HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05162006 - D.5 J '
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP ti '= Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County
moo.: .
• -.STA('OU!i•C'i...
DATE: MAY 16, 2006
SUBJECT: HEARING ON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO REZONE-
2.28 ACRES FROM GENERAL AGRICULTURAL (A-2) TO SINGLE FAMILY
.RESIDENTIAL (R-40) AT 321 NORTH GATE ROAD IN THE UNINCORPORATED
WALNUT CREEK/NORTH GATE AREA, COUNTY FILE #RZ053164 (BELLECCI &
ASSOCIATES, INC. - APPLICANT) (HAYTHAM & HEATHER ABED - OWNERS)
(SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT III)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ACCEPT the recommendation of the County Planning Commission, as contained in
Resolution No. 10-2006, to approve the rezoning of 2.28 acres from General Agricultural
(A-2) to Single Family Residential (R-40).
2. FIND the Negative Declaration prepared for this project to be adequate for the purposes
of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and adopt same.
3. INTRODUCE the ordinance giving effect to the aforesaid rezoning; waive reading and
adopt same.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON Z16 AAPPROVED AS RECOMMENDED JO R
(57
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT 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: Rose Marie Pietras(925)335-1216 ATTESTED A 99
G � +
JOHN CULLEN, C OF THE BOARD OF
Orig: Community Development Department SUPERVISO AND UNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: Charlie Capp,Bellecci&Associates(Applicant)
Haytham&Heather Abed (Owner)
City of Walnut Creek B ----DEPUTY
Assesspr
CDD-GIS
File
May 16, 2006
Board of Supervisors
File#RZ053164
Page 2
4. ADOPT the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-2006
as the basis for the Board's action.
5. DIRECT the Community Development Department to post the Notice of Determination
with the County Clerk.
II. FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant is responsible for cost of processing the rezoning request.
III. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The subject site is a 2.28 acre parcel along-Nforth Gate Road in the Walnut Creek area.
The site is a developed residential lot located on the south side of North Gate Road. The
lot is roughly shaped like a rectangle with an irregular north side. There are three
structures on the lot: a single story residence on the west side of the property, a barn on
the northeastern portion and a bonus room on the southeastern portion of the site. The
property has a gentle terrain which steepens along the north side of the parcel, where the
slope descends northward to a small unnamed creek and pond on the vicinity of the north
property line. Access to the site is provided by a driveway that extends southerly from
North Gate Road to a narrow bridge over the creek and then ascends to the existing
residence. The surrounding area consists of semi-rural home sites to the east and a
townhouse complex to the west with Mt. Diablo State Park at the end of North Gate Road
and visible from the property. The view of the surrounding area consists of Mt. Diablo,
open space and rolling hills with large estates. The City of Walnut Creek abuts the west
and south boundaries.
The applicant is requesting to rezone this property from A-2 General Agricultural to R-40
Single Family Residential. The site abuts property that is zoned R-40 and P-1. The
rezoning is compatible with the surrounding area. Permitted uses in the R-40 zoning
district include a detached single family dwelling, crop and tree farming, a temporary stand
to sell agricultural products grown on the premises, small farming, and (with at least 40,000
square feet) the property owner may keep two heads of livestock. The rezoning of this
property is consistent with the County General Plan designation of Single Family
Residential —Very Low.
On February 14, 2006, the County Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the
proposed rezoning and a related one lot subdivision application. No one from the public
appeared to speak in opposition to the project. The Commission unanimously voted to
recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the R-40 rezoning as recommended by
staff. This rezoning will bring the property into compliance with the County General Plan.
In addition, the applicant proposed a one lot subdivision with a designated remainder. The
Commission approved the related subdivision application, contingent on the Board's
approval of the rezoning.
May 16, 2006
Board of Supervisors
File#RZ053164
Page 3
City of Walnut Creek
On May 1, 2006, the Community Development Department received a memo from
the City of Walnut Creek. The City has no comments concerning the proposed
vesting tentative map and rezoning of the property.
Consequence of Inaction or Denial of Proposal by the Board
In the. event that the. Board denies. the request, the property's General Agricultural (A-2)
zoning would remain. The County Planning Commission approved the vesting tentative
map for one lot with a designated remainder contingent upon the Board's approval of the
rezoning. If the site is not rezoned, the sub°division`will be null and void.
q
d
ILA-)_
y:j t
d
S .
RESOLUTION NO. 10-2006
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY
OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING BY
BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES, INC. (APPLICANT), HAYTHAM & HEATHER
ABED (OWNERS) IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO
THE PRECISE ZONING (RZ053164), AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
(MS050029) APPLICATIONS FOR THE NORTH GATE/WALNUT CREEK AREA
OF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2005, the Community Development Department received
two application requests that were filed by Bellecci & Associates, Inc. (Applicant)
Haytham & Heather Abed (Owners) for a rezone from A-2 — General Agricultural to R-40
- Single Family Residential and a one lot subdivision with a designated remainder on 2.28
acres in the North Gate/Walnut Creek area.
WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a Negative
Declaration was prepared and circulated for review and comment between January 12,
2006 and February 13, 2006; and
WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was
scheduled before the 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:
1. FINDS that the proposed Negative Declaration is adequate for the purposes
of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopts
same;
2. RECOMMENDS that the Board of Supervisors:
A. APPROVE the proposed rezoning of the site from the General
Agricultural (A-2) District to the Single Family Residential (R-40)
District; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission
APPROVES the Vesting Tentative Map application to allow a one lot subdivision with a
designated remainder on 2.28 acres, subject to conditions, including a requirement that the
i� rqf
County Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-2006
Walnut Creek/North Gate area
approval is contingent on conforming action by the Board of Supervisors of the R-40
rezoning application.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation and
subdivision approval are as follows:
A. Rezoning Findings
1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the
General Plan.
Project Finding: The project site is currently zoned General Agricultural
(A-2), and designated Single Family Residential — Very Low (SV) in the
General Plan and North Gate Specific Plan. It should be noted that other
properties within the immediate vicinity are zoned Single Family
Residential District (R-40) with the SV General Plan designation. The
proposed rezoning to Single Family Residential (R-40)for the purpose of
developing additional single-family homes substantially complies with the
SV land use designation.
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 subject property lies in the vicinity of the North Gate
Road — unincorporated Walnut Creek area of the County. The majority of
the properties in this vicinity of the North Gate Road are single-family
residences with the exception of the condominiums. The adjacent property
to the west of the subject site is a condominium complex zoned P-1, to the
east most of the properties are zoned R-40. The R-40 Single Family
Residential land use district is compatible with the adjacent districts.
3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use
proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial
success.
Project Finding: There is a demonstrated need for housing opportunities of
all types. The rezoning of this property to R-40 will allow the higher
density consistent with the SV designation while providing a highly
desirable and aesthetically pleasing product.
The North Gate Road area of the County is characterized as semi-rural
with single-family residences and equestrian facilities. The proposed
development will build one additional home of architectural quality and
2
County Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-2006
Walnut Creek/North Gate area
will be in harmony with the design of surrounding developments being built
in the area.
The desirability of the project lies in its aesthetic quality and its lot
configuration. The project provides for a density level consistent with the
General Plan that also produces single-family residences. The single-
family residence will provide for adequate on site guest parking and private
yard areas. The additional landscaping will increase the visual and
aesthetic characteristic of the project. The use of underutilized property
helps fulfill the County Housing Element within the General Plan.
B. Growth Management Element Performance Standards Findings
1. Traffic: The project for one additional lot will generate less than 100-peak
hour trips and does not trigger a Measure C traffic study.
2. Water: The project is within the boundaries of the Contra Costa Water
District. Water service is available for the project.
3. Sanitary Sewer: The project is within the boundaries of the Central
Sanitary District. Sanitary sewer service is available for the project.
4. Fire Protection: Prior to the recording of the parcel map, the applicant is
required to demonstrate that all of the proposed development is located
within one and one-half miles of the fire station, or that the development
within the project that is more than one and one-half miles from the fire
station shall be required to provide automatic fire sprinkler systems. The
nearest station is Station 7 located at 1050 Walnut Avenue, Walnut Creek.
5. Public Protection: The Growth Management Element standard is 155
square feet of Sheriff facility station area per 1,000 population. Therefore,
there is no policy requirement to contribute to Sheriff facility
improvements.
6. Parks & Recreation: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
home, the applicant will be required to contribute a park dedication fee in
accordance with ordinance requirements. Currently, the park dedication fee
is $2,000.00 per new residence.
7. Flood Control & Drainage: The project will be required to meet all collect
and convey requirements.
(Ref. The Growth Management Element, Chapter 4, of the General Plan)
C. Findings for Consistency with the North Gate Specific Plan
3
County Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-2006
Walnut Creek/North Gate area
1. Required Findings: No tentative map may be approved, and no zoning
ordinance may be amended within an area covered by a specific plan unless
it is consistent with the adopted specific plan. (Government Code Section
65455)
Proiect Finding: The site lies within the planning area of the North Gate
Specific Plan. The Plan designates the site Single Family Residential—
Very Low. The proposed one lot subdivision with a designated remainder is
consistent with the North Gate Specific Plan designation.
The project is subject to the North Gate Specific Plan design policies.
Based on these considerations, the project is consistent with the North Gate
Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairperson and,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
California.
The instructions by the County 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: Commissioners Terrell, Battaglia, Clark, Gaddis, Murray, Wong and
Snyder
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DON SNYDER
Chair of the County Planning Commission
County of Contra Costa, State of California
ATTEST:
Dennis M. Barry, Secretary
County of Contra Costa
State of California
GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Board\Resolutions\rz053164res.doc
RMP\\dls
4
FINDINGS MAP
FindingsWp
C u a t
e Rd _WALNUT CREEK Arbolado or_
C.C.COU TY
e
saes ut
LU
P-1 A 2
R 40
e
E It
l R-40
n - P-'1
40 z n A-2
n elr-R
4 rn
Rezone From_.fes?.._—To R-40 Wnlnut Creek Area
!, D Snyder Chair of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission,State of California,do hereby certify that this is a true and
correct copy of the County's 2Q
zoning map.
indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission
in the matter of Redlecri and Associates -
ATf—
Secretary of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission,Stateof Calif.
