to minimize expansive soil
effects on dwellings (e.g.,pad overcutting to provide uniform swell potential;.and soil subgrade
moisture treatment). The required report shall also provide design criteria for differential.fill
thickness and differential settlement.
Mitigation Measure GEO-12: Prior to issuance of building permits, chemical testing of repre-
sentative building pad soils shall be submitted to determine the level of corrosion protection
required for steel and concrete materials used for construction. In order to protect against corrosion
where it is found to be a potential issue,the project shall use sulfate-resistant concrete and
protective linings to encase steel piping buried in native soils.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The project site would be served by public sanitary sewer extended from Blum Road. As such, no septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be installed on the project site. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts to soils associated with the use of
such wastewater treatment systems.
P:\000533\PRODUCf SVS-Mh-D'hhlic\Public Draft Blum E tatm IS-MND.dm(12/72005) 31
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VII. HAZARDS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ-
ment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of haz-
ardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ-
ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazard-
ous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a signifi-
cant hazard to the public or the environment?
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?
f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private air-
strip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? .
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacua-
tion plan?
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 resi-
dences are intermixed with wildlands?
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of 23 new residences, a new
road, and associated landscaping improvements. Although small quantities of commercially-available
hazardous materials could be used within the new residences consistent with residential uses, and
P:\CCC533\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Public DWI Blum Ewtm IS-MNDAm(Un,12005) 32
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT LITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
potentially for landscape maintenance within the project site,these materials would not be used in
sufficient quantities to pose a threat to human or environmental health. While gas and diesel fuel would
typically be used by the construction vehicles,Best Management Practices(BMPs)would be utilized to
ensure that no construction-related fuel hazards occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project
would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials.
As part of the building permit process, all plans are reviewed for compliance with applicable Building and
Fire Department requirements,pursuant to the Uniform Building and Fire Codes, and all other related
County requirements. No additional measures would be required.
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?
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment have been com-
pleted for the proposed residential project by AEI Consultants in July and August 2005,respectively.14
These Assessments are available for public review at Contra Costa County Community Development
Department. The discussions summarize the findings of these assessments.
The proposed project site was historically used for agricultural purposes. There is a potential that
pesticides,herbicides and fertilizers were used onsite. However,because the property has not been used
for agricultural purposes for approximately 40 years, it is likely that potential concentrations of these
chemicals have degraded over time. No pesticide mixing areas were observed in historic aerial
photographs. Based on the length of time that has passed since active agricultural cultivation, this former
use is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern.
The northwestern portion of the project site, however, is traversed in an east-to-west direction by an
existing 16-foot fuel line easement. The fuel line under laying the easement,referred to as the Ozul fuel
pipeline, is owned by the United States Air Force. The 8-inch pipeline was used to transport petroleum
from a Concord pump station to a petroleum storage facility in Martinez for approximately 40 years.15 In
1999,petroleum operations were terminated and the pipeline was drained, cleaned, and pressure tested to
test for leaks, of which,none were identified.16 To control internal erosion, the pipeline is filled with
nitrogen gas. To control external erosion, a cathodic protection system is operated." The Defense
Logistic Agency(DLA)manages the pipeline, and is responsible for any monitoring and cleanup
activities.18
Because building pads for proposed residential lots 21,22, and 23 would be located near to pipeline,AEI
completed pressure testing in the Phase II Environmental Subsurface Investigation to determine if any
volatile organic compounds(VOCs)and/or petroleum hydrocarbons had been released. Based on the
14 AEI Consultants,2005. Phase 11 Subsurface Investigation Report for 24-Acre Vacant Parcel,APN 159-230-004,
Martinez, California, 94553,August 25.
Is Ibid.
le Ibid.
17 Ibid.
IS Ibid.
P:\CCC573\PRODUCfS1IS-MND\Publi,\Public Dr4 Blum E t.IS.MNDA.(11!72005) 33
LRA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
analytical results of the soil samples,no release of VOCs or petroleum hydrocarbons had occurred in the
vicinity of the pipeline. Nonetheless,the pipeline is owned by the Defense Logistics Agency, and should
it actively transport fuel in the future,the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to the
residential building pads to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the applicant shall complete
a detailed survey that identifies the exact location of the 16-foot pipeline.easement. The boundaries
of the easement area shall be clearly marked during construction activities to ensure that the
construction personnel know when they are working within or close to the easement so that they
may use proper precautions.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: To alert potential buyers to the existence of the pipeline and
associated hazards, deed notification shall be filed for every residential parcel within 50 feet of the
pipeline easement. The notification shall clearly indicate that the pipeline,though currently not in
use,has explosive potential and that an accident involving the pipeline could cause extensive
damage to private property as well as serious person injury or death.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
There are no existing schools within '/4-mile of the project site, and no new schools are proposed within
'/4-mile of the project site.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the pub-
lic or the environment?
The project site is not located on the list of hazardous materials sites prepared pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and would not pose a significant health hazard to the public or environment.
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?
The project site is located within the boundary of the adopted Land Use Compatibility Plan for Buchanan
Field Airport, located approximately'/4-mile southeast of the project site. Chapter 3 of the County's Land
Use Compatibility Plan(ALUCP)provides policies to ensure for land use compatibility in regards to
noise, safety, and airspace protection for all uses and new development within the Buchanan Field Airport
Influence Area(AIA),which generally includes all parcels within a 14,000-foot radius from the both ends
of each runway. The project site is located approximately 4,500 feet northwest of the north end of
Runways 14L and 14R and is within the AIA. The proposed project is consistent with the ALUCP's
noise, safety and airspace compatibility policies in the following ways:
Noise Compatibility. The ALUCP established that acceptable noise levels for single-family residential
uses are up to 55 dB CNEL. The proposed project is located approximately 1,200 feet outside the
established 55 dB CNEL contour for Buchanan Field as depicted in Figure 3B of the County's ALUCP
and, therefore, would not be exposed to excessive aircraft or airport-related noise levels.
P:\CCC533\PRODUCfS\IS-MND\Public\Public Dr2R Blum Esau lS-MND.dm(17!7!1005) 34
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 7006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Safety Compatibility. Buchanan Field Safety Zones are delineated in Figure 3C of the County's ALUCP.
The safety zones are designated 1 through 4,with Safety Zone 1 being the most restrictive in regard to
allowable land use and Safety Zone 4 being the least restrictive. The project site is not located within an
established Buchanan Field Safety Zone. The nearest safety zone to the project site is Safety Zone 4 for
Runway 14R, which terminates approximately 1,200 feet northeast of the project site.
Airspace Protection. Airspace protection zones are delineated in the Figure 3D of the County's ALUCP.
The project site is in an airspace protection area where structure height is limited to less than 173 feet
above mean sea level. Consistent with this ALUC policy,no portion of any building or structure will be
allowed to pierce any point or extend above the 173-foot airspace protection zone maximum height limit.
All buildings within the subdivision will be conditioned to be lower than the 173-foot mean sea level
elevation limit,regardless of pad elevation.
J) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed project would develop a new,23 unit single family project with a new roadway. The new
roadway has been designed to County standards, thereby would be of an adequate width and grade to
accommodate emergency vehicles, as well as emergency evacuation. The proposed development on the
project site was anticipated by the County's 2005 General Plan and, as such,has been considered in the
County's adopted emergency plan and evacuation plan. As a result, the proposed project would not
impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency plan or emergency evacuation
plan.
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?
The project site is in a suburban area and development of the proposed project would not expose people
or structures to an increased risk of wildland fires. In addition, as part of the building permit process, all
plans are reviewed for compliance with applicable Building and Fire Department requirements,pursuant
to the Uniform Building and Fire Codes, and all other related County requirements.
P:\CCC537\PRODUCf SVS-MNDWublic\Public Draft Blum F Uim IS-MND.dm(17!//2005) 35
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere sub-
stantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
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 which would result in substan-
tial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
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 runoff in a manner which would result in flood-
ing on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage sys-
tems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
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?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, �.
injury or death involving flooding,including flooding of as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow?
P:\CCC577\PRODUCIS\IS-MND\Public\Public Drag Blum Esulm IS-MND.dac(1717!1005) 36
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
a) violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program(SWPPP)and Best Management Practices(BMP's) for
the project would be prepared by the project civil engineer and reviewed and approved by the County
Public Works Department as part of the Grading and Improvement Plans. County inspection during site
preparation and construction would confirm the implementation and on-going maintenance of the SWPPP
and BMP's and other pertinent County requirements related to water quality standards and waste dis-
charge requirements. The project would not result in significant impacts related to water quality
standards or discharge requirements.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level(e.g., the production 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)?
The project would not result in direct additions or withdrawals to existing groundwater because it would
utilize the public water system, would result in minimal amounts of new impervious surface areas, and
would still allow for percolation across large portions of its surface area.
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 which would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?.
The project site currently slopes down towards the Contra Costa Canal, and includes extensive grading on
the site to create 23 residential building pads and new roadway. However, development of the project
would not change the direction of drainage on the site. The construction standards and permit
requirements described in Section VM.a would mitigate potential impacts related to erosion or siltation to
a less than significant level.
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 runoff in a
manner which would result inflooding on- or off-site?
The existing project site is undeveloped, vacant land,with the exception of the existing, single-family
residence fronting Blum Road(i.e.,proposed lot 27). The proposed project would develop the site with
23 residences, a new roadway, associated driveways,and landscaping. As a result, the proposed project
would increase the amount of impervious surface and,therefore,would increase the amount of surface
runoff from the site.
The following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts associated with the increase in surface
water runoff and flooding to less than significant levels:
Mitigation Measure HYDROLOGY-1: The applicant shall construct storm facilities,both on-
and, if necessary, off-site in accordance with the drainage requirements of the County
Subdivision Ordinance(Title 9)to adequately convey storm water run off from the project site to
an acceptable receiving facility or watercourse.
P.\CCC533\PRODUCfSVS-MND\Public\Public Draft Blum l:su161S-MND.dx(17!72005) 37
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. - BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm-
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
See Section VIIIA regarding the capacity of storm water drainage systems.
Grading and Drainage Plans would be prepared for the proposed project,and as described in Mitigation
Measure GEO-1, all grading and drainage plans are subject to review of the County Geologist and to the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Mitigation measures included in Section VI, as well as
the construction standards and permit requirements described in Section VIII.a would ensure potential
impacts related to additional sources of polluted runoff would be less than significant.
J9 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
The construction standards and permit requirements described in Section VIII.a, above, would ensure
potential impacts related to water quality would be less than significant.
S) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Bound-
ary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area and,therefore,would not result in the
placement of housing in a flood hazard area.
h) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
As described in Section VIII.g., above,the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area.
As a result, development of the site would not result in the placement of structures which would impede
or redirect flood flows.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, includ-
ing flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Any flooding on the site would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury, or
death.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles from Suisun Bay at an elevation of 82 to 178 feet
above mean sea level. The potential for the project site to be inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow
is therefore nearly non-existent.
P:%CCC573\PRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\Public Dns Bluni Etuln IS-MND.d.(13nam) 38
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless• Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regula-
tion of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(includ-
ing,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local
coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the pur-
pose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
a) Physically divide an established community?
The proposed project site is surrounded primarily by rural and suburban residential uses. The proposed
project would be characterized as infill and would not result in the division of an established community.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,-policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
As described in the project description,the site has two General Plan designations: Single-Family
Residential High (SH) and Light Industrial (L-I). The General Plan designation for the portion of site to
be developed with residences is Single-Family Residential High(SH), which allows 5.0 to 7.2 dwelling
units per net acre. The proposed project would develop the site with 23 single-family lots ranging from
4,750 square feet to 19,741 square feet for an average lot size of 8,557 square feet, and 5.09 units per net
acre, consistent with the General Plan designation for the site. Two of the three parcels(APN 159-190-
204& 159-230-004)in the project site are zoned R-7, Single-Family Residential,which requires
minimum lot sizes of 7,000 square feet equivalent to approximately 6.2 units per acre.The remaining
parcel (APN 159-190-031)within the site is zoned D-1,Two-Family Residential,which requires
minimum lot sizes of 8,000 square per two-family structure. The proposed project includes the rezoning
of the site to P-1, which would accommodate the proposed single-family use and associated property
development standards, including appropriate setbacks and parking.
The General Plan designation for proposed Lots 24 and 25 is Light Industrial (L-I), however no
development is proposed for either of these two parcels at this time. Lot 24 would be developed at some
future time, and would be accessed via an easement running along the southwestern portion of proposed
residential Lot 23. Lot 25 will be dedicated as open space as a part of the proposed residential
subdivision and,therefore,would not ever be developed.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
The project site is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
P:\CCC577\PRODUCfS\IS•MND,Nblic\Public D.R Blmn Esutm IS-MND.d.(12172005) 39
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
X. NHNERAL 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?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important min-
eral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
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?
No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project
would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on
a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
The County's 2005 General Plan does not identify the project site as containing or being underlain by a
locally-important mineral source. Therefore,development of the proposed project would not result in the
loss of a locally-important mineral source recovery site.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 0
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
P:\CCC53PPRODUCfS'JS-MND\Public\Public Draft Blum Esutm IS-MND.dm 02220051 40
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where
such a plan has not been adopted,within 2 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?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
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?
An Environmental Noise Study was completed for this site by Charles M. Salter and Associates, Inc. in
August 2005. This study is available for public review at the Contra Costa County Community
Development Department. The discussion below summarizes the findings of the study.
To quantify the existing noise environment at the project site, Charles M. Salter and Associates conducted
noise measurements for a continuous period of 42 to 48 hours. The measurements were taken at various
locations to determine how noise levels vary at different lots throughout the project site. Based on the
measurements, the dominant noise source in the area is vehicular traffic along Interstate 680 (I-680). To a
lesser extent,noise from aircraft flyovers and Blum Road also contribute to the existing noise
environment.
The noise levels at the proposed residential lots vary Table 1: Existing and Estimated Future Noise
due to their setback and exposure to I-680. The Environment for Blum View Estates
measurements at Lots 16 and 17 represent shielded Measured Estimated
noise from traffic and noise from aircraft flyovers Location Existing DNL Future DNL
because of the hillside between the monitor location Lots 12 through 15, 75 dB 75 dB
and I-680. The measurements show that the project site 18 through 23Lots 5 through 11 71 as 72 dB
is exposed to a daily noise level (DNL) of less than 65 Lots I through 4 68 dB 69 as
decibels (db) due to aircraft flyovers. Table 1 shows Lots 16 and 17 63 dB 64 dB
existing and estimated future DNL at the project site. Source: Charles M.Salter and Associates,2005.
Future noise levels are based on traffic growth
estimates on I-680 provided by Caltrans.
The County's Noise Element contains the following noise policies:
Policy 11.9.11-1: New projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards as established in the
Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines contained in Figure 11-6[see below]. These guidelines,along with the
future noise levels shown in the future noise contour maps should be used by the County as a guide for evaluating the
compatibility of"noise-sensitive"projects in potentially noisy areas.
Figure 11-6"Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments": Identifies compatible land uses in terms
of exterior noise exposure levels. Categories pertaining to residential land uses are summarized as follows:
P:%CCC533\PRODUCrSVS-MND\Public\Public Draft Blum Ecuies IS-MNDAd (12!712005) 41
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
i. Normally Acceptable—DNL19 60 dB or less-Specified land use is satisfactory,based upon the assumption that
any buildings.involved are of normal conventional construction,without any special noise insulation requirements.
ii. Conditionally Acceptable—DNL 60 to 70 dB. New construction or development should be undertaken only
after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included
in the design.
iii. Normally Unacceptable—DNL 70 to 75 dB. New construction or development should generally be discouraged.
If new construction or development does proceed,a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be
made and need noise insulation features included in the design.
iv. Clearly Unacceptable—DNL 75 dB or higher. New construction or development clearly should not be
undertaken.
