HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05222007 - D.1 C.�-
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS f,.
r Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ro, County
DATE: May 22, 2007
SUBJECT: Hearing on a Recommendation of the County Planning Commission to Rezone Property
located at 4925 Laurel Drive in the Concord area. (Lenox Homes — Applicant; Greg
Wolfe — Owner) (County File # RZ05-3171) (Parcel # 116-100-050) (Sup. Dist. IV)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDATIONS
After accepting any public testimony and closing the public hearing:
A. FIND the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project to be adequate for the
purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),and ADOPT
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
B. ADOPT the Rezoning (County File No. RZ05-3171) of the subject site from R-20, Single
Family Residential to R-15, Single Family Residential as recommended in County,Planning
Commission Resolution No. 7-2007.
C. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2007-21 giving effect to the aforementioned rezoning (refer to
Exhibit 1).
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON d7 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED - of O R_
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT n 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: John Oborne(925)335-1207 ATTESTED
Orig: Community Development Department; JOHN CULLEN, C RK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: Lenox Homes(Applicant) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Greg Wolfe (Owner)
Bruce Good, City of Concord
Lou Ann Texeira, LAFCO 1DEPUTY
Community Development Dept.,GIs
File
i
May 22, 2007
Board of Supervisors
File#RZ05-3171 (Lenox Homes/Greg Wolfe)
Page 2
D. ADOPT the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution No. 7-2007 as
the basis for the Board's approval. .
E. DIRECT the Community Development Department to post the Notice of Determination with
the County Clerk. .
II. FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant is responsible for the cost of processing the rezoning request.
III. BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The applicant is pursuing a residential subdivision of 8-lots on a private cul-de-sac on 3.7 acres
in the Concord area. The approvals that are necessary for the project are a subdivision and a
rezoning. The project would also need the approval of the Contra Costa Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO)for a proposed sewer extension to the site to connect with the
sewer system managed by the City of Concord.
After conducting a public hearing on February 27, 2007 the County Planning Commission
approved the subdivision and recommended to the Board of Supervisors approval of the
rezoning. The proposed 8-lot subdivision is located on a flat parcel with lots ranging in size from
15,001 square feet up to 28,594 square feet; with, an average lot size of 20,546 square feet.
The lot sizes are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, with somewhat larger lots to
the northeast and somewhat smaller lots to the west and south. The project does not involve
the granting of any variances.
The applicant proposes to rezone the project site from Single-Family Residential, R-20 (20,000
square foot minimum lot size),to Single-Family Residential, R-15(15,000 square foot minimum
lot size). The project site is surrounded on the northwest and southwest by R-10 zoning
(10,000 square foot minimum lot size), and on the north and east by R-20 zoning, with R-15
and R-40 zoning to the south (refer to Exhibit 8-A).
The General Plan designation for the project site is Single Family Low Density (SL), which
allows from 1.0 to 2.9 units per net acre. With the proposed rezoning to R-15 the density would
be 2.7 units per net acre, which is within the density range currently allowed for this site.
A. Prosect Vicinity
The 3.7 acre project site is located in an unincorporated island of the County surrounded by
the City of Concord and is in the City's Sphere of Influence. The site also includes an
abandoned rail road right-of=way within its western border. This portion of the property was
abandoned by the Baypoint & Clayton Railroad in the 1950's and merged by lot line
adjustment in 1993. The applicant is proposing to dedicate to the City of Concord a trail
May 22, 2007
Board of Supervisors
Fife#RZ05-3171 (Lenox Homes/Greg Wolfe)
Page 3
easement and to construct a public trail within this abandoned right of way, after which this
section of trail would be part of the City's trail system.
IV. COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF CONCORD
As part of this project, the applicant is proposing to construct a sewer line from an existing
sewer main located in the City of Concord to the project site, which is currently on septic (refer
to Exhibit 8-13). The County received a letter, dated November 2, 2006, from the City of
Concord indicating they will accept and maintain either of the proposed sewer alignments
(Route A or Route B) as long as it is a gravity flow system and meets all of their requirements.