Y
r
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-18 7�
(Re-Zoning Land in the
Wainut Creek Area)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
SECTION I: Page M-16 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. RZ053164 )
FROM: Land Use District A-2 ( General Agriculture )
TO: Land Use District R-40 ( Single Family Residence )
and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to
Ordinance Code Sec.84!2.002. _
O
c ucact
0
5
LeR d WALNUT CREEK grbolado Dr
C.C.COU TY
e saes
_T
A2 R 40
P-1 --:, d
I; N e
4 ; R-40
n P-1
z " A-2
� etR
1
M
IdISECTION 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 �'_vr,-� ca 1054_ , Ti men a newspaper published in this County.
PASSED on�����9-Od� bythe following vote:
Supervisor Ave No Absent Abstain -
1. J.Gioia
2. G.B.Uilkema (X) ( ) ( ) ( )
3. M.N.Piepho
4. M.DeSaulnier
5. F.D.Glover
ATTEST: JoVe Cullen,
County Administrator
and Clerk ofBoard of Supervisors
hairman of the Board
By Dep. (SEAL)
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-18
RZ053164 Bellecci and Associates
GENERAL PLAN & ZONING MAP
AND
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
O
O
i� O 0
N N
�a
tp
CION
�a
�a o
00 - C`3 Z ate.
0
2 N
2d M
T
t3
<r
110
s1 tt
a
z� �
,
0
�=o
S3 4i i�
�r �.x t• '�} �.,.- eta yl�t, �� "•�'�r,,, .� �s rtlT ,r4
s ,
SSl a .
• Y 1, -t' :-f ems..
5� .r ti O b�.p •J- y i .
�`T� �' r � � Y� ~ � . 1r t •�`{ _Cys t� 7 - tt T ,�t
!�
,
,
yy-q
\�� .`. -�C',[t�` t � c`# f ��-�F-'�4' s •�/_ r'•, `� �� + .�. .• _+! �_Yy,'t,y�' '�*�``F.J
jt t: �t{`., r � r .t ,y� * `py.,ll 'Y � + ��r^M"t;✓Yt'J-7�' v^�r 'k fL�/�4,n t�
i ����jrr' "'k� �� .,tiso,`�J' -� ,� _. � t .a"`r5•.^ — ,�,/? w4r'.rf�::tt't��
R �knav" �b KS ..j� r �`` _ .. ��• # ~ i{ t�� �� Ns' !v als:> t/� p�.t
i tom: '��v t -'}it ,'} ' � �' � .h"� � +�`'.r.'' ,:lJ. t } • ,y� � .:� 9 'Iii{`'45� `r'v�.r..
� �:a J �,-'��} + tr t i t' • � J �'t:l�a�tr tl•1 is 1
_r
�-
wr
SIX
AN
�
. wr.
,
1 � a
� � k�t� •:,rC,2��i�ti � v � �"����L.y�+�'j 1 �` / �t�i[�,+Z t�� � �_� � •
_ '�� ���.�x "trl-;4� � •. i� ` 'Ir - .� �r1 '^� gtit,`�,;w"'•s r - .?. � � T"tA•
t •7 t �e� _ - I � �w � ! f Lyi\ � h .� � y Yf
f` �� r
i
r S x
p. e, r -'r 'D rte,, s t .I• � �, :��. v-�/r j `.j r.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
AS APPROVED BY THE
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON
FEBRUARY 14, 2006
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE
#RZ053164 AND FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAP COUNTY FILE #MS050029
IN THE NORTH GATE AREA OF WALNUT CREEK AS APPROVED BY THE
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 14, 2006
A. Growth Management Performance Standards
1. Traffic: The project will generate an estimated one 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 #52 requires that the applicant
collect and convey all storm waters entering or originating within the
project to an adequate natural or manmade water course. The parcel map
may not. be filed until the collect and convey requirements and
improvements have been met.
3.: Water and Waste Disposal: The project site is within Contra Costa Water
District and-Central Sanitation District service areas. The districts have
indicated that their capacity is adequate to support the development.
4. Fire Protection: Prior to the approval of a Parcel 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 7 located at 1050 Walnut Avenue, Walnut Creek.
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 Parcel Map, the applicant is required to establish a police
service tax district to mitigate the impacts of the development on police
services.
6. Parks and 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$2,000.00 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.
Project Finding: The project site is currently zone General Agriculture (A-2),
and designated Single Family Residential Very-Low (SV) in the General
Plan and North Gate Specific Plan. Presently, the zoning and land use
designation are not compatible. The basis for the R-40 rezone will allow for
consistency with the General Plan. It should be noted that other properties
within the immediate vicinity are in the single family residential zoning
district (R-40) and within the SV General Plan designation. The proposed
rezoning to R-40 is for the purpose of developing one additional single-family
home that substantially complies with the SV land use designation.
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 subject property lies in the vicinity of the North Gate
Road — unincorporated Walnut Creek area of the County that has been in
transition from rural to semi-rural. The majority of the properties along this
vicinity of North Gate Road are semi-rural with both single-family residences
and equestrian facilities.
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. The rezoning of this property to R-40 will allow the higher
density consistent with the SV designation while providing a highly desirable
and aesthetically pleasing product.
C. Findingfor or Approval of a Tentative Map
1. 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.
Project Finding: The project is consistent with the various elements of the
General Plan. The land use designation is SFR-SV, which allows for
single-family very-low density development for one lot with a remainder
based on net area minus roadway (0.2 - 0.9 units per net acre) on a
1.1071-acre parcel, which complies with the density requirement. The
project is consistent with the policies of the North Gate Specific Plan.
2. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a
tentative ,map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills
construction requirements.
2
Project Finding: In lieu of constructing on-site drainage facilities to meet
collect and convey requirement, the County will require that development
rights be relinquished along the rear of proposed Parcel A, where existing
topography indicates storm water runoff may be discharged onto adjacent
parcels. The Public Works Department has granted an exception to the
design standards for construction of private road based on existing
constraints such as a masonry wall, mature vegetation and lack of right of
way width. The County Geologist stated that the site is suitable for
construction from a geologic standpoint. Buildings must comply with the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General:
1. Approval is Contingent on Consistent Approval of Related
Rezoning. The subdivision is approved contingent upon the
approval of the rezoning request County File # RZ053164 from
A-2 General Agriculture to R-40 Single Family Residential. If the
site is not rezoned this approval shall be null and void.
2. This approval is based upon the exhibits received by the
Community Development Department listed as follows:
Approved per plans as generally shown on the Vesting Tentative
Map:
A. MS050029 - Vesting Tentative Map dated January 18, 2006.
The approval is also based upon the following reports:
B. Archaeological Assessment prepared by Holman and
Associates dated October 7, 2005.
C. Preliminary Geotechnical and Geological Evaluation Proposed
Lot Split prepared by Cundey Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.
dated October 26, 2005.
D. Darwin Myers Associates — Geological Peer Review/CEQA
Section dated November 18, 2005.
Indemnification:
3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant
(including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend,
3
indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning
Agency and its agents, officers, and employees 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 claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the
defense.
Compliance Report:
4. 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$1,000.00 that is subject to time and
materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit, additional
fees will be required.
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 335-1216.)
Residential Design:
5. Homes and accessory structures shall be consistent with the North
Gate Specific Plan design standards. At least 30 days prior to the
issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit building
elevations and floor plans with color and material samples for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The materials
submitted shall provide sufficient variation to enhance the
subdivision design.
6. Applicant shall record a statement to run with the deeds to property
acknowledging Condition of Approval #5 design guidelines for
development.
4
Alternative Street Names:
7. 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.
Archaeology:
8. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading,
trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards
of these materials shall be stopped until a professional
archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional
Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the
significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if
deemed necessary.
9. _ If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts, human
burials, or the like are encountered during construction operations,
such operations shall cease within 10 feet of the find, the
Community Development Department shall be notified within 24-
hours and a qualified archaeologist contacted and retained for
further recommendations. Significant cultural materials include,
but are not limited to, aboriginal human remains, chipped stone,
groundstone, shell and bone artifacts, concentrations of fire
cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features such
as privies or building foundations.
10. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on
the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the
site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been
contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety
Code.
Child Care Conditions:
11. The developer shall pay a fee of$400.00 per lot/unit toward child
care facility needs in the area as established by the Board of
Supervisors.
5
Geological Conditions:
12. At least (30) days prior to issuance of a grading or building permit
on Parcel A, or installation of improvements or utilities, the
applicant shall submit a preliminary geology, soil, and foundation
report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section
94-4.420 for review and approval of the'County Peer Review
Geologist. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry
out the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall
include evaluation of the potential for a) creek bank retreat, b)
liquefaction, c) seismic settlement and other types of seismically-
induced ground failure by recognized methods appropriate to soil
conditions discovered during subsurface investigation.
The report shall also evaluate the hazard posed by expansive soils
and provide specific recommendations for site grading, drainage
and foundation design. The report will include borehole logs that
show the details of observed features and conditions, laboratory
test data, and an original geologic map of the site presenting the
consultant's interpretation of site condition.
13. Applicant shall record a statement to run with deeds to Parcel A
acknowledging the Cundey report (dated October 26, 2005) by
title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to approved
recommendations, and noting that the report is available from the
seller and it shall cite the provisions of the geologic COA listed
above.
Grading:
14. The grading plan shall provide for balanced cut and fill on-site
(i.e., no import or export of fill material).
15. To reduce long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts on
downstream water quality, grading plans shall be designed so that
no surface water shall be directed onto cut or fill slopes. All
graded slopes shall include either brow ditches or berms at the
crest to control surface run-off. These drainage structures shall be
underlain by subdrains. Run-off from graded surfaces shall be
intercepted by closed conduits and conveyed to adequate storm
drainage facilities.
16. Grading plans shall indicate how the project will comply with the
Recycle Water Ordinance (Ord. No.91-24).
6
17. Cut and graded slopes shall be periodically inspected during
grading of those slopes by an engineering geologist or soils
engineer with periodic progress reports and a completion report.
18. All cut and fill slopes shall be revegetated as soon as possible after
grading when seasonal conditions are favorable to seed
germination and plant growth.