Policy 11.9,Section 11-2: The standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a DNL of 60 dB. However,a
DNL of 60 dB or less may not be achievable in all residential areas due to economic or aesthetic constraints.
Policy 11.9,Section 11-4:Title 24,Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations requires that new multiple-family
housing projects,hotels,and motels exposed to a DNL of 60 dB or greater have a detailed acoustical analysis describing
how the project will provide an interior DNL of 45 dB or less. The County also shall require new single-family housing
projects to provide for an interior DNL of 45 dB or less.
Policy 11.9,Section 11-5: In developing residential areas exposed to a DNL in excess of 65 dB due to single events such
as airport,helicopter,or train operations,indoor noise levels due to these single events shall not exceed a maximum A-
weighted noise level of 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other habitable rooms.
The existing noise environment at the project site varies from the"normally acceptable"category to the
"normally unacceptable"as outlined in the General Plan's land use compatibility guidelines for
community noise environments(General Plan Figure 11-6). The noise analysis prepared by Charles M.
Salter and Associates performed a detailed analysis of the
project area. The following are recommended mitigation Table 2: Required Sound Insulating
measures to reduce noise impacts to a less-than-significant Performance Ratings for Blum View
level. Estates
STC_Ratings
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Windows and doors South Other
shall have sound-insulating performance level rates Location Facade Facades
that meet the requirements shown in Table 2. Lots 1 through 4 31 26
Lots 5 through 7 33 28
Lots 8 through 13 38 32
The recommended minimum sound ratings are based Lots 14,15,18 and 19 38 32
on a window surface not exceeding 40 percent of the Lots 16 and 17 26 -
overall wall area and on an average room size basis. Lots 20 and 21 31 31
Specifications for window frames, doors, and sliding Lots 20 and 21 38 NA
doors should indicate that both the frame and glass South Fa ade,Upstairs
together in a complete assembly(with operable sash) Lots 22 and 23 38 31'
meet the STC 31 requirements,not just the glass STC 35 windows are necessary along the second
story of the western fagade.
alone, Source: Charles M.Salter Associates,Inc.
19 Day-Night Average Sount Level(DNL)—A descriptor established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to
represent a 24-hour average noise level with a penalty applied to noise occurring during the nighttime.hours(10:00 p.m.to 7:00
a.m.)to account for the increased sensitivity of people during sleeping hours.
P:%CCC533%PRODUCI'SUS.MNDYublic\Public Draft Blum Emta IS-MND dm(12x12005) 42
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 9005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: With the exception of Lots 16 and 17, all residences shall include
separate ventilation systems so that the window/wall construction is able to meet the 45 dB NDL
interior noise level standard with the windows closed.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-3: In addition to the 6-foot tall privacy walls between the lots,
additional walls must be constructed on the project site at specified heights to meet acoustical
criteria for the project. The walls must have a minimum surface density of 3.0 pounds per foot
(lbs/ft)20 and must be of airtight construction. Figure 4 indicates the required location and wall
height.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise
levels?
Construction of the proposed project would require minor excavation and earthwork activities. Although
these activities could result in infrequent periods of high noise, this noise would not be sustained and
would occur only during the temporary construction period. No pile driving or other construction activity
that would generate very high noise levels or ground borne vibration would occur within the project site.
Therefore, this impact is considered less-than-significant.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
The long-term use of the project site in the County's 2005 General Plan is residential. This land use
would not generate high ambient noise levels. Conservative estimates for the increases in noise on the
project site are one to two decibels as a result of the expected increase in background traffic levels. No
substantial long-term increase in ambient noise levels is expected as a result of project implementation.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could temporarily increase
ambient noise levels. However,these noise levels would occur in association with minor excavation and
earthwork activities,would be intermittent and short term,and would not be considered significant.
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?
The Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 21 includes noise contours from aircraft
operations at Buchanan Field. The project site is located approximately 1,200 feet outside the 55 decibel
contour line for projected future noise levels. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
20 Sound Transmission Class(STC)—A single-figure rating standardized by ASTM and used to rate the sound insulation
Properties of building partitions. The STC rating is derived from laboratory measurements of a particular building element and as
such is representative of the maximum sound insulation. Increasing STC ratings correspond to improved noise isolation.
2
1 Contra Costa County,2000. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan,December.
P:\CCC577\PRODUCISUS-MND\Public\Public Drag Blum Emt.IS-MND.d.117/7/!005) 43
a �
� � ►Ivy
N. "V
v
� b
s � �
� o
v
v
r
O
o'
I y �
I
w
V s
a
/Y
r 9
i
I
I
I
I +
p4
1
v 1
� d
v
X01 0
0
L� •� p N
�o� U
vi
� o L•U
(per U
O O
AT rA
rA
2 .-1 %
Af
� E
�Qy a
J cn =
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The proposed project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either
directly(for example,by proposing new homes and busi-
nesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing else-
where?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
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 infrastruc-
ture)?
The project site is located within the County's established Urban Limit Line,and single-family
development was anticipated for the site in the County's 2005 General Plan. The proposed project would
construct 23 new, single family residences on an existing undeveloped site, excepting the one single-
family residence fronting Blum Road(lot 27), which would remain as such. Applying Contra Costa
County's average household population of 2.72 persons to the proposed 23 houses, the project would
yield an increase of approximately 63 persons to the County's household population. The additional 63
residents represent less than 1/10 of one percent of the County's 2000 population of 948,816 persons,
according to the US Census. The proposed project would not induce any population growth beyond that
anticipated for the area.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
The proposed project would develop 23 new, single-family homes on an existing, undeveloped site.
Since the location of the new units is currently undeveloped,implementation of the project would not
displace a substantial number of housing units or people and would not necessitate the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
P:\CCC573\PRODUCIS\IS-MND\Public\Public Draft Blum EMEM IS-MND.dm(11/)2005) 45
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing else-
where?
As described in Section XH.b,above,the proposed project would not result in the displacement of people
and, as a result, would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities,the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated withthe 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:Fire protection,police protection, schools,parks, other public facilities?
The proposed project will be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by public service
systems. The proposed project would result in 23 new,residences on the project site. The level of public
services required for the site would be slightly greater than the level currently demanded. As part of the
building permit review process, all departments and agencies responsible for providing services are
consulted to determine their ability to provide services to,proposed development projects. Such services
within the project area may include,but are not limited to fire and police protection, emergency services,
schools,maintenance of public facilities including roads, and other governmental services as anticipated
by the County's 2005 General Plan. Where required,the payment of in-lieu fees would further reduce
potential impacts related to the provision of public services. Implementation of the proposed project
would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,need, or construc-
tion of government facilities.
P:\CCC533\PRODUCfSVS-MND\Public\Public Dn0 BIUm Emim IS-MND.da(12712005) 46
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 9005 INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XIV.RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood ❑ O 0
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recrea-
tional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accel-
erated?
As discussed in Section XII.a,Population and Housing,the proposed project would include 23 new
single-family detached residences, and increase the population on the site by approximately 63 persons.
The proposed residences would include rear yards, and the project would include landscaped, sloped,
open space areas. The increase in use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities as a result of the proposed project would not be such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated. Where required,the payment of in-lieu fees would further reduce
potential impacts related to the provision of parks.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recrea-
tional facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The proposed project does not include recreational facilities and would not require the construction or
expansion of recreational.facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Also
see Section XIV.a, above.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at
intersections)?
P.\CCC553\PRODUCfS\IS-MND\Public\Public Dun Blum Esucs IS.MND.dm f 12nf2005) 47
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. - BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 1006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency on designated roads or highways?
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?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses
(e.g.,farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted polices,plans,or programs supporting
alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
In the vicinity of the project site,Blum Road flows smoothly and without delay. The speed limit is 25
miles per hour(MPH) and the road is two lanes, with one lane in each direction. There are no reports of
special or unusual accident patterns along this stretch of Pacheco Boulevard over the last five years.
There is currently one residence on the project site, and the proposed project would construct 23 new
residences. The increase of 23 single-family homes is not expected to create a substantial increase in
traffic on Blum Road or Pacheco Boulevard, which intercepts Blum Road approximately 1/2-mile south of
the project site. The 23 single-family homes would add approximately 220 daily trips, and 23 peak hour
trips to the local roadways.
The net increase in traffic is not expected to impact the level of service at the signalized intersections in
the project area at Pacheco Boulevard and Blum Road, or the Blum Road/Highway 4 off-ramp. The
signalized intersections at Blum Road and Pacheco Boulevard currently operate at Level of Service C or
better in both the AM and PM peak hours, and an increase of 23 peak hour trips would not cause a
deterioration of this Level of Service. Further,residential development on the proposed project site was
anticipated by and is consistent with the County's 2005 General Plan.. As a result, long-term traffic load
and capacity impacts for anticipated development, such as that on the proposed project site, have been
incorporated into the County's 20-year capital improvement program. The proposed project would
contribute to the funding of the identified long term roadway improvements by paying the appropriate
Area of Benefit transportation impact fees prior to the issuance of building permit.
P:\CCC533\PRODUCfSV S-MND\Public\Public Draft Blum Estata IS-MND.dw(12n/2005) 48
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency or designated roads or highways?
Implementation of the proposed project would add approximately 23 peak hour trips to the local road-
ways. This increase is not expected to exceed a level of service standard established by the Contra Costa
County Congestion Management Agency.
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?
The project site is located approximately%-miles northwest of the Buchanan Field Airport. Imple-
mentation of the proposed residential project would not result in a change to air traffic patterns.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersec-
tions) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)?
A new roadway off of Blum Road,entitled Blum Drive,would provide access to the site, and would be
would be oriented 90 degrees to Blum Road. A 20-foot easement along the southwest portion of lot 23
would be recorded as part of the VTM to provide access to lot 24,to the northwest, which would be
developed in the future with similar single-family homes. The project has been designed to conform to
County Public Works standards, thereby eliminating feature induced hazards.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Emergency vehicles would access the site from Blum Road via Pacheco Boulevard to the south. Turn-
around areas have been developed to accommodate emergency vehicles. The proposed project would
have adequate emergency access.
J) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
The proposed project would supply parking consistent with the County Zoning Ordinance. The project
would include two covered parking spaces per dwelling unit within enclosed garages, two uncovered
driveway parking spaces per unit, as well as on-street parking on the north side of Blum Drive.
g) Conflict with adopted polices,plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The proposed project would be required to comply with the County's Transportation Demand
Management Ordinance (03-02),which ensures that the project applicant coordinates with County
Connection. If determined necessary by County Connection,the project applicant would provide a bus
turnout and shelter, or contribute monies for planned County Connection alternative transportation
improvements on Blum Road in the future. As a result,the proposed project would comply with the
County's Transportation Demand Management ordinance and,therefore,would be consistent with
adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation.
P:\CCC577\PRODUCfS\IS-MND\Public\Public Draft Blum E=tm IS-Mt D.dm(1272005) 49
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste- C3 0
water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environ-
mental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the
construction of which could cause significant environ-
mental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment pro-
vider which serves or may serve the project that it has ade-
quate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 0 C 0
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal,State,and local statutes and regula-
tions related to solid waste?
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by public service
systems and would extend public utilities from Blum Road along the new Blum Drive to the 23 individual
residential buildings. The level of public services required for the site has been anticipated by the County
in the 2005 General Plan. As a result,the proposed project would not result in wastewater treatment
requirements exceeding applicable Regional Water Quality Control Construction requirements or the
construction of new facilities related to the provision of these utilities.
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?
As described in Section XVI.a, above, the proposed use on the project site was anticipated by the
County's 2005 General Plan. As a result, the proposed project would not necessitate the construction of
P:lCCC533%PRODUCfSVS-MND%Public\Public Draft Blum Estatw IS-MND.dw 0717/20051 50
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
new storm water drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities beyond that anticipated by the
2005 General Plan.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface on the project site,thereby
requiring the construction of new storm water drainage facilities, as described in Section XVI, above.
The following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level:
Mitigation Measure UTILITIES-1: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 13I0-1, 13I0-2,
and BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to the special-status animals to less than significant
levels.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by public service
systems. The level of public services required for the 23,new single family residences has been
anticipated and planned for by the County's 2005 General Plan. As part of the building permit review
process, the project site's water supplier would be responsible for providing services would be consulted
to determine their ability to provide water to the proposed development project.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the pro-
ject that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the pro-
vider's existing commitments?
As described in Section XVI.d, above, the proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that
is already served by public service systems. The level of public services required for the 23, new single
family residences has been anticipated and planned for by the County's 2005 General Plan. As part of the
building permit review process,the project site's wastewater treatment provider responsible for providing
services would be consulted to determine their ability to provide wastewater collection and treatment
services to proposed project.
J) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
As described in Section XVIA, above, the proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that
is already served by public service systems. The level of public services required for the 23,new single
family residences has been anticipated and planned for by the County's 2005 General Plan. As part of the
building permit review process, the project site's waste management provider responsible for providing
services would be consulted to determine their ability to provide services to proposed project.
g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Recycling receptacles would be provided within the project site, in accordance with all County regu-
lations related to solid waste.
P:\CCC573\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Public Daft Blum Eslma IS-MND.dm(17/712005) 51
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. - BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 2005 INITIAL STUDY/D RAPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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 or
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 impor-
tant examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively consider-
able"means that the incremental effects of a project are con-
siderable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects
of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will C3 C3 C
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either
directly or indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sus-
taining 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 per-
iods of California history or prehistory?
As described in Section IV, implementation of the proposed project could adversely affect special status
animals. However,implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-1 through BI0-3 would ensure that
impacts to these species are reduced to less-than-significant levels. As described in Section V, Cultural
Resources,there are no identified cultural resources within the site, and it is unlikely that resources will
be uncovered during the construction period. Implementation of the proposed project would not: 1)
degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; 3)
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; 4)threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community; 5)reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or
6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
P:1CCC577V'RODUCTSVS.MNDNublic%Public Draft Slum Estates IS-MND.dm(1272005) 52
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 4005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. The
proposed project would result in the development of 23 new residential units in suburban Contra Costa
County. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced
to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this
Initial Study.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
The proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indi-
rect adverse effects on human beings.
C. REPORT PREPARERS
LSA Associates,Inc.
2215 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
.David Clore, AICP,Principal-in-Charge
Jennifer Craven, Senior Planner
Amy Fischer, Senior Planner.
Sue Smith,Word Processing
Skip Shimmin, Graphics Manager
Patty Linder, Graphics Technician
Other Preparers
Ryan Hernandez, Senior Planner, Contra Costa County Community Development Department.
D. BIBLIOGRAPHY
AEI Consultants,2005. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment(APN# 159-230-004, 159-240-006, 159-
240-005), July 20.
AEI Consultants, 2005. Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report(APN# 159-230-004),August 25.
California Air Resources Board, 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from
Diesel-Fueled Engines and vehicles, October.
California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Program. Website:
http://www.dot.ca.go
California Uniform Building Code, 1997, Volume 2,Division 5.
Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., 2005. Blum View Estates-Residential Development Environmental
Noise Study, August 22.
P%CCC577\PRODUCfSVS-MND\Public\Public Draft Blum Fs to IS-MND.dm(17!72005) 53
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 9005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Contra Costa, County of, 2005. Contra Costa County 2005-2020 General Plan, January.
Contra Costa, County of, 2005. County Code,Title 8,Zoning.
Darwin Myers Associates, 2005. Geologic Peer Review and CEQA Section for Blum View Estates, APN
159-190-024 and-031, and 159-230-004, June 13.
Diablo Engineers,Inc. (DEI), 2005. Preliminary Geotechnical Report for Subdivision 8784,Blum Road,
Pacheco,April 29.