The letter also indicated that the City will maintain the proposed trail after it is constructed to
City standards and accepted by the City. Condition of approval#19 provides for dedication of a
trail to the City and for trail improvements to be built to City standards.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),the County
prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project,which was posted fora
30 day public comment period. During the comment period the County received two letters;one
was from LAFCO (attached as Exhibit 6C) regarding issues including sewer service and the
other:letter was from an adjacent neighbor who was concerned about the number of stories of
the proposed homes as well as the ability to connect to the proposed sewer line that would be
brought in as part of the project.
The issues raised by the adjacent neighbor are addressed in the attached Planning
Commission staff report(refer to Exhibit 5). In summary, the applicant has agreed to construct
all of the eight homes in the proposed subdivision one story in height, instead of two stories.
Regarding the letter from LAFCO, these issues as well are addressed in the attached Planning
Commission staff report. In summary, it was determined that the proposed extension of sewer
service from the City of Concord into this island of unincorporated area would require LAFCO
approval. The City of Concord has filed an application with LAFCO to provide sewer service to
the project site.
VI. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON FEBRUARY 27, 2007
As previously noted, the County Planning Commission heard the applicant's subdivision and
rezoning request on February 27, 2007. No member of the public appeared in opposition to the
project. However, the applicant requested that condition of approval No. 10, which restricted
the homes to be constructed on lots 1 and 5 to one story, with deed notification to that effect,
be modified since the same requirement is not placed on neighborhood homes. The
Commission concurred with the applicant and modified the condition to reflect the applicant's
agreement to initially construct the homes as single story residences.
May 22, 2007
Board of Supervisors
File#RZ05-3171 (Lenox Homes/Greg Wolfe)
Page 4
In addition, the applicant and the Public Works Department requested that several other
conditions of approval be modified for clarification, to which the Commission agreed. These
conditions are outlined in Exhibit 3.
After evaluating the proposal and the evidence submitted,the Commission voted unanimously
to approve the subdivision and to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning to the Board
of Supervisors. There were no appeals filed on the Planning Commission's approval of the
Tentative Map. Consequently, the approval of the subdivision is final but is contingent on the
approval of the Rezoning by the Board of Supervisors.
Attached Exhibits:
Exhibit 1: Rezoning Ordinance No. 2007-21
Exhibit 2: County Planning Commission Resolution # 7-2007
Exhibit 3: Conditions of Approval
Exhibit 4: CEQA Determination
Exhibit 5: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated February 27, 2007
Exhibit 6: Pertinent Correspondence/ Documents
Exhibit 7: Notification List
Exhibit 8: Maps
GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\SD058769.B0.JV0.doc
Exhibit 1
Rezoning Ordinance No. 2007-21
Findings Map
��� KirkwoodCt ..0@ .
City of
\C cord
4F 4:1
i
� � ✓
'R.20
'IX
/ \
it
�oncgrd;
/ Y / V ffj w 000 xo`
�
a
i
Rezone from R-20 to R-15 ® Concord Area
I, H. Wong Chair of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission, State of California do hereby certify that
this is a true and correct copy of page J-17 of the
County's 2005 zoning map.
indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission in the matter of
Lennox Homes - RZ 05-3171
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission, State of Calf.
i
ORDINANCE NO. 2007 - 21
(Re-Zoning Land in the
Concord Area)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
SECTION I: Page J-17 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 maps) attached hereto and incorporated herein
(see also Community Development,Department File No. RZ 05-3171 )
FROM: Land Use District R-20 ( Single Family Residential )
TO: Land Use District R-15 ( Single Family Residential )
and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to
Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.002.