Trees and Tree Preservation:
19. If grading is proposed to be in close proximity to the protected
trees on the site the applicant shall submit at least 30 days prior to
issuance of a grading permit or filing of a Parcel Map, a
grading/tree preservation plan for the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator. The plan shall identify all trees with a trunk
circumference of 10 inches or more, 4 % feet above the ground.
The trunk size, species and approximate drip line of each
qualifying tree shall be identified on the plan, and whether the tree
is proposed to be removed or preserved. The plan shall be
accompanied by a report from a qualified arborist on the proposed
development recommending measures to protect trees as
appropriate during the construction and post-construction stages.
The recommended measures from the arborist shall be integrated
into or otherwise attached to the proposed grading plan.
Prior to grading applicant shall provide fencing or other
appropriate barriers at least five (5) feet outside of the drip line of
all trees to be retained on the site in order to give grading
contractors proper visual notification to keep equipment out of the
area surrounding these trees. (During grading operations a
qualified arborist shall be on site to approve any needed exceptions
to these requirements).
20. To assure protection and/or reasonable replacement of existing
trees to be preserved which are in proximity to project
improvements, the applicant shall post a bond (or cash deposit or
other surety) for the required work with the Community
Development Department. The term of the bond shall extend at
least 24 months beyond the completion of construction. Prior to
posting the bond or deposit, a licensed arborist shall assess the
value of the trees and reasonable compensatory terms in the event
that a tree to be preserved is destroyed or otherwise damaged by
construction-related activity. The tree-bonding program shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
7
21. No trees shall be removed prior to approval of the grading/tree
E preservation plan without the prior approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
22. The developer and applicant shall adhere to the following tree
preservation standards required by Section 816-6.1202 of the
County Code:
A. Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching,
grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation
on a site with trees to be preserved, the applicant shall install
fencing at the dripline or other area as determined by an
arborist report of all trees adjacent to or in the area to be
altered. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the
fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by
appropriate County staff.
B. No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or
change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the
dripline unless indicated on the grading plans approved by
the County and addressed in any required report prepared by
an arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the
dripline, an arborist may be required to be present during
grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to
require protective measures to protect the roots. Upon
completion of grading and construction, an involved arborist
shall prepare a report outlining further methods for tree
protection if any are required. All arborist expense shall be
borne by the developer and applicant.
C. No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or
construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping
of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the dripline of
any tree to be saved.
23. If no trees are located within 40 feet of the proposed development,
the construction plans shall be noted.
Landscaping:
24. A landscaping plan and irrigation plan for Parcel A shall be
submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator at
least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits. A cost estimate
shall be submitted with the landscaping program plan.
Landscaping shall conform to the County Water Conservation
Landscape Ordinance 82-26 and shall be installed prior to approval
8
of final building permit. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed
landscape architect and shall be certified to be in compliance with
County Water Conservation Ordinance.
25. California native drought tolerant plants or trees shall be used as
much as possible. All trees shall be a minimum five-gallon size
planted throughout the project site.
Lighting:
26. At least 30 days prior to issuance.of building permits, an exterior
lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator. The plan shall include details of location
and design of outside lighting fixtures, proposed screening and
hours of operation of exterior lights.
27. Exterior lights shall be deflected so that lights shine onto
applicant's property and not toward adjacent properties.
Construction Conditions:
28. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following
construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements.
A. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30
A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be
prohibited on state and federal holidays.
B. The project sponsor shall require their contractor and
subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with
mufflers which are in good condition . and shall locate
stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors
and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as
possible.
C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the
applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property
within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site
notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall
include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number
and areas of responsibility. The person responsible for
maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept
current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority
to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of
responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise
and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and
9
vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number,
shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be
re-issued with each phase of major grading and construction
activity.
A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the
Community Development Department. The notice shall be
accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the
property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area
noticed.
D. A dust and litter control' program shall be submitted for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any
violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances
shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction work
shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an
appropriate construction bond has been posted.
E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid
interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to
issuance of building permits, the proposed roads serving this
development shall be constructed to provide access to each lot.
This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park
earth moving equipment.
F. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to
weekdays between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. and
prohibited on Federal and State holidays.
G. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following
the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris
shall be removed from the site.
29. The project shall comply with the dust control requirements of the
Grading Ordinance including provisions pertaining to water
conservation.
30. Construction-related vehicle access to the site shall be limited to
two.
31. Haul routes shall be generally limited to those areas of the site
which are proposed to be graded to avoid unnecessary scarring of
the hillside. Hauling of material through an approved scenic
easement shall be precluded.
10
Water:
32. At least 30 days prior to recording the Parcel Map, the applicant
shall provide proof that adequate water facilities can be provided.
33. The applicant shall comply with the Contra Costa County
Ordinance pertaining to water conservation. Compliance with the
Water Conservation Ordinance shall be designed to encourage
low-flow water devices and other interior and exterior water
conservation techniques.
34. All toilets shall be low-flow units in accordance with Section
17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code; sinks and showers shall be
water conserving units, in accordance with the California Energy
Commission Standards for new residential buildings.
Sanitary Sewer:
35. At least 30 days prior to recording the parcel map, the applicant
shall provide proof that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and
quality can be provided.
Police Service/Crime Prevention:
36. Police Service District to Aunent Police Services --- The
following requirements shall be met prior to filing a Parcel Map or
issuance of a building permit as specified below:
A. Prior to filing a Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit two
copies of a proposed disclosure statement for the review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator. The approved
statement shall be used to notify prospective buyers of
parcels which are not occupied by existing legally-
established residences at time of filing the tentative map
application. The disclosure statement shall advise
prospective buyers of affected parcels that prior to issuance
of a building permit, they will be required to contribute to the
County $1,000.00 for police services mitigation. The fee
may be paid to the Contra Costa County Application &
Permit Center.
B. Prior to issuance of a building permit on any parcel that is not
occupied by a legal residence, the applicant shall contribute
$1,000.00 to the County for police services mitigation. The
fee shall be paid to the Contra Costa County Application &
Permit Center.
11
Fire Protection District:
37. Prior to the approval of a parcel 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 systems 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
County File#MS050029.
Payment of Any Supplemental Application Fees that are Due:
38. This application is subject to an initial application fee of
$7,826.00, 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.
PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
SUBDIVISION MS 05-0029
Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9, and Title 10 of the
County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these conditions of
approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the Revised Vesting Tentative Map
received by the Community Development Department on January 18, 2006.
COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO
FILING OF THE PARCEL MAP:
39. 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
12
exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval
statement. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall
require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on
the Revised Vesting Tentative Map received by the Community Development
Department on January 18, 2006.
40. 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.
Access to Adjoining Property:
Proof of Access
41. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department of the acquisition
'V of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the
construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and
drainage improvements.
42. Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works that legal access to the property is
available from North Gate Road.
Encroachment Permit
43. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit
Center, if necessary, for construction of driveways or other improvements within
the right of way of North Gate Road.
Private Road(Access to North Gate Road):
44. Applicant shall construct the private road and any driveways in conformance with
the Policy on Private Rural Road Design Standards and the Policy on Rural
Driveway Standards, respectively, subject to the review of the Fire District. The
applicant shall be granted an exception to the standard private rural road and
easement width requirements where physical constraints exist along the roadway.
At a minimum, the applicant shall provide a 16-foot traveled way width within a
16-foot wide access easement between North Gate Road and the subject property.
Where existing physical constraints restrict the ability to widen the roadway, a
minimum 12-foot traveled way width shall be permitted, as shown on the vesting
tentative map.
13
Private Road(On-Site):
45. Applicant shall provide a minimum 16-foot traveled way width within a minimum
20-foot wide access easement on-site, as shown on the vesting tentative map. A
reduced traveled way width, not to be less than 12 feet, shall be permitted to allow
pavement transitioning immediately south of the existing bridge.
46. Applicant shall construct an adequate turnaround at the end of the proposed
private road, subject to the review of the Fire District.
Sight Distance:
47. Applicant shall provide-adequate sight distance at the intersection of the proposed
private road and North Gate Road for a through traffic design speed of 35 miles
per hour. Landscaping, walls, fences, signs, or other obstructions must be placed
to maintain adequate sight distance.
Street Lights:
48. Applicant 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 the current LAFCO fees. Annexation shall occur prior to filing of the Parcel
Map. The applicant shall be aware that this annexation process must comply with
State Proposition 218 requirements, which state that the property owner must hold
a special election to approve the annexation. This process may take approximately
4-6 months to complete. Annexation into CSA L-100 does not include the
transfer of ownership and maintenance of street lighting on private roads.
Utilities/Undergrounding:
49. All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground.
Maintenance of Facilities:
50. Applicant shall develop and enter into a maintenance agreement that will insure
that the proposed private roadway will be maintained and that each parcel in this
subdivision that will use the proposed private roadway will share in its
maintenance.
51. Applicant shall record a Statement of Obligation, in the form of a deed
notification, to inform all future property owners of their legal obligation to
maintain the private roadway from North Gate Road.
14
Drainage Improvements:
Collect and Conve
52. Applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating on
this property without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to
a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate
public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to an adequate
natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code.
53. Applicant shall construct drainage improvements along the rear (south end) of
proposed Parcel A to satisfy the collect and convey provisions of the County
Ordinance Code prior to filing of the Parcel Map
OR
Applicant shall relinquish "development rights" to the County over the area along
the rear (south end) of proposed Parcel A, as shown on the vesting tentative map,
until adequate drainage improvements have been installed. "Development rights"
shall be conveyed to the County by grant deed.
Provision "C.3"of the NPDES Permit:
54. In compliance with the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control
Ordinance, it has been determined that this project does not require submittal of a
Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP). New or redeveloped impervious surface area
proposed in this application totals less than one acre (43,560 square feet), which is
the threshold for submittal of a SWCP. However, this project is required to
incorporate storm water quality elements to the Maximum Extent Practicable
(MEP). This must include efforts to limit new impervious surface area, limit
directly connected impervious areas, provide for self retaining areas and include
other Best Management Practices to the MEP.
Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements:
55. Any new drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
specifications outlined in Division 914 and in-compliance with design standards
of the Public Works Department.