Ellen, S. D. and Wentworth, C. M., 1995. Hillside Materials and Slopes of the San Francisco Bay
Region. US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1357.
Nilsen,T.H., 1975. Preliminary Photointerpretation Map of Landslide and other Surficial Deposits of the
Port Chicago 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Contra Costa and Solano Counties.
Stewart, Patrick, ISA Certified Arborist, Atlas Tree Service, 2004. Tree Survey for Blum Road,
Subdivision 8784, Lots 1-13,Martinez, CA,October 5.
State of California Department of Conservation,Division of Land Resource Protection,2004. Important
Farmland Map.
Wood Biological Consulting, 2004. Biological Assessment for the Proposed Blum View Estates Project
Site,October 21.
Wood Biological Consulting,2005. Botanical Survey for Blum View Estates,April 18.
P:\CCC577\PRODUCISVS-MND\Public\Public Draft Blum Estates IS-MND.da(12/72005) 54
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BLUM VIEW ESTATES PROJECT
DECEMBER 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P:\CCC573\PRODUCIS\IS-MND\Public\Public Draft Blum Esutm IS-MND.d.(12/712005) 55
i 1
w vt
O Y^,
O U '
R
O G y O
O ^'
a -0
a sa U
na
a
w cd cn
r � N
Y
{r y OY^ R I
w a. G U �
Y
to C �• U •A
qAM G U .D cG'S U v y U G -'L
R
caLA G U o
on cs u ° o o
ai � � � c � •y ca a o ° � �
a 3 v o
G 7 O U U .D
t+„ o N a� u U `' `d
..+ O S= N G 'U .Lt Rl pQ W d O rn w v> p fj y rJ
O 00 p 'a o -: p ,C v 0. .o o 0 N U > t
A-
aU+ G [-"' i3
n'a^ x °A Z O is � E ° c o. a��i o .�° s w h
v 0. CO_ U O E c
U 0. ? O >'' Rl N �., N �, 0 c CpS•
qrA W Y 3 G Gan yJ O Y s o w Y i� n o o 'd
m °�° 3 3 R° -° o a� �i
o . $ o o U u
i7 O 0 w v N O N O T d v n ' v T a O w
U i. O cS vN ti ¢ cGS G 'Yj G c l m T -,6o.
t7 > rn P
4D > a `.c= GN L C -ad
y U u G
pr > = 5 = o S "04� o 'o o v 3 ° ? OJ G
00
b4 N .G ,-, td
to
O
c.. ,� cG,_J <, U ten) Cl OJ v rn 'o
O 9@ Y U U 'G .-+ U r3 i. T} Q.
{y rU- "O p E L1- 03 b N 'N RS U y � �R
_• F['''' ;� Q cai N G p O G ','. U v 3 ui T cid N CC.a .ry 0
—(:d u .0 C vi 7
Y _T"a f3 T
03
I y
es Rs ,G cLYa R qA R G. O O ^ CS d
G W N b4 0 "T C _ U
o c o Q Ua > 'ca co
cUi =a 3 a
�La '� U t `n K .a w d °` N in j U a' co
0 N .0 • • • •
y yin
O W
94
C14
C C
O 0
al Co u
21
LL. L;. O.
czrj
,
m
9z
E
E 0 Cl
Cd E .2 0
> .
4A E A.)>u 0CL >
Q 0 0 Q
u u
0
aw 0
0
V)
CY CL (Y
ch
0
w 0 ;co
0 15
E s ca
> f -
r- >, v Q) , o
o > 8 -
C, , , �9 =, " .
CL 0 al cl, w C,,J, o tlo E o =
u �s .5 V ';: E cl,
TV o R —0 -0
E :2 -'� r_ -Z-S
= 5 - m r- t5 C-4 o 0
u u a 1�10 o 0 ng c -2
cu - .2 -2 �,, -6 - > 0 a
T. r 0 m om 1,4
ro ,:- 5 2 mu r- u CL UO U>
tw cc C: Mj
0 o 2 -0 -0 :3 'n r cz cc
I o 14
tZo
0 LL, V
LL 0 to cd >, Z 0
C "0 - r- " 0 u "R :3 r- �E j ZS
w r_ 0 ar 6 o . cr co 0
,u IE u ou to - U
e*b-0 'o 8 w 4- c "o C's 0- r
> ti- u
o to -0 0
> C3 cara. >, > m t c
q
w o Ir-j w
U, C"o 0 :3 C,3 o
C m r- CIO,-
U r- bjQ.T 5 .2 0 to
ro
E 0 � Z W Z
-0 �. to o
15 o A to E
o 0
u u, 6 E - .- a 5
tj -0 •n- E zs a C-0 a W. to v >
s as
L M = cz Z V E
, r S 11
o =s 0 Ca -0 to (U
u 8 L)
C, (uu
od —c* 40.1
0
o Co C3 m0
= C� > 0 W - E� 5 01) 00 oj
0 kn E W. = o a li-
N C-4 LX V - .-
c v1
�20 0 c cc �11 C4
M 0 = Gtr s%ca
> C M 5 rA
ro It
to-C v 0 m to cqs t: p 03
�1. Q = - r o
tz -0 > .0
C3 -E
, 'u -6 U> .,= u
0
I `m: 't -9 2. E I.n cd
co to 5. to E tla-o u 0 -0 U w ON
0 t -0 -3 a t: 'cc
-10
'JA cz u CL r- In U C. .2 to
o o as
0 C,3 > r- cd u u .0
m s u 8
> > 40- t> " - w ==
co 0 o Zn ,
- ;-- to r 0 0
C C', — -a
CZ w E -4 m -0 EL CL >
U C3 0 , .0 E .2 L)
0 C6 C's -0 > u 0 M
0> -, �j = r- n - >
ocr mw cm 0 u -0
o In
Z C,3 0
17 o ra t5
r o u
C 0 0 M o .0 cd -3
aj C: U q) W
o .— Im E- 'A a jz -r- r- 01- >1 al r- 0 -"3
0 �� C - ca OJ .2 -C
CL Co oj co C451) 0
cl,
L) 6 'A
Lt.
ccno Em: E! cwa E cu)
ci A 0 -0 cz
cc w U) w u 'n m r_ 0 cd
2 r- = C- < w o
lo.
r- a 4- o c 0 > ca
0 0 r En --0 t.
U 0 r_ L) 4) CnL o r- :3 co M r- W,
r 0 aj 0 u
-0 E Qj •0 r-
t 0
-:0
cl CL 0 > r- 'a OID
cz
0
w C� 4j >1 ol
01
V2
>
0 u 0 0
C> Q
0 .0 W- 0 CL u r- >0 -0 C�
M
O
v
O O •O O O O p .�
a R R M c
v > Uto
=
H 0 'E o '� o m ; o
°nE �� soo °o� soo $
G y 7 C N 3 L N 7 >
= O •� -C O S C O O C
Dos awu
L y
w bo
i.%� •4. T y Z v y O
E E E ° .�i
Gam. O 7 0 E O C 7 0 E >+ O •c
E > R E > R E > R o o E
n' U � 0 UQO U00 U 0Q
U pp
� c
0 y
0. o a R
_ (n ° �
•rj c0 U .(u '•Ui
O O O
CLI CL a` U'Q
Cc
Y a p p ej ° C c o p
y C C N
cai o c o o '" o f N y L > o 'C > a
coT N cs z U O w U U CO C is 'D ,L
ca v, v v c N c R
E. Zu Y v ai ai v aai U ° o u p C .v c E c
cc > M p E c a> y o co � � =
_ ou u
E o N `; u c4 0 0 m .n u y o o ` Y s °_' n a° `N° 3 E ' ° E —
E u � � _ °� aui d ° vim ° N c ' N m .° on c c Q v � al
N v ° N u m ao c o '0
u b y u 0 o U .20 "°' ao u o .° o o ` > 0 00 p
p s y v ren c p 7 R U -° v = O v N E Z' Uto
°CL u m M
cl
v v = C' 0t- �`a o � - � ° ons Y c m0 U o E EU ` E 0' 0' oR
s ass
to r- uU - v O c c � . 0 c RE ° E_ o o S 0 ° ro" M
,0., - U .� �U.. O G 3 U 76
U U O C N CU U •« OA c`d C.O �,., C\ C oo U > C
Q 7 E u = U N c0 y
O U O.'— O U O ` U '0 U •v r '0 'v ro a '0
Cis c C a C 0 0 ca O O O a 3 c~O 0 'O U C y 0 y C R
cJ E O U d T C U n'Loq� `� 2 to tyU R
E�l •3 o axi .� v � U � v > v a`i bo 4) E v° °c v ° :: °' o ° -0 c
o vc° c ca v v o > _ >, u c E c v . Q a
c p O v=i •� aNi U 'O �.CC.. w avi ° O O ca y v N > ,E
u 3 v aura ° E w ° N °o > c h E v ° u -0 E =
o = ' cU c � �_ E ° s 0 0 v y m .- R � � � v c_ a¢i o `, E w _° 0 co
0 u o «' > " N `° �.. .F vCi n' N a`! E e9 ° > U N °_' o NN
v 'E ' -0 u o v c u s N E " N ° E ie N ° C co Jo, C
U y S OU o C U C G �" p .U O C C O ca U '� a�U-. 0 0
n= rco c := 0 ° > w .o °' p 4? cUi o 'a U c w Fa o o R
o > �s N `° '° E °' a o y Y v - 2 a o o E E o 'o u o o s
Y N �y cJ U U >., R O — N s C R a`� 0 � '0 >, N y C OU Y
o .E •� v .. 0 � os � O . uvcRUU roU " " �'' EE c ❑ E
o oo E to o f o f 2 u on u s oo ? E Y c `-' ¢ ° 0 0
o a n .5 °c o o > 0 0 0 c ¢ 0 3 s N 0 — ° > °'`, U ° N
— N c� v v o v u p o7 — avi = = = c _ o c c U .r U v N
o c u E R R w v Q°, c� _ cl
o c " U .. y 3 z °' m o0
e N m 0 v _U F EA 0. N E c v o E o s o cca �>, E 3 n 'm
v ...1 p U 0 -0 C 'fl ti m N C J U N O y
N
w U a'—_� o�nv ° v EZ Ut ° o c `= Ew c -° N y� UY ° aUia o o` ov °.' 0 c
,o 3 0 -0 0 U € s D ' v E o — .v
VCi 7 C 6 N •C—y N .U.. C Y U C -J p N v v O E' 7 C o
N ` C U L 0 C N p 7 m °- N Q. b t,� .y L -I N @ E C O m C ri N u w
wi 1Ci -0 'O 'o O C '0 v U y 3 �•„ °u 3 E N U id cC .�i0 N ° eC U y p —
C "O rs 'D cd m — E C c0 p� ca tom. y IJ •� C 00 C — bA ° 4_ O O h m m
p C -0 c u ca p Cd O C p N 'D _ .O N O C cJ C o = .N C 'C U G
E Y E � y '0 N r v 0 v � N N V L cL O � .� d ° c_' N ca
•CtS ry C U N O id '.... N U C o m of N U .0 C iC C L -
° c E o .N r , 0 Q ' u :! O o ' " - Y a y E V N 121
—
° • o c ° o o > s o ca c •-,•- o ' E s N E o c E
r. 72
c v 0 ao nv u E v > 0 ,�, ° c 0 ° " ° " E Y ° " vL °
a' v U v m rs ca ca a u �R Q U 0 Q N a
l
IS
0
n
o
0
-a
m
e..'-
w, J .•' c� v O G O J
O cs
d �y'G• ON p, � G � '� °� G
G m pn o o I ° E
•� �+ O- O G O �y W G vtoOD
°
✓ U ca
Ew •° o-O y oD G .� q p.
v=q O ✓ G � •° J J m ��
r
oi fl' obi '>
y ya o, o 'p „p o d
N 'G G p O v G nD J ✓ nL A G O
�+' N O•'i. 'f' .G W i. G G y U
0
y oA Y o
to y
,4n` d Gy'O y .+ J G •O c> G G cd O e> �, J N
y .,�.�" � V J y a-bD av„(;� W r '� fl•ry w N O p 'J GN cs
-r.� J y G o O� G .: O � •'^-'o> 9 U fl•� J O• N O'�d
'�,''` Y O to O G O fY G ', cs :. O J E•gflv.+ JN .dp•n' n> °O
�v W O G .-. N✓.. co '°' bD y ;, � � r aGi w•"o 0 Ln
y N
N O Jir- N J N «v+ •�+' d 4� G3 � R 9 V � N ,✓,�• �' ✓
`• v d ✓'O G .G 4w„ �• G tL'O w J d d G �.' ° ai cs
9 � r G '6 N >`� � y N y N Ui• v � N ✓V r oTj N V 7 v
J v� S� �, i'q y �•q y d Y O pr '�"''' w0 6,„✓� O cGd ,,; M � �w G G
G G G d N N6 OD G >>✓ U N L q v
GJ NOD r N ' cs N O O
G y D
O•✓ N •v ,.� S3 G •N-O � w 0 > J G w T is
3 YN > °' a � � >a ° `° q ° cG rN °: rte • `° ACS ° y 8
w°, C :p o•9 O G' q •4 9 a� J �'" Q'On th
o �a o� U� � A � G J G "ca '" G+ ✓ U N j a p ✓� r G N � y v G 7
-0 �i N � O"O ! .Gj• Q•�' y'p •E. N 0•r G Q? rp.✓ A K y.G
q `' ✓
° O- G p N Y v v o ✓� O N G�..1 ✓ ° C O OD
O v °r� r ✓ .� N
v, �v N J qca G T �9 3 y, ✓- � car� '�Co'iC � G p a ", O y " J
w 0. co 0 @ � O � In
:% > N G ^6 v , `.' N q N "' d °. O ,•' y pD— ✓ N ca
'O ° pD d' cs N N O N G O" v avi bD d cs J 5 N
O j•, v J v
CJ p d v U pp O J .fl > G O(,.O`G G ; G, w r ✓V '� •�,,O%q
N A
G r G ty �;, q me y ,°,.. 9 ry>> .fly
� n`7 �•• J 4„ R N � p a> a> N N•�a C � °� w �e�
v 3
G O NU N O
i N G G % CN.G G p °.N G G •G i U cl 0i J... -i v 'O
ca R '
ca
J
U ✓ q r w y'O n> .•-. 7 ca r N ✓C ,Gj, N fl NN-"Jd r y rc ^d
N G 9 •'O T N G v O .fl ° G dv� ?NJ3 O °✓ ° N @@r O N@ U- rca
" G trd
✓" oD C cs O C v �p�d °✓ y y o f p u v 7 N O. v �`cs c? cva p °
J N s d 0 6 o p a o
'n "' N O T G G y o0 >+�✓' G G °' oD LY N v r N d N c� G Z J@ �, >
ca :O .G d ° ° G- J O ,• O J 1a. -0 .0 J °� y N •.d .r
r cs O oD O ,� A r O '✓ 'J i W w J 5' y O
on
O .fl KD O d ..,• 'O .T+ '�a"�a 3 G O v p
oD N A O G J O � O c,: i,. .-. Ll� eJ v 'n .a y ,G, o ,b•.v, cd n
G v nD N on p r N O G° y ca O Rs N 0O N in
G y 3 ca
4 N y y o t1> J O N o±y y °n N y U y G �, y JO�J Gca J
p ca C G O 9 aGi 10 v R a G O •. cs `n
Cs O N O'v U > Y O ,,, y ° '✓ v' ° y O
v'LO
p "
� v ,,'o c, 0'a d• NG r -° � Nc �, ✓"° dG �, � ° oo
A fl G y q ✓ G G ° oD✓ •... '° ✓- R 01
N C7 O v O oD w ✓ ai O N � .•+ G oD N'> N '!a G v G v „"�� 't`rJ0 c,� Gi•
G aNi o N
N N ° N Cy O N U J'i N yy G cd'U •• 'G J O•.G
y O q ,n m g fl
N
° o i m o4 _ aq R aJi o 0
't0 ca � G 5,• � G �, � R� ..