�, t
�o i� :\/�i��` !i
� /I/'\ /11
/T i ". Kvkwootl.Ct \�% City 01
�a9Pm;'Y� a�/\ /� 1� y%o. ' I^ ; -j/ Concord
•,��`\/; ,'� Gni, _,
r /
' // A A -@ � �%1� �,/� . /�'' X90•
Q i' / ✓
%✓ '•% ��/ v /`./
� Q�
Z
if
ooap`C J:'JOOi, <
�\ /0e� jay. /b•. r'�,i @ c /oi0 ___ ,._P'�e
SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within
15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in
the r, a C-o s4—QL -n rr¢S , a newspaper published in this County.
PASSED on by the following vote:
Supervisor Ave No Absent Abstain
1. J. Gioia Od O O ( )
2. G.B. Uilkema ( ) ( ) ( )
3. M.N. Piepho pQ ( ) ( ) ( )
4. S. Bonilla pQ ( ) ( ) ( )
5. F.D. Glover O ( )
ATTEST: John ullen, County Admini trator
and Clerk e Board of Supervisor
Chairman of the Board
By Dep. (SEAL)
ORDINANCE NO. 2007 - 21
RZ 05-3171 -Lennox Homes
Exhibit 2
County Planning Commission
Resolution No. 7-2007
RESOLUTION NO. 7-2007
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REQUESTED REZONING AND VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE `LAUREL PLACE" PROJECT IN THE CONCORD
AREA OF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, LENOX HOMES (Applicant) & GREG WOLFE (Owner) proposed
development of an 8 lot subdivision and proposed rezoning on Assessor's Parcel Number 116-
100-050 comprising 3.7 acres in the unincorporated Concord area of Contra Costa County, for
which anapplication was received by the Community Development Department on November
15, 2005; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a report dated
November 2006 titled "Laurel Place Subdivision Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration" (the "Initial Study") was prepared to determine whether an environmental impact
report should be prepared for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts related to
aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology/soils, hazards / hazardous materials,
hydrology/water quality and utilities/service systems, . and the Initial Study recommended
mitigation measures which would reduce each identified impact to a less than significant level;
and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2006 the County published a Notice of Public Review and
Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, which Notice recited the foregoing
facts, indicated that the Applicant had agreed to accept each mitigation measure recommended
by the Initial Study and started a period for public comments on adequacy of the environmental
documents related to the Project that ran to January 4, 2007; and
WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled
before the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27, 2007, during which the
Commission fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted
in this matter;
WHEREAS, at the February 27, 2007 Planning Commission hearing the applicant and
the Public Works Department requested changes to certain conditions of approval, some of
which were changed for clarification purposes as shown in the attached conditions of approval
(see attached conditions of approval #'s 10, 19, 21, 47 & 52). The applicant and the Public
Works Department are in agreement with all of the modifications.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission ("this
Commission") takes the following actions:
1. In accordance with the' California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA
Guidelines and the County's CEQA Guidelines (together, "CEQA"), this Commission
FINDS that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") is adequate for the
purposes of compliance with CEQA and ADOPTS the MND for the Project. In support
of these actions and conclusions, this Commission ADOPTS the CEQA Findings. This
Commission adopts these findings specifically for each of the Approvals and
Entitlements it approves or recommends for approval for the Project.
This Commission certifies that it has been presented with the Initial Study and that it has
reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study and the other
information in the record prior to making the following recommendations, determinations
and findings. The Commission further certifies that the Initial Study reflects the lead
agency's independent judgment and analysis, and that the Initial Study has been
completed in compliance with CEQA.
2. Recommends to the Board of Supervisors APPROVAL of the proposed Rezoning
(County File #RZ05-3171), changing the zoning designation of the subject site from R-
20, Single Family Residential District, to R-15, Single Family Residential District.
3. APPROVES the Vesting Tentative Map for 8 lots (County File #SD05-8769, dated April
4, 2006 and revised November 16, 2006) subject to the mitigation measures, conditions
of approval and Rezoning by the Board of Supervisors, and this Commission ADOPTS
the findings supporting such approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for these recommendations are as
follows:
FINDINGS
1. Growth Management Element Performance Standards
Traffic: The project will generate an estimated 8 additional AM and PM peak hour trips.