Creek Structure Setback:
56. Applicant shall relinquish"development rights" over that portion of the site that is
within the creek structure setback area. The structure setback area shall be
determined by using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14, "Rights of Way and
Setbacks," of the County Ordinance Code. "Development rights" shall be
conveyed to the County by grant deed.
15
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES):
57. 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 or Central Valley Region).
Compliance will include developing long-term best management practices
(BMP's) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project
design shall incorporate, where feasible, some or all of the following long term
BMP's in accordance with the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program for the
site's storm water drainage:
- Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area.
- Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins.
- Slope pavements to direct runoff to landscaped/pervious areas, where
feasible.
- Shallow roadside and on-site swales
- Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to
buyers.
- Other alternatives as approved by the Public Works Department.
ADVISORY NOTES
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE
APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE
SUBJECT.
A. NOTIFY 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 part of this
project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to ad 90-day period after
the project is approved.
The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or
imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this
approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a
16
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. Comply with the requirements of the County Building Inspection Department
C. Comply with the requirements of the Central Sanitary District.
D. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Water District.
E. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection
District.
F. Comply with the requirements of the Sheriff's Department.
G. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and
procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit 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 — Regional II or Central Valley —
Region V).
H. The project is subject to the development fees in effect under County Ordinance
as of January 18, 2006, the date the vesting tentative map application was
accepted as complete by the Community Development Department. These fees
are in addition to any other development fees which may be specified in the
conditions of approval.
The fees include but are not limited to the following:
Park Dedication $2,000.00 per residence
Child Care $ 400.00 per residence
An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be contacting the
Building Inspection Department at 335-1196.
I. The applicant shall be required to comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee
Ordinance requirements for the Central County Area of Benefit as adopted by the
Board of Supervisors. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit.
J. 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.
17
K. 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.
G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\MS050029 coa.doc
mp-5/10/06
18
STAFF REPORT
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 14, 2006
Agenda Item #
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2006
L INTRODUCTION
BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES. INC. (Applicant) —HAYTHAM &HEATHER
ABED (Owner)
A) County File#RZ053164: The applicant requests approval to rezone a 2.28-
acre parcel from A-2 (General Agriculture) to R-40 (Single Family
Residential).
B) County File#MS050029: The applicant requests approval to subdivide a
2.28-acre parcel into one lot with a remainder.
The subject property's address is 321 North Gate Road in the Walnut Creek area.
(A-2) (ZA: M-16) (CT: 3383.02) (APN: 138-070-004)
II. RECOMMENDATION
A. Adopt the attached Negative Declaration
B. Adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt the
proposed rezoning from A-2 (General Agriculture) to R-40 (Single Family
Residential).
C. Approve the one lot subdivision with remainder with the attached conditions
of approval.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan: The General Plan designation is Single Family Residential—
Very Low.
B. Zoning: A-2 - General Agriculture.
C. CEQA Status: A Negative Declaration was posted on January 6, 2006 at the
County Clerk's Office. No comments have been received from the public.
D. Previous Applications:
DP953042 — Small Lot Review - withdrawn
ZI029349B —Small Lot Review for bonus room
E. Regulatory Programs:
1. Active Fault Zone: Subject site is not in an active.fault zone.
2. Flood Hazard Area: Subject site is in Flood Zone C of minimal
flooding, Panel 0295B & 0315B.
3. 60dBA Noise Control: Subject property is not within a 60dBA noise
control area.
4. Redevelopment Area: Subject property is not within a redevelopment
district.
IV. SITE /AREA DESCRIPTION
The site is a 2.28 acre parcel along the North Gate Road—in the Walnut Creek
area of the County. The surrounding area consists of semi-rural acre homesites to
the east and a townhome development to the west with Mt. Diablo State Park at
the end of North Gate Road and visible from this property. The view of the
surrounding area consists of Mt. Diablo, open spaces and rolling hills consisting
of some large estate homes.
V. PROPOSED PROJECT
The applicant is requesting to rezone this property from A-2 (General
Agriculture) to R-40 Single Family Residential. The rezoning of this property
would be consistent with the County General Plan and the North Gate Specific
Plan designation of Single Family Residential—Very Low. The applicant also
requests approval of a one lot subdivision with a remainder.
VI. AGENCY COMMENTS
The following agencies did not respond: Contra Costa Water; Central Sanitary;
City of Walnut Creek; Mt. Diablo Unified School District; CA Native American
Heritage Commission; and Upper Ygnacio Valley Homeowners Association
A. Public Works Department/Engineering Services: Memorandum dated August
3, 2005, November 9, 2005 and January 10, 2006. See attachments.
S-2
B.. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District: Memorandum dated August 3,
2005. See attachment.
C. Building Inspection Department: Memorandum dated March 8, 2005. The
design shall comply with 2001 CBC, 2001 CPC, 2001 CMC, 2001 CEC and
2001 CFC. Architectural and Engineering design if non-conventional
construction. Survey stakes are required.
D. Health Services Department-Environmental Health: Memorandum dated.
March 15, 2005. Make application for septic systems; well permit may need
to be finalized.
Property is serviced by Central Sanitary District.
E. Department of Fish& Game: Memorandum dated January 25, 2006. See
attached.
VII. ARCHAEOLOGICAL REVIEW
A copy of this application was forwarded to the California Historic Resources
Information System (CHRIS) for comments on July 20, 2005. On August 11,
2005 comments were received and CHRIS determined that the proposed project
area has the possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological site(s). A study
was recommended prior to commencement of project activities.
A Cultural Resources Inspection was prepared by Holman &Associates dated
October 7, 2005.
Findings &Recommendations
No evidence of prehistoric and/or historic archaeological deposits was found
inside the 2.3 acre parcel. Indicators typical of the area would have included
darker than surrounding soils containing visible amounts of fresh water and salt
water, concentrations of bone, stone and/or artifacts of these materials, and
evidence of fire (ash, charcoal, fire altered rocks and earth).
It is the finding of this report that there will be no effect on cultural resources
caused from the splitting of the lot, demolition of the existing structures on the
proposed new lot or construction of new structures there. This report does not
recommend a program of mechanical subsurface presence/absence testing, and
does not recommend that future site clearing and/or construction be monitored by
an archaeologist.
S-3
VIII. GEOLOGICAL REVIEW
The applicant submitted a Preliminary Geotechnical and Geological Evaluation
prepared by Cundy Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. dated on October 26, 2005. A
Geological Peer Review prepared by Darwin Myers Associates dated November
18, 2005 concluded as follows:
"The nearest fault considered active by the California Division of Mines &
Geology is the Concord fault. The Concord fault A-P Zone passes approximately
150 feet east of the site. Because the site is not within the A-P Zone, the risk of
surface fault rupture is considered to be less than significant.
According to the Safety Element (p.10-13)the site is in an area rated "moderate
damage susceptibility". The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is
regulated by the building codes and County Grading Ordinance. The UBC
requires use of seismic parameters which allow the structural engineering analysis
for buildings to be based on soil profile types (see UBC, 1997, Volume 2, Div. 5,
page 2-23). Compliance with building and grading regulations can be expected to
keep risks within generally accepted limits. On page 3 of the report issued by
Cundey Geotechnical Consultant (2005), a table is provided which lists UBC
seismic parameters for the site.
According to the Safety Element (p. 10-15), the site is rated "generally moderate
to low" liquefaction potential. The mapping of Helley & Graymer(1997)
considers the site to be underlain by Late Pleistocene alluvium, which is too
clayey and too dense to liquefy. This is a preliminary interpretation that will need
to be confirmed during subsurface exploration on Parcel A. The County geologist
has recommended a geotechnical investigation for construction permits on Parcel
A that addresses this issue.
No landslides are shown on published maps. The Soil Survey of Contra Costa
County(1977) indicates that the erosion hazard is moderate to low, and the
preliminary finding of the County peer review geologist is the site is suitable for
residential use.
A SWPPP and Erosion Control are a routine requirement of projects that result in
disturbance of one acre or more, as well as for sensitive sites irrespective of the
size of the disturbed area (i.e. site adjacent to creeks). 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.
Based on review of the pertinent geologic data and review of the Cundey
Geotechnical Consultant's report, the County Peer Review Geologist considers
the project to be feasible. There is no known landslide hazard, but further
S-4
evaluation of the creek bank in the northern portion of Parcel A is to be required
prior to issuance of construction.permits.
Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture changes that can cause
heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements and structures founded on
shallow foundations. It should be recognized that expansive soils are an
engineering issue, and not a land use or feasibility issue. Building damage due to
volume changes associated with expansive soils can be'reduced by placing slabs
on select, granular fill; by use of rigid mat or post-tensioned permits on proposed
Parcel A. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that soils conditions on the
site are taken into account in foundations design."
IX. PUBLIC WORKS CONSIDERATIONS
The Public Works Department reviewed the Revised Vesting Tentative Map
received on January 18, 2006 and submitted the following comments:
Background
The applicant proposes to subdivide an approximately 2.28-acre parcel into one
parcel and a remainder parcel at 321 Northgate Road in the unincorporated
Walnut Creek area. The existing residence will remain on what is proposed to be
the remainder parcel. It should be noted that the incorrect Assessor Parcel
Number (APN) is referenced on the vesting tentative map under "General Notes."
This should be corrected in any future improvement plan submittal.
Traffic and Circulation
The proposed project will gain access from North Gate Road via a private road.
Improvements to North Gate Road will not be required as a part of this
application. The applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works that legal access to
the property is available from North Gate Road.
The applicant shall construct the private road and any driveways in conformance
with the Policy on Private Rural Road Design Standards and the Policy on Rural
Driveway Standards, respectively, subject to the review of the Fire District. The
applicant shall be granted an exception to the standard private rural road and
easement width requirements due to physical constraints that exist along the
roadway. At a minimum, the applicant shall provide a 16-foot traveled way width
within a 16-foot wide access easement between North Gate Road and the subject
property (north end of the bridge). Where physical constraints restrict the ability
to widen the roadway, a minimum 12-foot traveled way width shall be permitted,
as shown on the vesting tentative map.