N
C
U C
w
Y' 4
tr
0
0o W C •✓
d �
p
c
G v 'o v
'U v d A
¢v Jw w O d O O
o ;fl N cw•
N p N N
C3 j
yO `cwi ^O yr+ � Q G R
2',
T L � G T U � ✓ N /^ y w
N
G w ! w U yr. fl cGJ IG,
to w J y a� �. -O �t ,n
w a 'Tl0 w .�•^� r, y 'v by
o c oo r un o
In ! w n
iOD i
r
wLn
� ami � 'OU' � �'r ,N•.' p d O,�,\ d, G,
to
O r c
N
O G �6
N N CYtdwoz
✓� y �O A Ky, Y N O
w \N 9 ✓ p R 3 S O G y v p t y
w oE' w w o 3 ' m y ci C o
".. 6'O G G G l y G' y a � p •�:p p 'ci i. .O. q
w on 0 3. O � 7e6 9 w vy @ 30 O J ftl w G �
O
p 7'�
If,
O N
��, .tip G G U p � �^• r .�= E^" .
G r O .w ✓d v � r O � .+
0
C U N
C
co
7
0 0o
o �
o. to
L
tu
w
u d
c
co = o E
E o
E > a
U m m
w �
.y a o co
C v 0 O O
a E y c °
u O.-
U
L L CJ —
aca
3 a` CY
y
CQ
y '
O �
3
n
N M
Uh
N AFM
ON y
O_ .+
(� u 'r
U d.d
y `
� � W
V � V
C
O � �
CJ fj L L d
.. Oas m
b
L c Cu ry ry n n r+1 z
W
4. ca Cr is
c •
cs h I o � -- n 00 00 ^ 00 00
O r'1 r'1 �l In N r•l (+1 t1
aai d Icrw
L �E F0-0
E � •p N
U _
C N •... � � .O ^ ^ w n N N N N
•L = O O O O A
C C C
cd 41
v 'o O oy N
Vl 00
H •�• C 3 .— �y V1 N N q Vn V1 !q -:5 V1
CC V7 6Q O O O O O O O O O
� a � y a`di •� � aaaaaaa� a
o tl = o o N
.ro U
.01 U
z >! Y, � � H
LU
r
w
m
a
i
rd
v �
�V
.�
..--�^
L",
R
m
•i
tZ
.�
r
v
„f
M d
f '�
��
r
V
id
Pa
�?
N
.��
Cls
O
Ld
kA
` 4
.f
I4 ' '�$��� ' r.f.--•-,i--:� �}w..—.-�L ? '�[��`r'rj-v`b"^ztt,��r �=. +�� t��'s� T y
'ter.
IV Y Wi„) , :.+-i I• .5!• !�1'4'�.n+ i jj,�2C 4�y�y`�{'.' 11'R $ {,.t�'Ra� r.'r 11 Y1�.
( `��oYFj�r•--i{{l ••�; Y r ,� �y( ✓'r[ _J �S't,�x y4yi�N.±"Y4'� L.
),`fk'1Y7°-y-'�4•r?, 7 .� r iyrt t� Q• IFF,� Ott
'I.�i�• ,1�'S _ �(} �' Ni t�`'{{1 y� f, .F. R �,¢ 7I �'•���tlR�] �.q(F��a'�4. .C'
1 Z 1;L' 1 r 4 "'vl: fj��a/..(y,7(•i 1 I .
i':'� 1 `'�•' '` t'v- 7`� r r.r�,<}#!� �1�,, *;�'>, �I �`f�i'}*7i'ti�,'Ji'-` '�4„ '�
R31 �, „44*�•yS}! 'i� h,i, �'yq], cif 1'14"r'
cn'�,'i dr `�+ir'r;;q- +P}.. 7'{�}'i•}{' #{�a t 1jx��x� ,
`'�yy+ ht i' •Z y� .,. 5 r^
.Is. {, 1,4_I.�6^y
I � •s�'�N} Ji"'� i}� n t+ `�z �'�I rya � ,r ,
'v' `�, � is� �. ,, c��y'Ry�'kf r"�+ +•
� n� ,,,:pit,- +' eb� Y— t '�r�ra�.';• � �'s ��
�1 Y ,t�' �{ %� �, �/ 1 l'"�3Y�4'L't' �v.�•'.:"� 1- f a- R`W+'�"1
k,, f�I� _ 1x j�"YJ, ,t iir�'�i i ♦ ^• ,..}1Y. �.I+'�• Ibi c 'pe �, � �,.
.� ��- 114•, �. �,� :- .� _y � �� x " , �,�,.,
r Y
i
VIS,
,t
7
U�
- 1
f
;
CLI
+ i
CO Yll
v
a i
i
e ,
e
„re.xy°LRC.r'.+a;:•'.;;;"rA.•lii�'iY.1;.:�: ,..,:t. 'ie"11-IM E}•.
....gw:..;::' in:'njG;: :•}i �”��.{'.Vn 'A ' :r5y2... .
v;,i�,•(,`;;�.�•�,,.t+i��.5��� ;:::•*�'P�.�.'§' �Lr�
,:� r;: ..�F..}'yyh.}. ;l;�wle�•ffiy;J''.�[�: '';.so- :.{� ��r�, -T •rS
rI,i+ r ~Aj•_••h,:v4:. "':t.ia,-f ` A .. .1 J�3Tj,A%.-.
.'''as:'�;:. - " .. .• :% y .,L'._.�'. '�',� w„-A' ,sh„ .ti'l
' :v.�•y. '} "�, .:' .'Y 'et:•. ,
•:y'= :.t�{'- ''r''-'�'?..:.q'..x;,Y;.t2'%tr�'v 77;•:.:.p.\., _� :,' e�:1�a;i•a+_i'r�?
- :':,Ce'cr •..�..: .:,>f'iYt,.J5.4 -'y.1•!.. 'r:'iC"'�„+i�::':'�'.'�{•,"�� �•, _ '.'�.. #.
-:1n.':',': ."ij� -,,,i•" :cr",'ry.�^:,*kifr'.. .r 14 _,!.' ;t., .:t.. ''•r•.`
- -;{.:� .-w.:• evy+ .,f'. .i�,-1. �:a^' :9�,.r r -:7 1�,��/��
.. .,...,.... .-. ....,::l±r,.+.=i��'...s:...-;+..,..�,-::,���,�ii#� SiY;:. t,,,�- b-1•, - -r..1:134.r iW'.7ct3T',•�s �ya '��
,+...�.{-.:,_'.�::.�. ... ..'-"b'' ........:..... �.;:.. ..:: •':'r.;
MAA
�
,.:..-..,.......... ....r..:; .._ .-.• ,L - ..,..n:
.......,.. .... _ r.-.._ ... ..- :.y , , ..::.':.,..; "`v>N''�t:;� �ytl:.•'c..
'";L1`+.'� a:[�wrY^�.,,:'w:,�-i.:Y:r..� Ai: •i'.F;:LLQ ���� �,n�.,.
...._ .....,,. .. '. .... "r,�'l1Jf^.�'•�:.[ - A,l. :y'N:•,-...:.':.. `V"} ,° .;_n3tY)••.(:'' h .
1,...V•' !i: St-:ir`.'y:^,_ 'l..a °;.{'TL �••..- 3"`e;
.(` •�, �_ ..'.}..
.r ... _... _ •,..:..�,.: 'r:::::,.,:�'::' _r.r... ^.::1 f,' :.J�: ::Lw•yLyt;•y.. :�a,=.t.�,r+r Ali
ri•
..rAr ��-.i' i:.VL4�4:r!:";':: n4�i:.r i••..�.. r N•.. �#,,��,y�A•1
1•F4?' J
..,......r..,,.-_, r....:•. ...:.,,..: ..__, ..a.... .- ;, :;.k:ija• ..�;• 4r`tt"' _r,r2„�.' .:t?`>' .':ti,
iz
...�•..,, r..:.... ... ... .. ;L�.� .,,;...,c,�. .t• .:� ;ft"�= - .:ul[i�!"i�2.:i :.;J}..l':�.;,1•'ti`.:J'rj.•�.:y�'
•:.ra-'��iP�t+�S`; ski,..•rix.. .a_l��'<�;+.,'... ,c r�:,.. �`tr_','�';=-�`� "hk��'.i:,
r ..,:.:� �".:,�1...'.--•' i'•$f .,s-� ;d-`f - r•�c9ia .:+f,',•.,..,; .Y,
.. ..:. .. .. ,. ... ^ Ili^
7S;,:r•
:r
�y x
:.,. :.. .'1=.� ..... .. .._ ....... .. .. ..,.� a..� _
Gr. :'kY�Y, ;:moi- .�"v•:�
�Yi`:, 'G'.Tr�._. .1d� .rL:: '•A.}} :�7E4i•::ti_:.T':..n:�r��i( .
,.v
,
:.111...,....::.� �.. � ....:.. ... .... ... ....... ..r �.•.P-1 ;:m'i` .. A-1; ,�,C,':;r,.:�w-:•�-�
....-,` � ... .,..� ... .r. ..:.... -. �.. .•' i��r.+ �';,S `'�a. �(I:.,,:-r:;:ter:
•""`N
J.,
1..
r~�
-
y
:iTliw
::- S
.., :...
yz �_ .,;n:, ....('���::r:::.� •ate f..%
,r
r
11 0� -
`
.a
t. ,1 �rl: .rff ,.�'A�-' �•���'�••::5.,.,���J. ,.fir` rF'.,j .G.:�L'+.
1
�r
.
A.
lbs
r r •
tP.
O
_..,..
{ ..:n.:.:..
y
., .. ....tl .. . . ..-,: .•:�..., ...: .:' nth^.:i:=� -;•.v,a _
.... .... .. ... -: .. 1 ... .'.•:::�.'• ..,fit.' -
-. I
- r
t-
.... .' - `1
r'
,
t:
:.._ .
• ::"vim:•;...::... ,y�.��i�::.'a'��...
50.
1,
ZJ
:
'„;ttrt
N
rte•
!�u'L,u.,+•1,��tl''''» ..1:� r',.5y:.i'[:r3G'r.''a-�"'-,- _
..LL
O M. u
_ N
N •� 1 Q. � Z
u —AMIW
y N O
C O} V ,
N Lo Q n
N ~
Win -
�„ rn H O 0
- r o O � Q m Q
.... M i 0.
u
t � h
_ o
.00 �IP o0
CONTRA .!° �4n CP41f
Q ol� ro N
Z 'E ti
U)
a 53 Q
IN
Z a" B,"
O S Ex Jr.('�
J p pr d o.n 1• °y .r'
o
qt
� 1
=/ O
k
� L �
\ 4'
... ... . .. . .. . r
..........
. . ...:....
q
n t1.., ..,- ..}:i..... .. .......i..I...-c... ....:rI1....A.L• .u-,P ..._. 4r•: .. t - .,3.1.mr�.. _.-.J.. .fie. .: - �:.tr+��.'�.'µ.r ~Gl:i�•'rk
:�#� ..i. r�l�:; u+X'—sas•r �: -� r_.�_ .,�.... .g, .��..�-�+•i jSti :3`:;,11.?e� 'tk:,:rn ���' '^d>
��°_ �lif.�'S;.�Gj•-.hy..'.C�f :il��i�1��" Y. t:{:'s�'`=i�'C4.�uS.Lr^��. .� I• �+ ..Z � �:i ;:':
.} .i• ;"'H. w+4 ' � -J•w...a' C>47:z "�' Y r •Jl' r.:. ;�3{.r:�u•t�Jlt.y,t:'���.����F��,��.'.. �.
1,i5: l�� �L {,v Y:-?�..;yf"fes, �r•�5 1
• „t�,y i: . :`r�. ;nz..,i. Cl' 'L` I ��-:.�� �' .:.+'"t��- �j. ��y �yc-,l�i'r�ip,�'��a� � �.
' N
_ l _
i
2 pi
LLLL
SCI
LL
I'I
��' 1►,11t �1
t *�
.. wig
/t►. � .=tfr�
. .' iltllllt1111
���I�IIitl4�1
1
I. �'.�,pu �. I�1�p• I..
i
I 1
12
i
I O
b i 6
I
10� 20l Du
i
I.
. ���. �►ani - ��.�/� �/rf�ri �l�''�5
r
r
�,��
1
�,�� I
log
��
` � � 1
r � �
( t
�.,1
�,��1.7i. �+
I
- 1 �
� �- c
�' r
��
�� 2�
',
___ ... ;
�`
t � � � l
�, �
� ��Ii�
, � _.
i��, - i
.,
__
��
��
r
� <
� ��,��°
c�
�,,
,.
;,;
4�
�' � ����
�� 2
', ����
_._.. 1--.i .
a � � -
p .
� I
Z&bo4r
I
12fi to
w+
2
• 1 11 j
' 1 1
0 ApN 1
II _\II
�co j I
I
Lo
0
omm
II
' II
I I
I I
a I I
I I
I I
I I
nC ' OV/
r mmno \;`� - /
n< o
0 Liu
A.
No
I
m
_ •_; o
_ 11 a -.O ..
G
ED
IIIrIJJJ y
IIII � " J
—
_
s � s -u
m Ytr As�� m YFRMCO " -:_. AEa �w.
N SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN n2° ENGINEERING YANAGEIEENT a = _ o�I}' MLo
�
HOUSE PLACEMENT AND SETBACK PLAN
r A W.,UM -
PACIIECO, CALIFORNIA SUBDIVISION 0784 KE No.1166] OJ-li-06 i9bler ,99 �ers_A5o
1'f ,
u°rim,n* �tyw^„' °0_fFro.•r.o_°w i� ifI40 NOISIAMEMS VINIMArIVO '033TINd
—'-- — - CL.,° YArWIf]'N ri. LLLlb C:YII
— LtCiMd'JVNVH A�NI7IDNI�Wi 3 ` ^�
wren s.aL-�nro5 a3a ow� �,re SO-IIS
vc o�w2l�ia w°.,,m �,�:° �f dVNi �AI.Ld,L�I�,L '��IIiI,SHA
�-W
rg
UA
7
gyp. < ~� 'gdbYgQb
muu xo*o 7 y E
W
ir
to
af.V ' ;
< LU
012
i
10
SFr
MET
r�L� O .25 / !
fey W d ri A I
Fas Fu3g - Y ,JS'�II s � W
Z y F;IEg�q cell 8.. E - W W d 1 d 1 - --evrr—If--.---.+
F..
N. a%; aa3g3f w d p
U F- -
S O 9 Z W �Y _
lu
Z
-, bLLJaa y O ! iroiura
/ 0 r W W imiw 3u`vm— W N Cl) \ o I b
co LLI V2
0 C)
0 cc
ME
a = Y a QZp ~ =1I•\$^
¢ Q Y. ¢ Nrim \Y \ J U
'1 p p H _ !R \\ \. m}
� o b�L o � "� o of f o J % � —� ��L• .\ � I 'R 'la �-, � `�_
z
.....:.....:...