The applicant shall provide a minimum 16-foot traveled way width within a
minimum 20-foot wide access easement and construct an appropriate turnaround
S-5
on-site, as shown on the vesting tentative map. A narrower traveled way width
shall be permitted immediately south of the bridge due to pavement transitioning.
Drainage
Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires all storm water entering
and/or originating on this property to be collected and conveyed without diversion
and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse
having a definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate storm drainage
system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse.
A majority of the subject property slopes downward to the north while a small
portion along the southerly subdivision boundary slopes downward in the
opposite direction to the south. The proposed project is not expected to generate a
significant amount of additional runoff. The existing drainage pattern indicates
existing runoff sheet flows into the creek traversing the site along the northerly
subdivision boundary. The existing drainage pattern shall be maintained.
Although the additional runoff generated by the proposed project is not expected
to exceed the creek capacity, the applicant will need to verify this by providing
the necessary hydrology/hydraulic calculations.
In lieu of constructing on-site drainage facilities to meet the collect and convey
requirement, the County will require that development rights be relinquished
along the rear of proposed Parcel A, where existing topography indicates storm
water runoff may be discharged onto adjacent parcels. Relinquishment of
development rights over this area will ensure that no new impervious surfaces can
be constructed within this area and that no concentrated runoff will be disposed
onto adjacent properties.
A creek structure setback area shall be observed as a result of the proposed
subdivision. The creek structure setback line shall be determined in conformance
with the requirements of Chapter 914 of the County Ordinance Code. The
applicant will be required to grant deed development rights over this setback area
to the County to prevent construction of any permanent structures, other than
drainage facilities and landscaping, within this area.
Stormwater Management
In compliance with the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control
Ordinance, it has been determined that this project does not require submittal of a
Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP). New or redeveloped impervious surface area
proposed in this application totals less than one acre (43,560 square feet), which is
the threshold for submittal of a SWCP. However, this project is required to
incorporate storm water quality elements to the Maximum Extent Practicable
(MEP). This must include efforts to limit new impervious surface area, limit
S-6
directly connected impervious areas, provide for self retaining areas and include
other Best Management Practices to the MEP.
X. STAFF ANALYSES
a. Appropriateness of Use: The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to
R-40, 1 du/per 40,000 square feet and to subdivide the property allowing for
one additional single family residential lot with a designated remainder. The
proposed rezoning and subdivision is an appropriate use of the site that is
consistent with the surrounding area.
b. Design Review: The applicant will be subject to the design policies of the
North Gate Specific Plan. According to the North Gate Specific Plan, "all
new home designs shall blend in with the semi-rural character of the area.
Buildings on hillsides should complement the topography of the site. Exterior
building materials of wood, wood shingles, and brick are preferred and
exterior colors should be in earth tone colors. Bright colors should be
avoided."
c. General Plan/Zoning Compliance: The General Plan and North Gate Specific
Plan designation for the site is Single Family Residential—Very Low. The
applicant is requesting to rezone the property from A-2 General Agriculture to
R-40 Single Family Residential. This rezoning will bring the property into
compliance with the General Plan and North Gate Specific Plan designation
for one additional building site on a 40,000 square foot lot.
XI. CONCLUSION
The determination of the environmental review concluded that the whole of the
project does not adversely affect the environment. The one lot subdivision with a
remainder promotes single family residences that helps create a sense of
community. The houses share a private road designed as a"country road"
without curbs and gutters. The road is lined with mature vegetation on the west
side, with a quaint bridge crossing a pond. In staff's opinion,the proposed
subdivision will be compatible with the surrounding single family residential
properties on one acre lots.
S-7
PERTINENT
CORRESPONDENCE
MEMORANDUM'-s''
C I T Y O F
WALNUT
CREEK
TO: Rosemarie Pietras, Planner, Contra Costa County
FROM: Alan Carreon, Associate Planner—City of Walnut Creek
DATE: May 1, 2006
SUBJECT: Proposed Parcel Map, APN 138-070-045
The City of Walnut Creek has no comments concerning the proposed vesting tentative map and
rezoning of the property located at 321 North Gate Road (APN 138-070-045).
Please contact me should you have any questions at (925)943-5899 x210 or via email at
cal reon(u�walnut-creek.or .
Post Office Box 8039, 1666 North Main Street,Walnut Creek,CA 94596
tel 925.943.5899 www.ci-walnut-creek.ca.us
printed on recycled paper
Contra Costa County �� °TEC{,°s Fire Protection District
3
OS AUG -�
AM I1: 32
Fire Chief
KEITH RICHTER August 3, 2005
Ms. Rosemarie Pietras
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Subject MS05-0029; Abed Subdivision
321 Northgate Road, Walnut Creek
CCCFPD Project No. 103649
Dear Ms. Pietras:
We have reviewed the minor subdivision application to establish a two (2) 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. Provide access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 16 feet
unobstructed width, and not less than 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance, to
within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every
building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade, shall have a minimum
outside turning radius of 45 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 or less unobstructed width shall have NO
PARKING signs posted and curbs painted red with the words NO
PARKING - FIRE LANE clearly marked.
It could not be determined if access as shown on vesting tentative map Sheet one
(1), dated July 2005, complies with these requirements due to the lack of scale
plans and lack of information (i.e. grade of road).
Note: The existing access bridge was acceptable per Fire District transmittal
dated August 4, 2004.
2. 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
2010 Geary Road-Pleasant Hill, California 94523-4694-Telephone(925)941-3300-Fax(925)941-3309
East County -Telephone(925)757-1303 - Fax(925)941-3329. West County -Telephone(5 10)374-7070
www.cccfpd.org
CCCFPD Project No. 103649 -2- August 3, 2005
3. The developer shall submit three (3) copies of site improvement plans indicating
fire apparatus access and turnaround area for review and approval prior to
construction. (902.2.2.1) CFC
4. Access roads shall be installed, in service, and approved prior to construction.
(8704:1) CFC
5. Approved premises identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall contrast
with their background and be readily visible from the street. (901.4.4) CFC
6. All open spaces, when left in their natural state, shall meet the Fire District's weed
abatement standards.
Contra Costa County Ordinance 2002-32, Article 14, §1401.1
7. Submit plans to: Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
2010 Geary Road
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
To.schedule field inspections and tests, call 925-941-3323.
Contact the Fire District prior to development, construction or addition of structures on
these parcels. Fire District review may be required.
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, you may contact me at (925)1941-3547.
Sincerely,
z a -7�
DeAnna Fister
Fire Prevention Technician
DF/nlr
c: Belleci & Associates, Inc.
Mr. Charlie Capp
2290 Diamond Boulevard
Concord, CA 94520
File: 103649.1tr
State of California ie Resources Agency 2NOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
j DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
http://www.dfg.ca.ciov
1 POST OFFICE BOX 47
YOUNTVILLE,CALIFORNIA 94599
(707)944-5500
January 25, 2006
Ms. Rosemarie Pietras
Community Development Department
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Dear Ms. Pietras:
321 North Gate Road, Walnut Creek
County File RZ053164 and MS 050029
Contra Costa County
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) personnel have reviewed the Proposed
Negative Declaration for County File #RZ053164 and MS050029 which includes
rezoning a 2.28-acre parcel from A-2 (General Agriculture) to R-40 (Single Family
Residential) and to subdivide into two lots. The property address is 321 North Gate
Road in the Walnut Creek area in Contra Costa County. The site has an existing single
family home, a guest room, and barn. The access to the property extends across an
existing creek. There are two 48-inch diameter oak trees on the site: one in the creek
(listed as dead) and the other along an existing road turnout.
DFG recommends that the County include in the project description all
reasonably foreseeable actions which may occur on the site. The lead agency is
required to define the project and must evaluate all the reasonably foreseeable
environmental impacts that may result from a project.
For any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the lied,
channel, or bank (which may include associated riparian resources) of a river or stream,
or use material from a streambed, DFG may require a Streambed Alteration Agreement
(SAA), pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code, with the applicant.
Issuance of SAAs is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
Department, as a responsible agency under CEQA, will consider the local jurisdiction's
(lead agency) Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report for the project. The
CEQA document should fully identify the potential impacts to the stream or riparian
resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting
commitments for completion of the agreement.
Conserving Cal forma's Wildlife Since 1870
Ms. Rosemarie Pietras
January 25, 2006
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. 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
CEQA DETERMINATION
— .,.
Community ` ��g__arry,AiCF-
ontra L— �� Dennis�Ju i r Development Dite for
DevelopmeFJing
- fl M E OSta
r-
Departmen OUnt -
� ;
L' ,}�,N 12 2006
County Administrati3 Zn()6 t ;,.,
651 Pine Street k, .L. WEIR, GGUN
4th Floor, North Win II ��+r' =` � to COS&1,
°`°"Martinez, California4q�9L6El9� ASSOCIATESIN rr � '�`
Phone:
(925) 335-1210 n "- ;4° January 12, 2006
sra coiiN'�
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
County File #RZ053164 & MS050029
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:
BELLECCI &ASSOCIATES, INC. (Applicant)—HAYTHAM &HEATHER ABED (Owner),
County File #'s RZ053164 & MS050029: The applicant requests approval to rezone a 2.28-acre
parcel from A-2 (General Agriculture) to R-40 (Single Family Residential) and to subdivide into
two lots. The subject property's address is 321 North Gate Road in the Walnut Creek area.
(A-2) (ZA: M-16) (CT: 3383.02) (Parcel #138-070-004)
The proposed development will not result in any significant impacts.
A copy of the negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration maybe
reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and Application and Permit
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., February 13, 2006. Any comments should be in writing and
submitted to the following address:
Rose Marie Pietras
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County = C—
= sm ..L.
651 Pine Street, North Wing, 2nd Floor N
Martinez, CA 94553 CD v
M
0
O
M CO
-�t
Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: MS050029
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, North Wing-4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rose Marie Pietras, Senior Planner, (925) 335-1216
4. Project Location: 321 North Gate Road
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address Bellecci&Associates, Inc,.
2290 Diamond Boulevard
Concord, CA 94520
6. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential—Very Low
7. Zoning: A-2 -General Agricultural
8. Description of Project: The applicant requests approval to rezone the subject site
from A-2 — General Agriculture to R-40— Single Family
Residential.
The applicant requests approval to subdivide 2.28 acres
into a 1.1 acre parcel with a 1.1 acre remainder.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The subject site comprises a single family home,additional
bonus room and one barn. The surrounding area comprises
one and five acre single family parcels to the north and
south and townhouses to the west.
10. Other public agencies whose approval State Department of Fish and Game
(e.g.,permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one
impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning _ Transportation/ _ Public Services
Population &Housing Circulation _ Utilities& Service
Geological Problems _ Biological Resources Systems
Water _ Energy & Mineral _ Aesthetics
Air Quality Resources _ Cultural Resources
Mandatory Findings of _ Hazards _ Recreation
Significance _ Noise X No Significant
Impacts Identified
2
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 mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one
effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon theproposed project.
I II 2 f o 6
Signature Date
r" CCC Community Development Department
Printed Name For
SOURCES
In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation,the following references(which are
available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street 5th
Floor-North Wing, Martinez)were consulted:
1. Contra Costa Resource Mapping System—Clayton Quad Sheet Panels.
2. (Reconsolidated) County General Plan(July 1996) and EIR on the General Plan (January 1991).
3. General Plan and Zoning Maps.
4. Contra Costa County Code,including zoning and subdivision ordinances and the State Planning and
Zoning Law, Subdivision Map Act and California Environmental Quality Act.
5. Agency Comments
6. Field Review on August 9, 2.005 by Community Development Department staff and applicant.
7. Holman &Associates prepared a Cultural Resources Inspection dated October 7, 2005.
8. Cundey Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. prepared a Preliminary Geotechnical and Geological
Evaluation dated October 26, 2005.
9. Darwin Myers Associates prepared a Geologic Peer Review—CEQA Section dated November 18,
2005.
3 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
impact Incorporation Impact Impact
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. AESTHETICS.
Would the proposal:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a _ _ _ X
scenic vista? Sources 1, 2, 3 &6
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, _ _ _ X
including,but not limited to,trees,rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway? Sources 1, 2, 3 & 6
C. Substantially degrade the existing _ _ _ X
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? Sources 1, 2, 3 &6
d. Create a new source of substantial light _ _ _ X
or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
Source 1, 2, 3 &6
SUMMARY: No impact.
a) The site is located in the Walnut Creek area of the County along North Gate Road. The site has an
existing single family home,a guest room and barn. Staff made afield visit on August 8,2005.The
applicant has proposed a"Restricted Development and View Easement to Remainder" in order to
protect the remainder's sweeping views of Mt. Diablo.
b) The site is located in a semi-rural area of the county. The property owners are living on the
remainder side of the subject site. The access to the property extends across an existing creek.
There are two 48' oak trees on the site: one in the creek noted as dead and the other along the
existing turnaround.
c) The visual character of the site would change if the eventual development of Parcel A took place.
The proposed project would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
d) No glare would be introduced in the area. Minimal new sources of light would illuminate from
eventual development.
Il. 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 agricultural and farmland.
4 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique _ _ _ X
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance(Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use? Sources 1, 2, 3 & 6
b. Conflict with existing zoning for _ _ _ X
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? Sources 1, 2, 3 &6
C. Involve other changes in the existing _ _ _ X
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Sources 1, 2, 3 & 6
SUMMARY: No impact
a,b&c) The site is located in an area designated urban and built-up land on the Contra Costa County
Important Farmland 2000 Map. The property is designated Single Family Residential—Very
Low. This proposal will provide for additional housing fulfilling the goals and policies of the
County General Plan,Housing Element.
II. 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 following determinations.
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation _ _ _ X
of the applicable air quality plan?
Sources 1, 2, 3, &6
b. Violate any air quality standard or _ _ _ X
contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation? Sources 1, 2, 3 & 6
C. Result in a cumulatively considerable _ _ _ X
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
5 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Incorporation Impact Impact
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Source 1, 2, 3 &6
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial _ _ X
pollutant concentrations? Source 1, 2, 3 &6
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a — _ _ X
substantial number of people?
Source 1, 2, 3 &6
SUMMARY: No impacts.
a) The proposal does not conflict with implementation of an applicable air quality plan.
b) The proposal would not violate air quality standards or contribute to existing air quality violations.
c) The region is currently in non-attainment for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM10).
Implementation of the project would lead to a slight increase in ozone and ozone precursors,as they
are primarily the result of the automobile emissions and development of the additional residences
would lead to increased automobile use.
The residential use is not an inherent producer of PM10 pollution. Construction activities could
cause a temporary increase in ambient levels of PM 10. There could bean impact from dust and fine
particulates commonly associated with earth movement and construction. The project will be
conditioned to require that measures be taken to reduce PM 10 emissions during earth movement and
construction. These conditions will include,but may not be limited to, watering the site multiple
times daily, sweeping and collecting loose particles on-site and requiring that dump trucks be
covered when hauling loose materials.
The Building Inspection Department, Grading Division, will also enforce measures to reduce
particulate pollution.
d) No sensitive receptors are located near the site
e) Construction of new residences and barn would produce no objectionable odors.
N. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either _ _ _ X
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans,polices, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Sources 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
6 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Imoact
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any _ X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans,policies,regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service? Sources 1, 2, 3 5 & 6
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on _ X
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal
pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? Sources 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
d. Interfere substantially with the movement _ _ _ X
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Sources 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
e. Conflict with any local policies or _ _ _ X
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Sources 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6
f. Conflict with the provisions of an — _ _ X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local,regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
Sources 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
SUMMARY: No impacts.
a) Development of the site would not result in significant adverse effects on special-status plant
species.
b) Development of the site would not result in significant adverse effects on riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community.
c) No wetlands exist on the site;therefore,no substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
would occur by the establishment of the proposed project.
d) The proposed project would not interfere with the migration of native fish or wildlife. The project
site is comparatively small and is surrounded by semi-rural development. The property does not
represent a significant wildlife corridor. The proposed development would not significantly impact
wildlife movement in the region.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
e) The proposal does not conflict with policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and
protected trees.
f) The County does not have an approved Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Conservation Plan.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the _ _ _ X
significance of a historical resource as
defined in 315064.5? Source 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the _ _ _ X
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 315064.5? Source 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique _ _ _ X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? Source 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
d. Disturb any human remains, including _ _ _ X
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Source 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6
SUMMARY: No Impact
a-d) A copy of this application was forwarded to the California Historic Resources Information System
(CHRIS)for comments on July 20,2005. On August 11,2005 comments were received and CHRIS
determined that the proposed project area has the possibility of containing unrecorded
archaeological site(s). A study was recommended prior to commencement of project activities.
A Cultural Resources Inspection was prepared by Holman &Associates dated October 7, 2005.
Findings & Recommendations
No evidence of prehistoric and/or historic archaeological deposits was found inside the 2.3 acre
parcel. Indicators typical of the area would have included darker than surrounding soils containing
visible amounts of fresh water and salt water,concentrations of bone,stone and/or artifacts of these
materials, and evidence of fire (ash, charcoal, fire altered rocks and earth).
It is the finding of this report that there will be no effect on cultural resources caused from the
splitting of the lot, demolition of the existing structures on the proposed new lot or construction of
new structures there. This report does not recommend a program of mechanical subsurface
presence/absence testing, and does not recommend that future site clearing and/or construction be
monitored by an archaeologist.
g Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS:
Would the project?
a. Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42. _ _ _ X
Source 1, 2, 3 &7
2. Strong seismic ground shaking? _ _ X _
3. Seismic-related ground failure, including _ _ X _
liquefaction? Source 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
4.Landslides? Source 1, 2, 3, 5 &6 _ _ _ X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss _ X _
of topsoil? Source 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is _ _ X _
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence,liquefaction or collapse?
Source 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in _ _ X _
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? Source 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
e. Have soils incapable of adequately _ _ X
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
Source 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
SUMMARY: No impact.
a.I The nearest fault considered active by the California Division of Mines&Geology is the Concord
fault. The Concord fault A-P Zone passes approximately 150 feet east of the site. Because the site
is not within the A-P Zone,the risk of surface fault rupture is considered to be less than significant.
a.2 According to the Safety Element (p.10-13) the site is in an area rated "moderate damage
susceptibility". The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the building
codes and County Grading Ordinance. The UBC requires use of seismic parameters which allow
the structural engineering analysis for buildings to be based on soil profile types (see UBC, 1997,
(� Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
Volume 2,Div. 5,page 2-23). Compliance with building and grading regulations can be expected
to keep risks within generally accepted limits. On page 3 of the report issued by Cundey
Geotechnical Consultant(2005),a table is provided which lists UBC seismic parameters for the site.
a.3 According to the Safety Element (p. 10-15), the site is rated "generally moderate to low"
liquefaction potential. The mapping of Helley&Graymer(1997)considers the site to be underlain
by Late Pleistocene alluvium, which is too clayey and too dense to liquefy. This is a preliminary
interpretation that will need to be confirmed during subsurface exploration on Parcel A. The County
geologist has recommended a geotechnical investigation for construction permits on Parcel A that
addresses this issue.
a.4 A. With regard to landslides,no slides are shown on published maps. The Soil Survey of Contra
Costa County(1977)indicates that the erosion hazard is moderate to low, and the preliminary
finding of the County peer review geologist is the site is suitable for residential use.
B. A SWPPP and Erosion Control are a routine requirement of projects that result in disturbance of
one acre or more,as well as for sensitive sites irrespective of the size of the disturbed area(i.e.
site adjacent to creeks). 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.
C. Based on review of the pertinent geologic data and review of the Cundey Geotechnical
Consultant's report, the County Peer Review Geologist considers the project to be feasible.
There is no known landslide hazard,but further evaluation of the creek bank in the northern
portion of Parcel A is to be required prior to issuance of construction permits.
D. Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture changes that can cause heaving and
cracking of slabs-on-grade,pavements and structures founded on shallow foundations. It should
be recognized that expansive soils are an engineering issue, and not a land use or feasibility
issue.Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soils can be reduced
by placing slabs on select, granular fill; by use of rigid mat or post-tensioned permits on
proposed Parcel A. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that soils conditions on the site
are taken into account in foundations design.