7
i
M-111 co
00 cm
91
IL
17
Q _ S9lL g 6E
cooo
i
LU
W
� Q /— 1 � / ` \\ s -.Js"/ �� '' •' �moi' / i � ,
AZ 0
WE
Ir LLI
93 W` E
p J
A
% '"y'-:'•i=.:1., .../ t is F
C
i
a '/ e I ,Js �I�• I � /� j/ �i /"- // r� g � Ddu
�• / I I / it o" �• R• pi /
g
4 Z=
,.�' �:1�` / O �, ,�• y�j Y,l� I iF: Y / ' p5 I S1WV* � U? O~
N F r a w L
auj
O o vU
z
1 a }J ap
LLI
NOTIFICATION LIST
159150045 159150052 159150053
A ATLANTIS BURIAL SERV INC REAL PROPERTY DIVISION REAL PROPERTY DIVISION
1926 WINCHESTER PL 255 GLACIER DR 255 GLACIER DR
FAIRFIELD CA 94533 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159170005 159170006 159170034
CALDWELL MICHAEL E & JUNE P CALDWELL MICHAEL &JUNE FARR JAMES HOWARD &PATRICIA S
109 CLIPPER LN 109 CLIPPER LN 5025 CHELSEA DR
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159180001 159180002 159180003
WRIGHT ROBERT J & MARCIA L TRE PETRILLO RICHARD PETRILLO RICHARD
112 CLIPPER LN 118 CLIPPER LN 116 CLIPPER LN 5
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159180004 159180005 159180007
PETRILLO RICHARD HENDERSON ROBERT H & SHERRY LARSON KARLAN E & KIM L
118 CLIPPER LN 120 CLIPPER LN 155 ARKINLANDER LN
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159180015 159190002 159190003
FORD PHYLLIS A HESSEY PAMELA A HUGHES CLAUDIA J
149 ARKINLANDER LN 145 HILLSIDE LN 155 HILLSIDE LN
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159190004 159190005 159190006
EINEVOLL OBERT& KAYE E TRE THOMPSON DANIEL D &LESLIE A EINEVOLL OBERT& KAYE E TRE
4592 EL MONTE CT 4710 BLUM RD 4592 EL MONTE CT
OAKLEY CA 94561 MARTINEZ CA 94553 OAKLEY CA 94561
159190007 159190008 159190009
GOLDEN OAK DEVELOPMENT INC CULLISON PAMELA ADAIR CULLISON PAMELA ADAIR
1116 HASTINGS CT 160 HILLSIDE LN 160 HILLSIDE LN
ANTIOCH CA 94509 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159190010 159190011 159190012
PENE SHAWN M VERDIN JOSE BODUSZYNSKI BARBARA
180 HILLSIDE LN 4730 BLUM RD 1333 SAN PABLO AVE
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 PINOLE CA 94564
159190014 159190015 159190017
GRESHAM MARGARET TRE KRUMMEN THOMAS M & JANICE M NEVELS RONALD S
1967 WOODPECKER CT 4736 BLUM RD 4758 BLUM RD
WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159190018 159190020 159190024
LANGSTON KENNETH TRE GRESHAM MARGARET TRE MORSE ANDREW
762 CONDOR DR 1967 WOODPECKER CT 957 STOW LN
MARTINEZ CA 94553 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 LAFAYETTE CA 94549
159190029 159190030 159190031
HAMILTON TOLBERT& HEATHER ARENZ RICHARD M II JANIN ASSOCIATES
115 HILLSIDE LN 15 LA SALLE DR 957 STOW LN
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MORAGA CA 94556 LAFAYETTE CA 94549
159200002 159200006 159200007
ALENCASTRE AARON STEVENS PETER T& PENNY HAMLIN ELLEN
35 RUTHERFORD LN 3174 SURMOUNT DR 4786 BLUM RD
MARTINEZ CA 94553 LAFAYETTE CA 94549 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159200009 159200010 159200011
TLIEMAT DOMINIQUE O VAELEI TISIMASI DERR CARL S
1310 LAVEROCK LN 10 RUTHERFORD LN 4790 BLUM RD
ALAMO CA 94507 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159200019 159200021 159200022
ISLAVA HECTOR R JR& MARIANNE EVANS JERALDEAN ROY DUSTIN L
25 RUTHERFORD LN 40 RUTHERFORD LN 15 RUTHERFORD LN
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159200023 159200025 159200026
JONES KELLY G &JOYCE L LUPERCIO ALEJANDRO & LOIS E CHANG JOSEPH
45 RUTHERFORD LN 48 RUTHERFORD LN 44 RUTHERFORD LN
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159200027 159200028 159200029
NISHIZAWA FAMILY TRUST GARDNER DONALD BRIAN REYENGA BOB & EVA
88 RUTHERFORD LN 55 RUTHERFORD LN 4774 BLUM RD
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159200030 159200033 159220003
WEINER WILLIAM AIELLO CHRISTINA DORIS MYERS RONALD J & SUSAN D
4778 BLUM RD 30 RUTHERFORD LN 8282 KOBERT RD
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 WINTERS CA 95694
159230003 159230004 159230005
BODHAINE RANDALL C & C I TRE BRANNON EDITH E TRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PO BOX 23366 7424 28TH ST PO BOX 722
PLEASANT HILL CA 94523 NORTH HIGHLANDS CA 95660 SAN BRUNO CA 94066
159240005 159240006
BRANNON EDITH E TRE BRANNON EDITH E TRE
7424 28TH ST 7424 28TH ST
NORTH HIGHLANDS CA 95660 NORTH HIGHLANDS CA 95660
BUILDING INSPECTION PUBLIC WORKS CONTRA COSTA FIRE
***Interoffice*** ENGINEERING SERVICES ***Interoffice'**
***Interoffice***
Historical Resources Info Services
SHERIFF OFFICE Foundation Center, Building 300 Native American Heritage Commission
ADMIN & COMM SERVICES 1303 Maurice Avenue 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364
***Interoffice*** Sonoma State University Sacramento, CA 95814
Rohnert Park, CA 94928-3608
Mt. View Sanitary District Contra Costa Water District City of Martinez
P.O. Box 2757 P.O. Box H2O 525 Henrietta Street
Martinez, CA 94553 Concord, CA 94524 Martinez, CA 94553
CalTrans
Martinez Unified School District Miss Jean Finney
921 Susanna Street IGR-CEQA Branch Chief
Martinez, CA 94553 P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
MAPS
i
� li�
To
.,
i;,: CD
pirA
� D
N-j
co
i �
r
m
r
r1r"
1
3
' � HAY, a .�,�.•��.y�^.^'}i.,f — .�
'CS
r
m.
r' i•
Jr J
_ CO)
�•ft f 4�'�1 � �
C1 _� r
AD
'-�*'�'r :i;�: ': ..�,�.�'k �'••••.1 SCI. t'+:,.Y' :1{T`'��
j%.�:� n?tti�(:r="yp�"!::.;�;!�.i.S�;i.,V`a"• - �.fkt;' :`+; ;%'iH;=Y,
I;>? ���''•'iF,k>i,'ai',. ..y,.:<, - •��.{:,,�y�}fit; i
ll
1`I
cap cl) �v i
-vvN
el
' qaH
Ab >'
O M, a Sg?a0,
oos
co
O y
> cn
11
li
OCA
Z N* 1 mPkb CA
ISI
mad
41
Wd
cl
al co
�..
(n
r;
1100 la � r, � �� �t - j n O
4m I 0TZ
r o •' " I G
z L1
� Ltd
a V
.f ,,�
-
Lip
' �4 �
TT , t0
1.
1
z \
:..
& AY'
�Y r
f7 9
I I
p
F
M '� r. •� 9 ,: was w�wlm am •a. axwvnvi e.
W '.�r q SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN "`° f•.� PERM O - L -
�V HOUSEPLACEMENT AND SETBACK PLAN
PACHECO, CALIFORNIA SUBDIVISION 8784 fee�Ne °�°o`� �.m°"`in. ee� ""T0A•"'wim""n's ------ -
/'''�� -iqr t,•J:r,it v '�
! s aaz,
ra
s t
r� � �{� •� f12
Y y yP � �y.i'. r�•
74 r- tt tt r f
ID
14 1
Z us-
NA
(n p 9
1` Vff
V !
! �
r "0 v Q
Ob
s 9e r
O,
2 6 6 ti r r r n,ao r
-ip r
O
touaN
rq
ON
un
r
7
l � a
It
+� '; a �t�• 'L� ii g A 6e# i9 �` fit:z
is12.
o# )Ij P49
m
a ! R _ � _ � w
COtit ii 4,
..5
m
�� •g y it
PERMCQWAUt
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP —•�--'
Y• u.rMi iWr
ESTATES"
"GLUM VIEW 2AW
a ; sSURD VIS 0
'� nmrsCO, CALIFORNIA
C(DI S T
06 F[p1 Pill 3: 4 7
1 Lemli W
I"L:a ibrp
G Z
—0 -3
lx'
R
D
CD
-C
ip
co S
FTr
14
_0 (D
57 r
D
CL
U.,
2
ILA
on
OUR
0
F
0
;u
0
oxg
1F1 S 0
aq
vo
Q,o
ZE 201)
r 0,
M
.!E
x!
13 E)
IF
OD Ch
za A
0 0 .,r,� Lo a R
0
CL
CL
oo 0
CL A.
3 R
A
4E
0
L . r
0
CL
-0
0
:3 10
r
NO
CD
CL
1paft
aa ...... Q-gpgnu>
0
o
r -P I H. 35. 9
49 T,--S3- K
zo�o ga.-�!-S Is'
$
1"29! Wu
0
3*-o ad -N3M.N-
v— . MIS W
E SH.9: a 3-W �11*-
Fly
0 R
3,
CL N •
L Up ;F 90
o 3 '3 1 5
3
o.
5
T
0vel
:E*
o-
:r n S
11 `x� �f o, qz
I'Mog; On OCDfM." x
S >H
I'm t) -T r
E. V*g
>, >m
0
•
, m r ncsno
(D -,E >ov<m
J*
m o J"Oor� Mo
T ".,q 'rem" MU-1. now >
(DonDn
9pjj 5 N.
>. x . () Dv Km onDa; It
m r >1 -cm
E,
o
v
I > o n a z o Ar
3 <
o
x
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
MARTINEZ AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,April 11,2006 at 1:00 p.m.in the County Administration
Building, 651 Pine Street,Room 107 (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning
matter:
JANIN ASSOCIATES INC. (Applicant&Owner),This project consists of two
applications:
County File#RZ033135—A request for approval to rezone 11.56 acres from
Single Family Residential,R-7, and Two Family Residential,D-1, to Planned Unit
District, P-1.
County File#DP033067—A request for approval of a final development plan to
establish 23 single-family residences (2200-2400 square feet in size)on 11.56 acres
of property. Approval to remove 17 trees on site is also requested.
The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa
County, State of California, generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in
the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez,
California):
The location of the subject site is at 4766 Blum Road in the Martinez area.
For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance(no Environmental Impact Report
required)has been issued for this project.
If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence.
Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, April 11,
2006 at 12:30 p.m., in Room 108,Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, to meet with any
interested parties in order to (1)answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board;
(3)clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve, or
narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call
Ryan Hernandez, Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1206 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday,
April 10, 2006 to confirm your participation.
Date: March 28, 2006
John Cullen, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
t
By t,Wv
Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk
i
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILIly
IN THE MATTER OF:
Janin Associates request for two application approvasl, Cour
#DP 033067, in the Martinez area.
I declare under penalty of e ' h now, an 1
p y p r�ury that I am d at a] tir
citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I dep,
Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United StatE
California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hea,
matter to the following:
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LIST
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez,
California.
Dated: March 28, 2006
Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk
L
Anashia Lloyd To KSinc@cob.cccounty.us
<cctlegals@cctimes.com>
F; CC
03/28/2006 03:52 PM
Please respond to bcc
cctlegals@cctimes.com Subject Re: Publication Request-Janin
THE FOLLOWING e-mail contains pertinent information; please read it carefully in its
entirety.
Good Afternoon. If you have any questions regarding the legal notice confirmed below,please
reference the LEGAL NUMBER provided. Please only e-mail to cctlegals(&cctimes.com
regarding Contra Costa Times, Concord Transcript, or Contra Costa Sun legal notices.
** LEGAL SCHEDULE CONFIRMATION"
TYPE: In-Column Liner, Classified Section
LEGAL NUMBER: 5267
PO#: 1146
Publication: CCT
Run Date(s): 04/01
Legal Acct#: 200 4197
Total Amount: $175.00
REVISIONS/CANCELLATIONS: I will need a cancellation request referencing the LEGAL
NUMBER—or all changes attached in a final draft Microsoft Word Document—e-mailed to
cctlegals(it,cctimes.com by no later than 4 PM, Thurs., 03/30. Otherwise, the legal will publish
as you e-mailed. Thanks!
Anashia Lloyd
Legal Advertising Coordinator
(925) 943-8019
(925) 943-8359—fax
Contra Costa Times
ATTN: Legal Dept.
P.O. Box 4718
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
cctlegals@cctimes.com
KSinc@cob.cccounty.us,wrote:
Hi Anashia,
Please publish the attached legal notice in the CCTimes:
One day only, Saturday, April 1, 2006
Reference PO#: 1146
Please confirm receipt of request.
Should you have any questions, please call me at the number listed below.
Thank you,
Kathy Sinclair
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
925.335.1902
(See attached file: Janin Assoc-041106.doc)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Janin Assoc-041106.doc
Janin Assoc-041106.doc Type: WINWORD File(application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC To cctlegals@cctimes.com
► 11/02/2005 10:00 AM cc
.r( (� .4
bcc
Subject Publication Request-Janin
Hi Anashia,
Please publish the attached legal notice in the CCTimes:
One day only, Saturday, April 1, 2006
Reference PO#: 1146
Please confirm receipt of request.
Should you have any questions, please call me at the number listed below.
Thank you,
Kathy Sinclair
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
925.335.1902
Janin Assoc•041106.doc
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
MARTINEZ AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,April 11,2006 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Administration
Building, 651 Pine Street,Room 107 (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California,the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning
matter:
JANIN ASSOCIATES INC. (Applicant&Owner),This project consists of two
applications:
County File#RZ033135—A request for approval to rezone 11.56 acres from
Single Family Residential,R-7,and Two Family Residential,D-1,to Planned Unit
-11 ,P-1.
rv-
County File#DP033067—A request for approval of a final development plan to
establish 23 single-family residences (2200-2400 square feet in size)on 11.56 acres
of property. Approval to remove 17 trees on site is also requested.
The subject site is located at 4766 Blum Road in the Martinez area.
For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no Environmental Impact Report
required)has been issued for this project.
If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence.
Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available onP
Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 12:30 p.m., in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Martinez,
to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures
used by the Board; (3)clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and (4)provide an opportunity to
identify,resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting
with staff,please call Ryan Hernandez,Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1206 by 3:00
p.m. on Monday, April 10,2006 to confirm your participation.
Date: March 28, 2006
John Cullen, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By
Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
MARTINEZ AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday April 11, 2006, at 1:00 pm, in the County Administration
Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter:
Hearing on the County Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the applications
of Janin Associates Inc. (Applicant and Owner)for:
A Rezoning of 11.56 acres from Single Family Residential, (R-7), and .Two, Family
Residential,(D-1),to Planned Unit District, (P-1). County File#RZ033.135 and;
Approve the request for a final development plan to establish 23.single-family residences on
the 11.56-acre property that includes the removal of 17 trees. County File#DP033067
he location of.the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of ContraD
County, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description' may be examithe Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Ma
California):
e su Ject site is 4766 Blum Road in the Martinez area.
For the purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),
A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no Environmental Impact Report
required)has been issued for this project.
If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the County at,or prior to,the public hearing.
Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, April 11,
2006 at 12:30 pm, in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any
interested parties in order'to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board;
(3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4) provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or
narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call
Ryan Hernandez at 925-335-1206, Community Development .Department, by 3:00 pm on Monday, April
10, 2006 to confirm your participation.
Date: 'marchs30;2006
John Cullen, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By
Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk
NOTICE OF A
PUBLIC EARING
You are hereby notified that on TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28,2006 at 7:00 p.m. in Room
107, McBrien Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California,the County
Planning Commission will consider SUBDIVISION, REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT
PLAN applications as described as follows:
JANIN ASSOCIATES INC. (Applicant & Owner), This project consists of three.
applications:
A. County File #RZ033135 — A request for approval to rezone 11.56 acres from
Single Family Residential, R-7, and Two Family Residential, D-1, to Planned
Unit Development, P-1.