E. The project is served by the Central Sanitary District.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL:
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public _ _ _ X
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials'? Sources 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 & 11
b. Create a significant hazard to the public _ _ _ X
or the environment through reasonably
10 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment? Source 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle _ _ _ X
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
Source 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6
d. Be located on a site which is included on a _ _ _ X
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65862.5
and, as a result,would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
Source 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6
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 result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area. Source 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private _ _ _ X
airstrip,would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? Source 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
g. Impair implementation of or physically _ _ _ X
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Source 1, 2, 3 & 5
h. Expose people or structures to a significant _ _ _ X
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? Source 1, 2, 3 &5
SUMMARY: No Impact
a) There will be no routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials by the proposed project.
b-c) The proposed project will not create or emit hazards to the public, or within a quarter mile of a
proposed or existing school or on the environment through upset or accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous materials or emitting hazardous emissions.
d) In compliance with Government Code Section 65962.5 the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control issued a list of hazardous waste and substances sites(Cortese List). The 2002
edition of the Cortese List no hazardous sites within the property or in close proximity.
e-f) The project site is not within the vicinity of a public use airport or private airstrip.
11 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Fact Impact
g) Implementation of the project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
h) The site is located in a semi-rural area with the following uses in the surrounding area:
• horse stables and pastures;
• single family residences to the east;
• townhouses to the west;
• private ranch and grazing lands to the far east along North Gate Road; and
• more horse stables and single family houses to the south.
If property interfaces with wildlands or open space areas, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection
District requires a separate landscape plan for vegetation fuel modification and/or buffer zone(s)
featuring fire resistive and drought tolerant varieties of landscaping is required to be submitted and
approved by the Fire District prior to the issuance of a grading and building permits.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or _ _ _ X
waste discharge requirements?
Source 1, 2, 3 & 5
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies _ _ X
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)?
Sourcel, 2, 3 &5
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage _ _ X
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?
Source 1, 2, 3 & 5
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage _ _ — X
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 flooding on- or off-site?
Source 1, 2, 3 & 5
12 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
e. Create or contribute runoff water which _ _ _ X
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? Sources 1, 2, 3 &5
f, Otherwise substantially degrade water _ _ _ X
quality? Sources 1, 2, 3 &5
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood _ _ _ X
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Sources 1,2, 3 &5
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area _ _ _ X
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows? Sources 1, 2, 3 &5
I. Expose people or structures to a significant _ _ _ X
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam? Sources 1, 2, 3 & 5
J. Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? _ _ _ X
Sources 1,2, 3 &5
SUMMARY: No Impact
a) The eventual development of a new home on proposed Parcel A would produce a minimal amount
of polluted runoff due to leaks of automobiles,use of backyard pesticides,etc. This pollution would
be negligible.
b) No water will be extracted from an underground aquifer.
c) Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires all storm water entering and/or originating on
this property to be collected and conveyed without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage
system, to an adequate natural watercourse having a definable bed and banks, or to an existing
adequate storm drainage system which conveys the stone waters to an adequate natural watercourse.
A majority of the subject property slopes downward to the north while a small portion along the
southerly subdivision boundary slopes downward in the opposite direction to the south. The
proposed project is not expected to generate a significant amount of additional runoff. The existing
drainage pattern shows runoff sheet flowing into the creek traversing the site along the northerly
subdivision boundary. The existing drainage pattern shall be maintained. Although the amount of
additional runoff generated by the proposed project is not expected to cause the creek to overtop,the
applicant will need to verify that this will be the case by providing the necessary
hydrology/hydraulic calculations.
In lieu of constructing on-site drainage facilities to meet the collect and convey requirement, the
County will require that development rights be relinquished along the rear of proposed Parcel A,
where existing topography indicates storm water runoff may be discharged onto adjacent parcels.
13 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
Relinquishment of development rights over this area will ensure that no new impervious surfaces
can be constructed on the designated deed restricted portion of the parcel and that no concentrated
runoff will be conveyed onto adjacent properties.
A creek structure setback area shall be observed as a result of the proposed subdivision. The creek
structure setback line shall be determined in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 914 of
the County Ordinance Code. The applicant will be required to grant deed development rights over
this setback area to the County to prevent construction of any permanent structures, other than
drainage facilities and landscaping, within this area.
The applicant is subject to all the rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit 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—Regional III).
d-e) Refer to VIII-C -above.
g-h) No portion of the site lies within a FEMA designated Flood Zone. The site is within Flood Zone C
—of minimal flooding,Panel#0295 B &0315 B.
i) No levees or dams protect the site.
J) Seiche and tsunami do not occur in this area.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?_ _ _ X
Sources 1, 2, 3 &4
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, _ _ _ X
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?
Sources 1, 2, 3 &4
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat _ _ _ X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? Sources 1, 2, 3 &4
SUMMARY: No Impact
a) The proposed project would not physically divide an established community.
14 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
b) The property is designated Single Family Residential Very Low. An application to rezone the
property is being processed simultaneously, County File #RZ053164, from A-2 - General
Agriculture to R-40 - Single Family Residential Zoning District. The subject property is in the
North Gate Specific Plan area. All applications for subdivisions within the Specific Plan are
referred by the County to the City of Walnut Creek's planning staff for their review. All the City's
review comments are considered by the County.
c) There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community plan in this area of Contra Costa County.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known _ _ _ X
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
Sourcel, 2&3
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally _ _ _ X
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan? Source 1, 2 &3
SUMMARY: No Impact
a-b) No mineral resources were identified at the site.
XI. NOISE:
Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of _ _ _ X
noise levels in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies?
Sources 1, 2 & 8
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of _ _ X
excessive ground borne vibration or ground
borne noise levels? Source 1, 2 & 8
C. A substantial permanent increase in _ _ — X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Source 1, 2 & 8
15 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase _ _ _ X
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Source 1, 2 & 8
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 residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Source 1, 2 & 8
f For a project within the vicinity of a private _ _ _ X
airstrip,would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? Source 1,2 & 8
SUMMARY: No Impact
a-c) The site is outside a 60dBA noise contour and the area is quiet with the exception of some farm
equipment.
The project site is in Contra Costa County and subject to the guidelines contained in the Noise
Element of the County General Plan. The General Plan guidelines are that outdoor noise levels in
new residential development should not exceed a DNL of 60dB and an indoor noise level should not
exceed a DNL of 45 db.
d) There would be a temporary increase in noise levels if the applicant decides to establish a residence
on proposed Parcel A. These impacts are considered less than significant due to their short duration.
The project would be conditioned to require that steps be taken to reduce construction noise such as
fitting engines with mufflers, limiting the hours of construction and transport of materials and
machinery and locating noise producing equipment as far from surrounding residences as possible.
e-0 The site is not in the vicinity of a public use airport or private airstrip and is not contained in an
airport land use plan.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING:
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an _ _ _ X
area, either directly(for example,by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly(for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? Source 1, 2 & 3
16 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing _ _ _ X
housing,necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Source 1, 2 &3
C. Displace substantial numbers of people _ _ _ X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? Source 1, 2 & 3
SUMMARY: No impact.
a-c) On average,2.5 people reside in one residence. The proposal is for one single-family residence and
a ranch manager's unit totaling 5 persons. The County General Plan has designated this area as
Agricultural Lands 1 du/per 5acres. The property is located in a rural area of the County.
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. Source 5:
1. Fire Protection? _ _ _ X_
2. Police Protection? _ _ _ X
3. Schools? _ _ X
4. Parks? _ _ X
5. Other Public facilities? X
Source 6
SUMMARY: No impact
a) 1. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) currently serves the site. The
CCCFPD forwarded comments on August 3, 2005.
2. The site is currently served by the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department. The increase in
demand for police services would be mitigated by an increased annual tax assessment per parcel
of the property. New facilities would be constructed according to community need.
3. The site is served by the Mt.Diablo Unified District. The District was noticed and no comments
were received. The increase in demand for school services would be mitigated by the collection
17 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
of school district fees at the time building permits were issued for the new residences and by the
increased tax assessment of the property. No facilities would be constructed according to
community need.
4. No new facilities would be required as a direct result of this subdivision. New facilities would be
constructed according to community need (see"Recreation"below).
5. No other facilities would be affected by the proposal.
XIV. RECREATION:
a. Would the project increase the use of _ _ _ X
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Source 1, 2&3
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 1, 2 &3
SUMMARY: No Impact
a) The proposal would not result in an increase in demand for parks and recreational facilities.
b) There is no proposal to expand existing facilities.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would
the project:
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is _ _ X
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)?
Source 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, _ _ X
a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
Source 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6
18 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, _ _ _ X
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks? Source 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a _ _ _ X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? Source 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? _ _ _ X
Source 1, 2, 3 , 5 &6
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? _ _ _ X
Source 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
g. Conflict with adopted policies,plans, or _ _ _ X
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
Source 1, 2, 3, 5 &6
SUMMARY: No Impact
a-b) The Public Works Department reviewed the application and forwarded a series of comments
beginning on August 3, August 25,November 9, 2005 and January 9, 2006.
c) Air traffic patterns would not be affected.
d) No hazardous design features or incompatible uses are proposed.
e) The Fire District comments were received August 3, 2005.
f) The property consist of 2.28 acres of land. The proposed development will have ample space for
one more residence.
g) The proposal does not conflict with adopted policies or programs supporting alternative
transportation.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements _ _ X
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? Source 1, 2, 3 & 5
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 significant
environmental effects? Source 1, 2, 3 & 5
19 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
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 significant environmental effects?
Source 1, 2, 3 &5
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to _ _ _ X
serve the project from existing entitlement
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlement needed? Source 1, 2, 3 & 5
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater _ _ _ X
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments? Source 1, 2, 3 & 5
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient _ _ _ X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
Source 1,2, 3 & 5
g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes _ _ _ X
and regulations related to solid waste?
Source 1, 213 & 5
SUMMARY: No Impact.
a) The applicant must comply with the County's Storm Water Management and Discharge Control
Ordinance and all rules,regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System.
b) The subject property is presently served by the Central Sanitary District. Therefore, no new
wastewater facilities are required by the district.
c) The proposed project will not require the expansion of or result in storm water drainage facilities.
d) The property is served by the Contra Costa Water District.
e) The property is served by the Central Sanitation District.
f) The project would be served by a landfill facility within Contra Costa County. County landfills have
capacity to serve a project of this size.
g) Refuse collection from the new residences would be deposited in a landfill that must comply with
state and local regulations for disposal of solid waste.