B. County File #SD038784 request for ' vesting tentative map approval to Jy�
subdivide 11.56 acres into -lots. enty-three of the new lots would be �<
developed with detached single- y residences (Lots 1 through 23); one lot P
developed with a single-family h would remain as such (Lot 27); two lots
would be dedicated as open sp a due development constraints (e.g., steep
slopes) (Lots 25 and 26); and a lot woul be retained for future development
(Lot 24). The average lot si is approximately 8557 square feet.
C. County File#DP033067—A request for approval of a final development plan to
establish 23 single-family residences (2200-2400 square feet in size)on 11.56
acres of property. Approval to remove 17 trees on site is also requested.
The subject site is located at 4766 Blum Road in the Martinez area. (R-7 and D-1)
(Parcel #s 159-230-004; 159-190-031; 159-190-024).
For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no
Environmental Impact Report required) has been issued for this project.
If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you
or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing.
For further details, contact the Contra Costa County Community Development Department,
651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, or Ryan Hernandez at 925-335-1206.
Dennis M. Barry, AICP
Community Development Director
159150045 159150052 159150053
A ATLANTIS BURIAL SERV INC REAL PROPERTY DIVISION REAL PROPERTY DIVISION
1926 WINCHESTER PL 255 GLACIER DR 255 GLACIER DR
FAIRFIELD CA 94533 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159170005 159170006 159170034
CALDWELL MICHAEL E &JUNE P CALDWELL MICHAEL &JUNE FARR JAMES HOWARD &PATRICIA S
109 CLIPPER LN 109 CLIPPER LN 5025 CHELSEA DR
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159180001 159180002 159180003
WRIGHT ROBERT J & MARCIA L TRE PETRILLO RICHARD PETRILLO RICHARD
112 CLIPPER LN 118 CLIPPER LN 116 CLIPPER LN 5
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159180004 159180005 159180007
PETRILLO RICHARD HENDERSON ROBERT H & SHERRY LARSON KARLAN E & KIM L
118 CLIPPER LN 120 CLIPPER LN 155 ARKINLANDER LN
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159180015 159190002 159190003
FORD PHYLLIS A HESSEY PAMELA A HUGHES CLAUDIA J
149 ARKINLANDER LN 145 HILLSIDE LN 155 HILLSIDE LN
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159190004 159190005 159190006
EINEVOLL OBERT& KAYE E TRE THOMPSON DANIEL D &LESLIE A EINEVOLL OBERT& KAYE E TRE
4592 EL MONTE CT 4710 BLUM RD 4592 EL MONTE CT
OAKLEY CA 94561 MARTINEZ CA 94553 OAKLEY CA 94561
159190007 159190008 159190009
GOLDEN OAK DEVELOPMENT INC CULLISON PAMELA ADAIR CULLISON PAMELA ADAIR
1116 HASTINGS CT 160 HILLSIDE LN 160 HILLSIDE LN
ANTIOCH CA 94509 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159190010 159190011 159190012
PENE SHAWN M VERDIN JOSE BODUSZYNSKI BARBARA
180 HILLSIDE LN 4730 BLUM RD 1333 SAN PABLO AVE
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 PINOLE CA 94564
159190014 159190015 159190017
GRESHAM MARGARET TRE KRUMMEN THOMAS M &JANICE M NEVELS RONALD S
1967 WOODPECKER CT 4736 BLUM RD 4758 BLUM RD
WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159190018 159190020 159190024
LANGSTON KENNETH TRE GRESHAM MARGARET TRE MORSE ANDREW
762 CONDOR DR 1967 WOODPECKER CT 957 STOW LN
MARTINEZ CA 94553 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 LAFAYETTE CA 94549
159190029 159190030 159190031
HAMILTON TOLBERT& HEATHER ARENZ RICHARD M II JANIN ASSOCIATES
115 HILLSIDE LN 15 LA SALLE DR 957 STOW LN
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MORAGA CA 94556 LAFAYETTE CA 94549
159200002 159200006 159200007
ALENCASTRE AARON STEVENS PETER T& PENNY HAMLIN ELLEN
35 RUTHERFORD LN 3174 SURMOUNT DR 4786 BLUM RD
MARTINEZ CA 94553 LAFAYETTE CA 94549 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159200009 159200010 159200011
TLIEMAT DOMINIQUE O VAELEI TISIMASI DERR CARL S
1310 LAVEROCK LN 10 RUTHERFORD LN 4790 BLUM RD
ALAMO CA 94507 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159200019 159200021 159200022
ISLAVA HECTOR R JR& MARIANNE EVANS JERALDEAN ROY DUSTIN L
25 RUTHERFORD LN 40 RUTHERFORD LN 15 RUTHERFORD LN
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159200023 159200025 159200026
JONES KELLY G &JOYCE L LUPERCIO ALEJANDRO & LOIS E CHANG JOSEPH
45 RUTHERFORD LN 48 RUTHERFORD LN 44 RUTHERFORD LN
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ .CA 94553
159200027 159200028 159200029
NISHIZAWA FAMILY TRUST GARDNER DONALD BRIAN REYENGA BOB & EVA
88 RUTHERFORD LN 55 RUTHERFORD LN 4774 BLUM RD
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
159200030 159200033 159220003
WEINER WILLIAM AIELLO CHRISTINA DORIS MYERS RONALD J & SUSAN D
4778 BLUM RD 30 RUTHERFORD LN 8282 KOBERT RD
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 WINTERS CA 95694
159230003 159230004 159230005
BODHAINE RANDALL C & C I TRE BRANNON EDITH E TRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PO BOX 23366 7424 28TH ST PO BOX 722
PLEASANT HILL CA 94523 NORTH HIGHLANDS CA 95660 SAN BRUNO CA 94066
159240005 159240006
BRANNON EDITH E TRE BRANNON EDITH E TRE
7424 28TH ST 7424 28TH ST
NORTH HIGHLANDS CA 95660 NORTH HIGHLANDS CA 95660
BUILDING INSPECTION PUBLIC WORKS CONTRA COSTA FIRE
***Interoffice*** ENGINEERING SERVICES ***Interoffice***
***Interoffice***
Historical Resources Info Services
SHERIFF OFFICE Foundation Center, Building 300 Native American Heritage Commission
ADMIN & COMM SERVICES 1303 Maurice Avenue 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364
***Interoffice*** Sonoma State University Sacramento, CA 95814
Rohnert Park, CA 94928-3608
Mt. View Sanitary District Contra Costa Water District City of Martinez
P.O. Box 2757 P.O. Box H2O 525 Henrietta Street
Martinez, CA 94553 Concord, CA 94524 Martinez, CA 94553
CalTrans
Martinez Unified School District Miss Jean Finney
921 Susanna Street IGR-CEQA Branch Chief
Martinez, CA 94553 P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
MARTINEZ AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,April 11,2006 at 1:00 p.m.in the County Administration
Building, 651 Pine Street,Room 107 (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez,California,the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning
matter:
JANIN ASSOCIATES INC. (Applicant& Owner),This project consists of two
applications:
County File#RZ033135 —A request for approval to rezone 11.56 acres from
Single Family Residential,R-7, and Two Family Residential,D-1, to Planned Unit
District,P-1.
County File#DP033067—A request for approval of a final development plan to
establish 23 single-family residences(2200-2400 square feet in size)on 11.56 acres
Of property. Approval to remove 17 trees on site is also requested.
The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa
County, State of California,generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in
the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez,
California):
The location of the subject site is at 4766 Blum Road in the Martinez area.
For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no Environmental Impact Report
required) has been issued for this project.
If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence.
Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, April 11,
2006 at 12:30 p.m.,in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, to meet with any
interested parties in order to (1)answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board;
(3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve, or
narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call
Ryan Hernandez, Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1206 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday,.
April 10, 2006 to confirm your participation.
Date: March 28, 2006
John Cullen, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By " i `
Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk
rr
!!1
1
a �y►�►YIGLr:. ..
w i
C 4
o
of Lu U
aoX�
i mWOco i
�339VT.iW A i''3 CF) Z O Q j
ti::..�t•t: i t`.i
^oa o ao
rn
N
0 y
d + ��
'=F§
o o�
O O °, Lu60
mom 0 UJ O
b y O .I
x �U L1.1 o c�
w W LL.
W a a$
OWEcc
x � � W
waw
f.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
'EAG
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor
s Martinez, CA 94553
Telephone: (925) 335-1210 Fax: (925) 335-1222
TO: Jane Pennington, Chief Clerk
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICP, Community Develonment Director
By: Ryan Hernandez, Senior Planner
DATE: May 16, 2006
SUBJECT: "Blum View Estates" Item D.7 of the 4/11/06 Board of Supervisors
Hearing Relative to the Added Conditions of Approval No. 79 & 80;
County Files RZ033135 and DP033067 - Janin Associates Inc.
(Applicant & Owner).
On April 11,2006 the Board of Supervisors approved the above captioned rezoning and development plan
subject to added conditions of approval.
Attached are revised conditions of approval and findings that reflect the Board's changes.
We request the opportunity to review the draft Board Order, including the addendum, prior to its
finalization.
Please call me at ext. 5-1206 when it is available for my review.
Cc: File RECEIVED
E2006
' CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CCONTRA COSTA CO.
x/.'33 ek, J" �-
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAP- COUNTY
FILE #SD038784, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN COUNTY FILE #DP033067, and REZONE
TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT COUNTY FILE #RZ031335 AS APPROVED AND MODIFIED
BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON APRIL 11,2006:
A. Growth Management Performance Standards
1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated 23 additional AM and PM peak hour trips.
Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure
C requirements.
2. Drainage and Flood Control: .Condition #72 .of this permit requires that the applicant collect
and convey all stormwaters entering or originating within the project to an adequate natural or
manmade water course. The Final Map may not be fled until the collect and convey
requirements and improvements have been met.
The site lies within Flood Zone"C".
3. Water and Waste Disposal:The project site is within the Contra Costa Water District and
Mountain View Sanitation District service areas. The districts have indicated that capacity
exists to support the development. Conditions of approval 13-15 will ensure the project has
water service.
4. Fire Protection: Prior to the approval of a final map, the applicant is required to demonstrate
that all of the proposed development is located within one and one-half miles of a fire station,
or that development within the project that is more than one and one-half miles from a fire
station shall be required to provide automatic. fire sprinkler systems. The nearest station is
Station 9 located at 209 Center Street, Pacheco, CA approximately 1.3 miles away. (Ref. COA
24)
5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff
facility station per 1,000 population. The small population increase associated with this project
is not significant. Prior to approval of the 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.
B. Findings for Approval of a Rezoning
1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the general plan.
Proiect Finding: The project site has two General Plan designations and the majority of
the site lays within the Single-Fancily Residential High-Density (SH) land use, however a
portion of the site (closet to the interstate) has a Light Industrial, (L-I) General Plait
designation. The Planked Unit district, (P-1) rezoning is consistent with both designations.
At this time the Light Industrial portion of the site is not being developed. Onhv that
portion consistent with proposed project and the two residential zoning districts, single
fainiN residential (R-7) and two family residential(D-1), will be combined to be rezoned to
the Planned Unit zoning designation. The Planned Unit zoning district and development
of only the single family, residential general plan designation is substantially compatible
with the General Plan.
2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible
within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts.
Project Finding: The County Code specifically lists residential arses as being appropriate
for P-1 districts and states that P-1 districts are compatible with the SH land use
designation. The subject property lies between Interstate 680 and Blum Road and is in the
vicinity of residential and commercial areas along Blum Road,just north of the Blum Road
and Pacheco Boulevard intersection. .
3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this
does not require demonstration of future financial success.
Project Finding: The County demonstrates a need for housing opportunities of all types.
Infill housing developments are needed in order to lesser: the pressure to expand housing
development into previouslyundeveloped parts of the County, .namely the East County
region. This rezoning of this property to P-1 will allow the higher density consistent with
the SH designation while providing a desirable and aesthetically pleasing pr=oduct by
maintaining a 200 foot plus setback from the Interstate, limiting the height of residences to
26 feet,providing landscaping and will provide a tree lined street with sidewalk.
C. Findings to Establish a Planned Unit(P-1)District
Adoption of P-1 Zoning and Approval of a Preliminary or Final Development Plan.
1. Required Finding: The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years
from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval.
Protect Finding: The applicant has expressed a desire to begin construction immediately
after required permits and approvals have been obtained.
2. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County
general plan.
Prosect Finding: The general plan designation for the project site is Single-Fancily
Residential High Density. The Final Development Plan describes a development of 23
single familY units that meets the general plan density requirements.
3. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it.will constitute a residential
environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and community.
Prosect Finding.• This section of Blum Road is characterized by residential development
west of Blum with a section of residential'east of Blum but the primary use east of.Blum is
Public/Semi-Public including a Public Works and property owned by the Mountain View
Sanitary District. The proposed development will be of higher architectural qualiti.
provide for two open space parcels that will be maintained by the home owners association
and of parking.
3
The desirability of the project lies inn its aesthetic quality and due to its lot configuration
provides for two opens space parcels. The project provides for a density level consistent
with the general plait that also produces single-family residences. The .single-fatnih
residences provide for adequate guest parking and private yard areas. The addition of the
landscaping plan will increase the visual and aesthetic characteristic of the project. This
use of an underutilized property helps fulfill the County Housing Element within General
Plait.
D. Approval of Tentative Map
• Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it
shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and
improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law.
Protect Finding. The project is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan. The
land use designation is SH, which allows for single-family high-density development. The
tentative map provides for 23 new residential lots on an 11.56-acre parcel, which complies
with the density requirement.
• 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. Improvements include the
private road (Blum View Road). The County Geologist stated that the site is suitable for
construction from a geologic standpoint with the implementation of the geologic mitigations.
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
Interstate 680.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General
1. This approval is based upon the exhibits received by the Community Development
Department generally shown on the revised Vesting Tentative Map and Site
Development Plan dated February 16, 2006 and on the Preliminary Landscape Plan
dated November 2005.
The approval is also based upon the following reports:
A. AEI Consultants,2005. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment(APN# 159-
230-004, 159-240-006, 159-240-005), July 20.
B. AEI Consultants, 2005. Phase 11 Subsurface Investigation Report(APN# 159-
230-004), August 25.
C. Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., 2005. Blum View Estates-Residential
Development Environmental Noise Study, August 22.
4
D. Darwin Myers Associates, 2005. Geologic Peer Review and CEQA Section
for Blum View Estates,APN 159-190-024 and -031, and 159-230-004, June
13.
E, Diablo Engineers, Inc. (DEI), 2005. Preliminary Geotechnical Report for
Subdivision 8784, Blum Road, Pacheco,April 29.
F. Ellen, S. D. and Wentworth,C. M., 1995. Hillside Materials and Slopes of the
San Francisco Bay Region. US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1357.
G. Nilsen,T.H., 1975. Preliminary Photointerpretation Map of Landslide and
other Surficial Deposits of the Port Chicago 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Contra
Costa and Solano Counties.
H. Stewart, Patrick, ISA Certified Arborist,Atlas Tree Service,2004. Tree
Survey for Blum Road, Subdivision 8784, Lots 1-13, Martinez,CA, October 5.
I. Wood Biological Consulting, 2004. Biological Assessment for the Proposed
Blum View Estates Project Site, October 21.
J. Wood Biological Consulting, 2005. Botanical Survey for Blum View Estates,
April 18.
2. Approval is Contingent on Consistent Approval of Related Rezoning and Final
Development Plan Applications — This subdivision shall be approved contingent
upon approval of the rezoning request File # RZ033135 from Single-Family, R-7
and Two-Family D-1 to Planned Unit District, P-1 and Final Development File
#DP033067. IF the site is not rezoned this approval shall be null and void. Any
inconsistencies between the Final Development Plan and the tentative map
application will require modification of the tentative map approval prior to any
development being authorized.
3. Applicant Indemnification of County — 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.
4. Compliance Report — At least 45 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of
grading permit, which ever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a report on
compliance with the conditions of approval with this permit for the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator. The fee for this application is a deposit of
$1,000 that is subject to time and materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the
deposit,additional fees will be required.
5
A. Except for those conditions administered by the Public Works Department, the
report shall list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant
has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. The report shall
also indicate whether the applicant believes that he has done all the applicant is
in a position to do to comply with the applicable condition. (A copy of the
computer file containing the conditions of approval may be available; to try to
obtain,a copy, contact the project planner at 335-1206.)
B. Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate
compliance with the condition of this report prior to filing the final map.
Residential Design
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall provide, for the review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator, alternative materials for the required
sound walls and that this plan, at minimum, includes a color and material samples.
6. Prior to occupancy of the first residence the applicant shall construct all sound
walls to the standards outlined in the Mitigation monitoring Program - Noise 1-3
.(conditions of approval 51-53) and shown in Figure 4 of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
7. _ Prior to recordation of the final map the reconfiguration of lots 20 through 23 shall
be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Evidence of Public
Works Department approval shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator and
placed into the record.
8. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall provide for the review
and approval of the Zoning Administrator a colors and materials sample. The
materials submitted shall provide sufficient variation to enhance the subdivision
design.
The guide for development shall be the Single-Family(R-6)District, subject to the
Zoning Administrator's review and approval at the time of issuance of building
permits, except as follows:
A. Stories Maximum of two stories
B. Primary Structure Height Maximum of 26-feet
C. Primary Structure Setbacks As generally Shown on Sheet 6 of
7"Site Development Plan House Placement and Setback"
D. Accessory Structure Limited to one on each property:
Rear or Side yard only
Size 300-square feet
Height Maximum 12-feet
Rear and Side
Yard Setback Minimum of 3-feet
9. . Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall record a deed.
disclosure for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that includes .
the standards for development in Condition of Approval#6 of this permit.
6 .
Creation of Homeowners Association and CC&R's
10. Creation of a Home Owners Association and CC&R's — Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator prior to filing the Final Map. This document shall provide for the
creation of a homeowners association that is responsible for maintenance of the
private streets, sidewalks, drainage, and common areas. Common areas include
the Private Road, Sidewalks, and Blum Road Frontage.
Alternative Street Names
11. Submittal of Alternative Street Names — At least 30 days prior to filing a Final
map, three alternative street names for the proposed private road shall .be
submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development
Department, Graphics Section (335-1270). The Final Map cannot be certified by
the Community Development Department without the approved street names.
Grant Deed of Development Rights
12. Prior to the filing of the Final Map the applicant shall provide a deed disclosure on
lots 20 and 21 (in addition to the mitigation disclosures) for review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator the disclosure shall include:
■ Detailed legal description of the grant deed of development rights over
lots 20 and 21 that are to be bounded by the southerly edge of pipeline
easement extending to the northern property line;
■ The deed disclosure shall incorporate a surveyed map, by a professional,
that delineates where the development rights have been grant deed to the
County,the pipeline easement limits,and the pipeline itself;
■ Language that clearly indicates to all subsequent buyers that there is no
development allowed within in the delineated area.
■ Language shall also incorporate options homebuyers have if at some
future time development is proposed within lot 20 or 21, (i.e. review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator and Public Works shall be
required prior to issuance of grading or building permits).
Contra Costa Water District
13. Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant shall provide evidence, for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, that water service is available
to all urban-residential lots proposed (i.e. Contra Costa Water District will serve
letter or water main extension agreement).
14. Prior to occupancy of the first residence in the subdivision the applicant shall .
survey the boundary between the subject site and Contra Costa Canal for
7
damaged and/or missing security fencing and shall replace all fencing to District
standards at the applicant's expense.
15. Prior to the issuance of grading permit the applicant shall provide evidence for
the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and Contra Costa Water
District that no drainage from any urban/residential lots within the subdivision
will be allowed to drain to the Contra Costa Canal.
Phasing
16. The applicant may submit a phasing plan for review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator and the Public Works Department.
Lot 24
17 (a). A deed disclosure shall be recorded prior to filing the final map that discloses the
requirement that Development Plan approval from the County is requiredprior to
any site disturbance on lot 24 and that the applicant shall obtain approval of a
Development Plan application and any other relevant entitlements required by the
County at the time of filing.
17 (b). Prior to recordation of the final map a deed disclosure shall be recorded, for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, that notifies.all potential buyers
of lots 22 and 23 that a right of way easement between lots 22 and 23 exists for
access to lot 24.
Sight Obstruction at Intersections
18. Prior to the filing of the final map the applicant shall provide evidence for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that project is in compliance
with Chapter 82-18.
Transportation Demand Ordinance
19. Prior to filing the final map, the applicant.shall contact the local transportation,
Contra Costa County Connection to determine services presently provided or
planned in the future. The applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator that the Transportation Demand Ordinance has been
fulfilled.
Notice of Airport in the Vicinity
20. Prior to filing the final map a deed notification is required to be recorded and
submitted to the Community Development Department with the following
language:
"Notice ofAirport in the d'icinity"
The property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is know
as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be su ect to some
of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport
8
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. "
High Voltage Wires
21. Disclosure of High Voltage Facilities — Where a lot is located within 300-feet of
high voltage electric transmission line, the applicant shall record the following as a
deed notification:
"The .subject property is located near a high voltage electric transmission line.
Purchasers should be aware that there is ongoing research on.possible potential
adverse health effects cause by the exposure to magnetic field generated by high
voltage lines. Although much more research is needed before the question of
whether magnetic fields actually cause adverse health effects can be resolved, the
basis for such a hypothesis is established. At his time no risk assessment has bee
made. "
When a Final Subdivision Map Report issued by the California Department of
Real Estate is required,the applicant shall also request that the Department of Real
Estate insert the above note in the report.
Payment of Any Supplemental Application Fees that are Due
22. This application is subject to an initial application fee of($20,204.00), 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.
Police Service District
23. Election for Establishment of a Police Services District to Augment Police
Services—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
23 residential parcels created by this subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per
parcel annual amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) then established at
the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax
shall be completed prior to filing the Final Map. The property owner shall be
responsible for paying the cost of holding the election, payableat the time the
election is requested by the owner. Allow a minimum of three to four months for
processing.
9
Fire Protection District
24. Prior to the approval of a final map, the applicant is required to demonstrate that
all of the proposed development is located within one and one-half miles of a fire
station, or that development within the.project that is more than one and one-half
- miles from a fire station shall be required to provide automatic fire sprinkler
systems.
IF the project requires fire sprinkler system then 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 automatic interior fire-
suppression sprinkler system that meets the design standards of the Consolidated
Fire Protection District. This provision is required at least in part so as to allow a
plan consistency determination associated with the approval of the Blum View
Estates subdivision."
Restrictions on Development of Sales Model Units
25. Prior to the issuance of building permits for:construction of sale model units, the
applicant shall provide documentation evidencing compliance with the
requirements with the Water Conservation in New Developments Ordinance
(Chapter 82-26) and Residential Sprinkler System Option Ordinance (718-6).
However, all sales model units shall be require to comply with the improvement
standards and reporting requirements of the Water Conservation in New
Developments Ordinance.
Final]Landscape Plan
26. Prior to the filing the final map or issuance of grading permits, whichever occurs
first, a Final Landscape Plan that has been prepared by a licensed landscape
architect shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator and shall be incompliance with the County Water Conservation
Landscape Ordinance 82-26 and shall be installed prior to approval of final
building permit. The plan shall include landscape/irrigation plans that are fullsized
and in color that will include plant colors, locations of signs, and retaining walls.
Included with the final landscape plan shall be colors and elevations of any and all
signage associated with the project.
Aesthetics
27. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit the retaining wall located on the
perimeter (i.e., south/southwest edge) of the project site shall be constructed of a
material and color that would blend into the natural hillside landscape. (Mitigation
Measure—Aesthetics 1)
28. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the outdoor lighting associated with the
proposed development shall be designed and located to minimize ambient light
10
levels for any given application, consistent with public safety standards. Lighting
shall be placed in areas of pedestrian activity and at building entrances, and shall be
minimized elsewhere. Ornamental, pedestrian scale lighting fixtures shall be
utilized to the degree possible. Lighting fixtures shall be designed to minimize
glare and the direct view of light sources. No lighting shall blink, flash or be of
unusually high intensity or brightness. (Mitigation Measure—Aesthetics 2)
Air Quality
29. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit and throughout construction for all
construction contracts the following measures shall be implemented at all
construction sites for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator to ensure
these measures have been incorporated into the construction plans:
e Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all
trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep daily(preferably with water sweepers)all.paved access roads,parking
areas and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep streets daily(preferably with water sweepers)if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent public streets.
. Hydroseed or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.
. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply.(non-toxic) soil binders to exposed
stockpiles(dirt, sand, etc.).
. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
(Mitigation Measure—Air 1)
Biology
30. Prior to any site disturbance and if land-clearing activities are to commence
between February 1 and August 15, a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The purpose of the preconstruction
survey would be to determine if occupied nests are present within the zone of
influence of the project. If land-clearing activities are performed outside of the
nesting season, that is, between August 16 and January 31, no preconstruction
surveys for nesting raptors are warranted. The survey area should include all large
trees, grassland, and scrub habitat within 250 feet of the limits of work. If any
occupied raptor nests are found within the zone of influence, grading and
construction shall be prohibited within an adequate setback (generally 250-feet), as
11
approved by a qualified biologist in consultation with the California Department of
Fish and Game. Work within the setback would have.to be delayed until after the
young have fledged, as determined during surveys by a qualified biologist, or until
after the nesting season, as described above. (Mitigation Measure—Biology 1)
31. Prior to any site disturbance and if land-clearing activities are to commence
between February 1 and August 15, a pre-construction survey for nesting
passerines shall. be conducted prior to the destruction of any suitable nesting
habitat. The survey area should include all trees, bushes, grassland and structures
within 100 feet of the limits of work. If land-clearing activities can be performed
outside the nesting season, that is, between August 16 and January 31, no surveys
for nesting passerines would be warranted. If.any occupied passerine nests are
found within the zone of influence, grading and construction shall be prohibited
within an adequate setback (generally, 75 to 100 feet), as approved by a qualified
biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. Work
within the setback would have to be delayed until after the young have fledged, as
determined during surveys by a qualified biologist, or until after the nesting season,
as described above.. (Mitigation Measure—Biology 2)
32. Prior to the initiation of any grading, a survey for suitable ground burrows shall be
preformed by a qualified biologist. Survey protocol calls for walking transects
over the property affording 100 percent visual cover of the site. If no suitable
ground burrows are observed, grading may proceed. If suitable ground burrows are
present, a qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction nesting burrowing
owl survey following California Department of Fish and Game protocols, which
call for the performance of four crepuscular (early morning or late evening)
surveys. Any active nests must not be disturbed until the_young have fledged.
Compensation of habitat loss, at a mitigation ratio to be determined in consultation
with the California Department of Fish and Game, would be required.
Areas of bare ground or with grasses less than six inches in height may attract
burrowing owls during the winter season. If construction resumes after a period of
construction inactivity following clearing, a habitat evaluation of the site should be
conducted prior to ground disturbance the following season to determine burrowing
owl occupancy. .All burrows containing active nests shall be identified by flagging,
and shall be protected by a no-disturbance buffer zone of 250 feet. (Mitigation
Measure—Biology 3)
Cultural
33. If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered
during project construction activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall
be redirected and a qualified archaeologist shall be contracted to evaluate the
discoveries and make recommendations regarding their potential significance and
extent throughout the site. If such deposits cannot be avoided, they shall be
evaluated for their California and National Register eligibility. If the deposits are
not eligible, additional mitigation is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, they
shall be avoided or adverse project effects shall be mitigated. Upon completion of
the archaeologist's evaluation, a report shall be prepared documenting the methods
and results of the research, and recommendations for additional mitigation. The
12
report should be submitted to the County of Contra Costa and the Northwest
Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University. (Mitigation Measure—
Cultural l)
34. If paleontological resources are encountered during subsurface construction
activities, all work within 50 feet of.the discovery shall be redirected until a
qualified archaeologist/paleontologist can evaluate the finds and make
recommendations. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, they
shall be avoided by project construction activities and recovered by a qualified
paleontologist. Upon completion of the recovery, a paleontological assessment
shall be conducted.by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further monitoring
for paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include: . 1) the
results of any geotechnical investigation prepared for the project site; 2) specific
details of the construction plans for the project site 3)background research; and 4)
limited subsurface investigation within the project site. If a high potential to
encounter paleontological resources is confirmed, a monitoring plan of further
project subsurface construction shall be prepared in conjunction with this
assessment. After project subsurface construction has ended, a report documenting
monitoring, methods, findings, and further recommendations regarding
paleontological resources shall be prepared and submitted to the County
Community Development Department. (Mitigation Measure—Cultural 2)
35. If human remains are encountered..at any point during project construction, work
shall halt and the Contra Costa County Coroner shall be notified immediately. In
addition, the archaeological monitor shall be contacted to examine the situation. If
human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native
American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. Pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the Native American Heritage
Commission shall identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent to inspect
the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and
associated grave goods. .(Mitigation Measure—Cultural 3)
Geology
36. Prior to recordation of the Vesting Tentative Map, all grading and drainage plans
are subject to review of the County Geologist and the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator. All slopes shall be contour rounded to mimic the natural
terrain features, and the project shall have an efficient drainage system. The plans
shall be prepared by appropriately licensed professionals. (Mitigation Measure—
Geology 1)
37. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, provide a grading remediation plan and
report for the approval of the Building Inspection Department("BID"). The report
shall evaluate all major graded slopes and open space hillsides whose performance
could affect planned improvements. Specifically, the slope southwest of proposed
residences on Lots 18 through 23 shall be subject to this requirement. The.slope
stability analysis shall be performed for both static and dynamic conditions using
an appropriate pseudo-static horizontal ground acceleration coefficient for
earthquakes on the Concord and Hayward faults in accordance with standard
practice as outlined in.Department of Mines and Geology Special Pub. 117, 1997.
(Mitigation Measure—Geology 2)
13
38. All measures identified in the approved geotechnical reports to provide for slope
stability shall be incorporated into the final grading plans. Prior to issuance of the
grading permit, the project geotechnical engineer shall review the plans to verify
that these measures are incorporated and that there is no unacceptable hazard from
unstable slopes or post-development differential settlement. (Mitigation Measure
—Geology 3)
39. Concurrently with recordation of the Vesting Tentative Map, record a statement to
run with deeds to the property acknowledging the Geotechnical Study by title,
author (firm), and date, calling attention to conclusions, including the long-term
maintenance requirements, and noting that the report is available to prospective
buyers from seller of the parcel. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 4)
40. Grading, erosion control, and building plans shall employ, as appropriate, the
following surface drainage measures in construction: concrete-lined swales to
carry runoff, fill slopes in excess of 8 feet high shall be graded to 2.5:1 (horizontal
to vertical) or flatter; cut slopes in excess of 8 feet high shall be graded to 3:1 .
(maximum). Where steeper slopes than those indicated above are desired,
supplemental slope stabilization techniques (e.g. selective grading or geogrid
reinforcing) may be required. Selectively graded sandstone bedrock material may
be used to construct 2:1 fill slopes up to 16 feet in vertical height. Selective use of
sandstone bedrock should be .performed under observation of the Geotechnical
Engineer and will require- additional strength testing of excavated materials to
verify suitability.