20 Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact lm!29ct
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a. Does the project have the potential to _ _ X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are indiv- _ _ _ X
idually 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)?
C. Does the project have environmental effects _ _ _ X
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
SUMMARY: No Impact
a-c) The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment,nor will the project
have significant cumulative impact on the environment. This project is in a semi-rural area of the
southeast county. The County General Plan has designated this property as Single Family
Residential Very Low. A rezoning application is being processed concurrently with the subdivision
application, County File RZ053164, from A-2 - General Agriculture to R-40 Single Family
Residential 1 du/per one acre.
NOTIFICATION LIST
138060001 138060008 138060009
ANDERSON MARC W GIFFIN ROBERT J & LINDA J TRE SMITH BRIAN E & LOREE K
325 NORTH GATE RD 325 NORTH GATE RD D 325 NORTH GATE RD C
WALNUT CREEK CA'94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
138060010 138060015 138060019
ANDERSON MARC LOZA RONALD N & LINDA B AMIN BHUPEN
325 NORTH GATE RD A 3698 OAK CREEK CT 3694 OAK CREEK CT
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
138060020 138070004 138070009
B'EKAKIS BRENDA TRE BED HAYTHAM & HEATHER STEWART CHRISTOPHERH
23 KERLEY CT 319 NORTH GATE RD
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 321 NORTH GATE RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
138070010 138070011 138070012
EVANS J SCOTT& ELAINE M BOND SANDRA LEE TRE LIU TE-NTNG E &HSIAO-LAI
3,133 SHIRE LN 3129 SHIRE LN 946 MORELLO AVE
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 MARTINEZ CA 94553
138070019 138070020 138070021
LEY MARIA TRE VALECH NATHAN & LISA JACOB DEBORAH M TRE
3`112 SHIRE LN 3116 SHIRE LN 3120 SHIRE LN
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
138070022 138070023 138070024
SCHOLZ JUDYTH M TRE OLIVER FREDERICK GAYLORD SANDRA J TRE
3,124 SHIRE LN 2977 YGNACIO VALLEY RD#156 1052 CHOCTAW CT
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
138070028 138070029 138070030
MAGANA MIKE & MONA TRE SPEER ROBERT E & CAROL C KING LLOYD K & ELIZABETH A
3115 BRONCHO LN 3119 BRONCHO LN 3123 BRONCHO LN
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
138070034 138070035 138070036
RADEVA EKATERINA N PARIS ALEX T & DOROTHY M TRE HOJIWALA FAMILY LTD
3114 BRONCHO LN 3118 BRONCHO LN 3552 ERIS CT
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
138070037 138070038• 138070039
ALIFERIS JAMES HUDSON MANAGEMENT CO HUDSON MANAGEMENT CO
3126 BRONCHO LN 1035 DETROIT AVE#100 1035 DETROIT AVE #100
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 CONCORD CA 94518 CONCORD CA 94518
138070040 138070044 138070045
HUDSON MANAGEMENT CO GARDNER JACQUELYN L SHEALOR MIKE W & LISA A
1035 DETROIT AVE#100 638 OAK ST 323 NORTH GATE RD A
CONCORD CA 94518 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94117 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
138091004 138091005 138091006
GILLIE RAYMOND & CHRISTINA TRE HENSON KAREN H TRE LOFTHOUSE JAY&CAROL
3129 HAMBLETONIAN LN 3135 HAMBLETONIAN LN 3141 HAMBLETONIAN LN
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
138091007 138091008 138091009
SAN JUAN ELAINE SECURITY PACIFIC REAL ESTATE RAFOTH MILDRED J
3147 HAMBLETONIAN LN 1555 RIVIERA AVE#E 3159 HAMBLETONIAN LN
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
138091010 138091011 138091012
LIVSHITS YONI & OLGA MILLER JAMES L JR CONTRERAS ARCHIE
3165 HAMBLETONIAN LN 3171 HAMBLETONIAN LN 3177 HAMBLETONIAN LN
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
138091013 138091019 138091020
STROEHMANN JOY S BARDSLEY NORMA ELLEN TRE DELAOSSA BRENDA 1
3183 HAMBLETONIAN LN 3134 HAMBLETONIAN LN 3140 HAMBLETONIAN LN
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
138091021 138091022 138091023
BECKES BYRON H &JUTTA H PIZZA CATHERINE M TRE BRAND WILLIAM F & DARYL B
3146 HAMBLETONIAN LN 3152 HAMBLETONIAN LN 3158 HAMBLETONIAN LN
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
138091024 138091025 138091063
PAINTER SHEILA A WUENNENBERT-STAPLETON HUDSON MANAGEMENT CO
3164 HAMBLETONIAN LN KATRIN 1035 DETROIT AVE#100
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 3170 HAMBLETONIAN LN CONCORD CA 94518
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
138091064 138100015 138100016
HUDSON MANAGEMENT CO THORP STANLEY P LUKKES RONALD & VIRGINIA TRE
1035 DETROIT AVE#100 172 GLEN CT 2050 SHELL RIDGE TRL
CONCORD CA 94518 WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
138100017
DELUCA SEBASTIANO &RITA A TRE
2040 SHELL RIDGE TRL
WALNUT CREEK CA 94598
BUILDING INSPECTION PUBLIC WORKS CONTRA COSTA FIRE DISTRICT
Interoffice ENGINEERING SERVICES Interoffice
Interoffice
Historical Resources Information
Systems Native American Heritage Commission CA Fish & Game Region III
Foundation Center, Building 300 945 Capitol Mall, Room 364 P.O. Box 47
1303 Murice Avenue Sacramento, CA 95814 Yountville, CA 94599
Sonoma State University
Rohnert Park, CA 94928-3608
Central Sanitary District Contra Costa County Water District City of Walnut Creek
5019 Imhoff Place P.O. Box H2O PO Box 8039
Martinez, CA 94553 Concord, CA 94524 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Mt. Diablo Unified School District Upper Ygnacio Valley HOA
1936 Carlotta Drive 851 North Gate Road
Concord, CA 94519 Walnut Creek, CA 94598
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
£od•0£9£-W>i al!W ejaooA>j 'Wd 99:60:Z 9002/6/Z '6mP'W1n96066\!DMQ\96066\6666\sloafoad\:>{
�► o
am ML
f"41�WWOGIE 448.84'
14' r7l
1wa ac o.E
vion
"mw Noma
Jill'
+ V'"q tY
�
tp
Ap � `�, as _ I / �T� RR 1
pZ
F11
N �-E 109' 8 .'�' ! 7l
�': � ;,� �� � DIY• 1�� ,r}• '� vY�' t 1 ° / !/ I �- /
6. �..i�T� x• t J 1 ' 'U a 0
Al
•
.... , ......_...................._..._ � � }� t i NO2'�S'201E 09.01' `• `• /
X I ass �, �► �
y i 1
TJ
r ;� j'�
m� NOUW-'E 324.7,1'
4
1 ,
F
......_.1..;s3....... STRUCTURE
j�ACK UNE
EIfV.��2248.�G0x�
Qt1Tl1)1T y U
ELEV.219.54' 6i Z
TOE
ELEV.208.00' r 4 A _ 1�
' € e .y, +...1.: t�'+ lS' �,;'ud�t�cE �`a ", �'. sS °"rYf,' .F, �nz w°' �`y.�'^ .•€ •/
fw i 1 ,.,.` $°E..af = r2 -. G a tdq •s3:a kYr w.. ,7. t.'
.. .................
I' ;ISI E }I i1
QM.205.67
• 55552222
�
1f5
TTOP OFBNKELEV.209.10' •j "t s/ +g �n + D
iiiH
A
....
226,0 ,.. ...z.. f
ELEV 224.00 r
�j
(((( €
SETBACK ULE 1
t i i i !€ t (€' ELEV 224.43
711 j__ YM OF RAW
pp
bias v. 1960 I! !€ � [ ; FL 010E I • xj
� �� � UV.206.00'
tt '' It!t{'� �'
4 ° 2969 } T'1 f --"W"I� T'ft� '�
Z U".206A0'
TOP n of .116 l� 2T ` €, 1 . i F [WE
lijill!1 g .... ETEV.2L/27
lOP BNi(
8 1 :4_ i tT j l i jili``fI3 E i / 11
�/� l ' } }{i 1 4{( MY.219.W
170.0 fi�E€€ti��iE �fi � 1 9
FEEK 206.07
yyyyyyyyyy [[��[[yy�[�}[[}�[[��N�ps[[e� •--� ` ..._.19q;o - r0 a + r" ('�
$ tlgl'7{M ON�>S23RIiiH89l'
� , TM� gl d�El11€jE €,II } ILjI11 � � s p �q
_ it Z
ELEV.215LIBACK LK
504' Ol + g CZ
;tll t , SIItIICruRE 0 € i 1 , �} ili} � [3 ii3i i i i �c £' ' �t o ►nb
aay.22sz, z
N TOP OF BNBf
ELEV.218.07 Sopis '
89k,4 i s Q ELEV.208.07 Q Y'i all
4"o 8 iIiij€j it i i} 'i ii (� 2 fb w
Ij Z € 1 � jll�i��li 1lr ! � n O,nE �1 ; v9�
t7 t,.s. ( € ! II I1 3ii iii ! i3E1 ! ,f's N 7167 aeTOP
i �fo�.>a����fif9
ELEV.210.73' SiRUCI111tELWE
SETBACK
� i !� l ELEV.WAY
i' ?�
-- 11.0 „�.I '� i�.. }!� t t , :#. � �BAINK
n ), .'( €I
ELEV.Z2J.98' ��
w 4 p � ' 't1 �1ldC?'i3A 1.Lltft kIF
ill
i13 �l:Rj{ } ? ' i � i, , - FL 0 TOE
4 � Z t ..7060' 1 � §: (� it i ( € i (.� f
12 EMV.208.07 QS 1 WJ 937 90
,
r Al m