Positive grading of building pads for removal of surface water from foundation
areas; individual pad drainage; avoidance of sprinkler systems (as opposed to drip
irrigation systems) in the immediate vicinity of foundations; grading of slopes to
eliminate over-the-bank runoff; and re-vegetation of permanent slopes. Interim
protective measures for runoff shall be followed during the construction phases
when slopes are most susceptible to erosion. The final design shall incorporate
subsurface drainage measures,including the installation of subsurface drains within
major new fills and landslide repair areas. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 5)
41. During grading, the geotechnical engineer shall observe and approve all keyway
excavations, removal of fill and landslide materials down to stable bedrock or in-
place material, and installation of all subdrains including their connections. All fill
slope construction shall be observed and tested by the project geotechnical
engineer, and the density test results and reports submitted to the County to be kept
on file. Cut slopes and keyways shall be periodically observed and mapped by the
project geotechnical and civil engineers who will provide any required slope
modification recommendations based on the actual geologic conditions
encountered during grading. Written approval from the Contra Costa County BID
shall be obtained prior to any modification. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 6)
42. During stripping operations, topsoil shall be salvaged for future use as a dressing
on final graded slopes that are within the deed restricted open space. Specifically,
approximately 6 inches of topsoil shall be track-walked on the final graded slopes
that are within the deed-restricted open space. (Mitigation Measure—Geology 7)
14
43. During grading, unstable colluvial soils and landslide deposits within developed
portions of the properties shall be regraded to effectively remove the potential for
seismically induced landslides in these materials, as recommended in the approved
geotechnical reports. (Mitigation Measure–Geology 8)
44. Prior to issuance of building permits on parcels of this subdivision, submit an as-
graded report of the engineering geologist and the geotechnical engineer with a
map prepared by a civil engineer showing engineering geology/lithology details,
final.plans and grades for any buttress fill with its keyway, subsurface drainage,
subdrain cleanouts, disposal and pickup points, and any other soil improvements
installed during grading, as surveyed by the project survey or civil engineer, and in
accordance with requirements of the geotechnical engineer. (Mitigation Measure
–Geology 9)
45. All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season (April
15 through October 15) only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to
minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October 15, only erosion
control work shall be allowed by the grading permit. Any modification to the
above schedule shall be subject to reviewed by the Grading Section of the building
Inspection Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
(Mitigation Measure–Geology 10)
46. Pior to the issuance of building permits, submit a final geotechnical report
providing design and construction measures, where appropriate, to minimize
expansive soil effects on dwellings (e.g., pad overcutting to provide uniform swell
potential; and soil subgrade moisture treatment). The required report shall also
provide design criteria for differential fill thickness and differential settlement.
(Mitigation Measure–Geology 11)
47._.— Prior to issuance of building permits, chemical testing of representative building
pad soils shall be submitted to determine the level of corrosion protection required
for steel and concrete materials used for construction. In order to protect against
corrosion where it is found to be a potential issue, the project shall use sulfate-
resistant concrete and protective linings to encase steel piping buried in native
soils. (Mitigation Measure–Geology 12)
Hazards
48. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall complete a detailed
survey that identifies the exact location of the 16-foot pipeline easement. The
boundaries of the easement area shall be clearly marked during construction
activities to ensure that the construction personnel know when they are working
within or close to the easement so that they may use proper precautions.
(Mitigation Measure–Hazards 1)
49. To alert potential buyers to the existence.of the pipeline and associated hazards,
deed notification shall be filed for every residential parcel within 50-feet of the
pipeline easement. The notification shall clearly indicate that the pipeline, though
currently not in use, has explosive potential and that an accident involving the
pipeline could cause extensive damage to private property as well as serious person
injury or death. (Mitigation Measure–Hazards 2)
15
Hydrology
50. The applicant shall construct storm facilities, both on- and, if necessary, off-site in
accordance with the drainage requirements of the County Subdivision Ordinance
(Title 9) to adequately convey storm water .run off from the project site to an
acceptable receiving facility or watercourse. (Mitigation Measure — Hydrology
1)
Noise
51. Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant shall record a deed disclosure on
the all lots specified in Table-2 for. the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
Windows and doors shall have sound-insulating performance level rates that meet
the requirements shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Required Sound Insulating Performance Ratings for Blum View Estates
STC Ratings
South Other
Location Facade Facades
Lots 1 through 4 11 31 26
Lots 5 through 7 33 28
Lots 8 through 13 38 32
Lots 14,15,18 and 38 32
19
Lots 16 and 17 26 -
Lots 20 and 21 31 .31
Lots 20 and 21 38 NA
South Fagade,
Upstairs
Lots 22 and ZL__j 38 3 1 a
The recommended minimum sound ratings are based on a window surface not
exceeding 40 percent of the overall wall area and on an average room size basis.
Specifications for window frames, doors, and sliding doors should indicate that
both the frame and glass together in a complete assembly(with operable sash)meet
the STC 31 requirements, not just the glass alone. (Mitigation Measure — Noise
1)
52. With the exception of Lots 16 and 17, all residences shall include separate
ventilation systems so that the window/wall:construction is able to meet the 45 dB
NDL interior noise level standard with the windows closed. (Mitigation Measure
—Noise 2)
16
53. In addition to the six-foot tall privacy walls between the lots, additional walls must
be constructed on the project site at specified heights to meet acoustical criteria for
the project. The walls must have a minimum surface density of 3.0 pounds per foot
(lbs/ft)' and must be of airtight construction. Figure 4 indicates the required
location and wall height and is attached. (Mitigation Measure—Noise 3)
Utilities
54. Implementation of conditions of approval 30 through 32 (Mitigation Measures
Biological 1, 2, and 3) would reduce potential impacts to the special-status animals.
to less than significant levels. (Mitigation Measure—Utilities 1)
Child Care
55. 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
56. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay a park dedication fee
in the amount of$2,000 per residential unit.
Construction
57. Construction Period Development Activity Restrictions — Contractor and/or
developer shall comply with the following construction noise, dust, litter, and
traffic 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 as listed below:
New Year's Day(State and Federal)
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal)
Washington's Birthday (Federal)
Lincoln's Birthday(State)
President's Day(State)
Cesar Chavez Day(State)
Memorial Day(State and Federal)
Independence Day(State and Federal)
Labor Day(State and Federal)
Columbus Day(State and Federal)
Veterans Day(State and Federal)
Thanks Giving Day(State and Federal)
Sound Transmission Class(STC)—A single-figure rating standardized by ASTM and used to rate the sound insulation
properties of building partitions. The STC.rating is derived from laboratory measurements of a particular building element and as
such is representative of the maximum sound insulation. Increasing STC ratings correspond to improved noise isolation.
17
Day after Thanksgiving(State)
Christmas Day(State and Federal)
For specific details on what day the State and Federal Holidays fall on, please visit
these web url's:
htlp://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp
http://wwvt,.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.btm
B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit
all internal combustion engines with mufflers that are in good condition and
shall locate stationary noise-generation equipment such as air. compressors .
and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible.
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
9:00 A.M. and 4:00 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. 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.
A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community
Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the
names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying
the area noticed.
G. Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of a grading permit, the
applicant shall provide a letter to the Community Development Department
indicating that he has fully disclosed these requirements to all contractors and
subcontractors within this project.
18
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 8784/PERMIT DP 03-
3067
COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO
RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP
General Requirements:
58. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall
conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any
exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval state-
ment. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require
thereview and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the
revised Tentative Map dated February 16, 2006.
59. 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
60. Applicant shall construct curb, 5-foot sidewalk (width measured from curb face),
and necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage facilities, street lighting,
pavement transitions and any necessary signing, striping and safety improvements
along the project frontage of Blum Road. The face of curb shall be located 10 feet
from the west right of way line.
Roadway Improvements—Blum Drive
61. Applicant shall construct curb, 5-foot sidewalk (width measured from curb face),
and necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage facilities within the project as
shown on the tentative map. Sidewalk will only be required on one side of streets
as shown. Pavement and right of way widths shall conform to those shown on the
tentative map as well. Although the street is to remain private, it shall be
constructed to County public road standards as to horizontal and vertical alignment
(using a 30 mile per hour design speed) as well as the pavement structural section.
A 20-mile per hour design speed may be used at the intersection with Blum Road
and within 200 feet of the street terminus. The turn-around shall conform to Public
Works and Fire District standards.
Roadway Improvements—Private Road for Lots 16 & 17
62. Applicant shall construct curb, 20 feet of pavement and necessary longitudinal and
transverse drainage facilities within a 25-foot minimum easement to serve the
subject lots. A driveway depression is acceptable at the intersection with Blum
Drive in lieu of curb returns. Although the street is to remain private, it shall be
constructed to County public road standards as to horizontal and vertical alignment
(using a 20 mile per hour design speed) as well as the pavement structural section.
19
Access to Adjoining Property:
Proof of Access
63. Applicant shall furnish necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or
easements for the construction of off-site,.temporary:or permanent, public and
private road and drainage improvements.
Encroachment Permit
64. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit
Center, as necessary, for all construction activity within the right of way of Blum
Road.
Parking:
65. "No Parking" signs and pavement markings shall be installed along one side of
Blum Drive and both sides of the private road serving Lots 16 and 17 subject to the
review and approval of Public Works.
Sight Distance:
66. Provide sight distance at the intersection of Blum Road for a through traffic design
speed of 30 mph.
Utilities/Undergrounding:
67. All new and existing utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground.
Street Light Funding:
68. Property owner shall apply for annexation to County Service Area L-100 Lighting
District by submitting a letter of request; a metes and bounds description; and,pay
current LA-FCO fees. Annexation shall occur prior to filing of the Final Map. The
applicant shall be aware that this annexation process must comply with State
Proposition 218 requirements that state that the property owner must hold a special
election to approve annexation. This process takes approximately 4 to 6 months to
complete. Annexation into CSA L-100 does not include the transfer of ownership
and maintenance of street lighting on private roads.
Maintenance of Facilities:
69. 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.roadways.
Pedestrian Facilities:
70. All public and private pedestrian facilities and access ways shall be designed in
accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access) and the Americans with Disabilities
20
Act. This shall include all sidewalks, paths,trails, driveway depressions, as well as
handicap ramps.
71. All Curb ramps shall be designed and constructed in accordance with current
County standards. A detectable warning surface (e.g. truncated domes) shall be
installed on all curb ramps. Adequate right of way shall be dedicated .to
accommodate.a minimum 4 foot landing at the top of any curb ramp proposed.
Drainage Improvements:
Collect and Convey
72. Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires that all storm waters entering or
originating within the subject property shall be conveyed, without diversion and
within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having defin-
able bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility that
conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse.
73. Storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 shall --be designed and
constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in
compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department.
Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements:
74. Storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner
shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk(s)and driveway(s).
75. The applicant shall create private 10-foot wide drainage easements over those
portions of the underground and surface drainage system that convey storm water
run-off from more than a single lot or parcel.
Restricted Development Areas
76. Applicant shall grant deed development rights to Contra Costa County over those
portions of Lots 17, 20, 21, 22 and 23 that do not drain towards Blum Drive. The
purpose of this restricted development area is to prevent the construction of,future
improvements on these lots where storm water runoff does not comply with the
drainage provisions of the County. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). This
requirement may be waived, all or in part, by the Department if the applicant
secures drainage releases from the downstream property owners in compliance with
the provisions of Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code, or if drainage
facilities and respective easements are secured via future development of the
neighboring downstream properties.
77. An exception to the collect and convey requirements will be allowed over Lot 24
provided the applicant grant deeds development rights over said lot to Contra
Costa County. The purpose of this restricted development area is to prevent the
construction of future improvements on this lot where storm water runoff does not
comply with the drainage provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title
9). This requirement will be waived, all or in part, by the Department if the
applicant secures drainage releases from the downstream property owners in
21
compliance with the provisions of Division 9.14 of the County Ordinance Code, or
if drainage facilities and respective easements are secured to accommodate future.
development. The only allowable exception beyond any granted herein will be for
a diversion of the storm water runoff from the future.developed/paved area of Lot
24 to connect to the proposed in-tract storm drain facilities, provided the owner
verifies the adequacy and capacity of said facilities and other downstream
improvements to otherwise comply with the drainage requirements of Title 9. The
future site development plan shall be subject to review of Public Works and
approval of the Zoning Administrator. The County will retain the development
rights for the remainder of Lot 24 where storm water runoff does not otherwise
comply with the drainage provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title
9).
Stormwater Management and Discharge Control
78. This project is subject to the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge
Control Ordinance. As part of these requirements this project shall incorporate Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable into the design
of the project, implement them and provide for perpetual operation and
maintenance for all treatment BMPs.
Development Rights to Be Grant Deed to County on Lot 25 & 26
79. Prior to filing of the final map the applicant shall grant deed all of the development
rights over proposed lots 25 and 26. The applicant shall supply language of the
grant deed and legal description of the two proposed lots for review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator.
Fence at 4774 Blum Road -Assessor Parcel Number 159-200-029
80. Prior to the filing the final map or issuance of.grading permits, whichever occurs
first, the applicant shall submit a fence plan, prepared by a licensed landscape
architect, for review of the Public Works Department and the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator that includes all the following:
A. The fence shown on the plan shall be placed entirely on the subject
property,Assessor Parcel number 159-190-031.
B. The applicant shall obtain building permits for the fence.
C. Prior to occupancy of the first residence, evidence shall be presented for
the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, that the fence has
been built and finaled by the Building Inspection Department.
22
ADVISORY NOTES
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT
IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY
AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT.
A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS,
RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE :APPROVAL OF
THIS PERMIT.
This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000,
et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or
exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-
day period after the project is approved.
The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of
any dedication,reservation, or other exaction required by this approved-permit,begins on the date
this permit was approved. -To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to'Government Code
Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the
approval date of this permit.
B.. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules,regulations and procedures of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal construction and industrial
activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board or any of its
Regional Water Quality Control Boards(San Francisco Bay—Region II).
C. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the
applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville,
California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish
and wildlife resources,per the Fish and Game Code.
D. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the
applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if
a permit is required,"and if it can be obtained.
E. This subdivision will be subject to compliance with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance
requirements for the Martinez Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee
must be paid prior to issuance of building permits.
F. Applicant shall comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 57 as adopted by
the Board of Supervisors.These fees must be paid prior to filing a Final Map.
G. Portions of this project are located in a Special Flood Hazard Area as designated on the Federal
Emergency Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of the requirements of the
Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Ordinance .
No. 2000-33) as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property.
H. Comply with the requirements of the Mt. View Sanitary District.
2,
I. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Water District.
J. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District.
K. Comply with the requirements of the County Office of the Sheriff.
L. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Permits are required prior to
grading and construction.
The fees include but are not limited to the following:
Park Dedication $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.
M. 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.
N. Vesting Tentative Map Rights—The approval of this vesting tentative map confers a vested right
to proceed with development in substantial compliance with ordinances,policies,and standards in
effect as of July of 2005, the date the vesting tentative map application was accepted as complete
by the Community Development Department. The vested rights also apply to development fees,
which the County has adopted by ordinance. These fees are in addition to any other development
fees,which may be specified in the conditions of approval.
SD037884--2/13/06
rah
Rev.4/24/06 rah
G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\SD038784_COA_BOS.doc
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM ;.i -le rvq ?
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
.Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum be re addressing the Board.
Name: VA- 6_6n1 ALt7_A)6-4 Phone: qg J
Address: 4 `7.l 4k �,UIV City: Q"&kT) 4)L 41
Please note that if you d1hoose to provide your address and phone number, this information will become a public record of
the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting.
-I am speaking for myself l or organization:
CHECK ONE:
❑ I,wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:
My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against
I wish to speak on the subject of: �►'�
olei -. 1
❑ 1 do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information