Because the project would generate less than 100 peak period trips, the applicant isnot
required to prepare a traffic study pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements.
Water: The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site. The subject site
lies within the service area of Contra Costa Water District. The District has indicated that
water service will be made available upon completion of financial arrangements and
installation of all necessary water facilities to meet the requirements of residential use,
according to District standards.
Sanitary Sewer: The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site, and
according to the City of Concord they would extend sanitary sewer service to the site
subject to their requirements. In addition, the project would be required to obtain LAFCO
approval prior to the sanitary sewer extension.
Fire Protection: The Project site is within the service area of the Contra Costa County
Consolidated Fire Protection District. The District requires that each residence be equipped
with an automatic fire sprinkler system. In addition, the District has indicated that access as
shown on the Tentative Map appears to comply with District standards.
Public Protection: The applicant is required to enter into a police service district.
2
Parks and Recreation: The Project is required to pay an iD lieu fee of$2000.00 per unit for
neighborhood park purposes. The existing residence counts for one of the units.
Flood Control and Drainage: The project will provide for the flood control and drainage
needs of the development with appropriately sized facilities. The project is required to pay
drainage area fees as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
II. Findings to Adopt a Rezoning
A. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the General
Plan.
Proiect Finding: The site currently is zoned R-20, Single Family Residential District.
The proposed rezoning to R-15, Single Family Residential will be consistent with the
General Plan designation for the site, which is Single Family-Low Density (SL), which
allows 1.0—2.9 units per net acre.
B. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are
compatible within the district and with uses authorized in adjacent districts.
Proiect Finding: The use proposed is a residential development to Single Family
Residential - Low Density standards. The site is compatible with the adjacent districts,
which are residential, and zoned residential.
C. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but
this does not require demonstration of future financial success.
Proiect Finding: The proposed use will assist in meeting the housing development
needs identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan.
IIl. Findings to Approve a Tentative Map
A. 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.
Proiect Finding: The project is consistent with the General Plan. The land use designation is
SL, which calls for single-family low-density development. The tentative map provides for eight
residential lots on a 3.7 acre parcel of land,which complies with the density requirement. With
the mitigation measures the project would not cause significant impacts to the environment.
B. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map
unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements.
Proiect Finding: As required by the conditions of approval and the Mitigation
Monitoring Program, the tentative map shall fulfill all applicable County imposed
construction requirements. Based on the entire record and as summarized herein, the
Proposed subdivision fu f lls construction requirements.
3
NOW BE IT RESOLVED that the secretary of this 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.
This Resolution was approved upon motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday,
February 27, 2007 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Clark,Terrell, Battaglia, Gaddis, Wong, Murray and Snyder
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
Hyman Wong
Chair of the County Planning Commission
County of Contra Costa, State of California
ATTEST:
VDennis M. Barry, AICP, Secretary
County of Contra Costa
State of California
G:\Current Planning\cuff-plan\Staff Reports\SD058769.RESO.doc
4
I
1
Exhibit 3
Conditions of Approval
For The
Tentative Map (SI)05-8769)
Approved By the County Planning
Commission on February 27, 2007
i
Conditions Of Approval For County File # SD05=8769 As Approved By The County
Planning Commission On February 27, 2007
Administrative
1. This approval is based on the exhibits/reports received by the Community
Development Department listed as follows:
A. Tentative Map dated April 4, 2006 and revised November 16, 2006.
B. Arborist report dated November 9, 2005 by Joseph McNeil consulting
arborist.
C. Tree and Demolition Plan, dated April 3, 2006 by Permco Engineering.
D. Preliminary Storm Water Control Plan dated March 29, 2006 by Permco
Engineering and Management
E. Geotechnical Engineering Study dated June 17, 2005 by Jensen-Van
Lienden Associates, Inc.
F. Biological Resources Report dated August 30, 2006 by Mosaic
Associates LLC
G. Technical Memorandum regarding Ayers Ranch Sewer Service Area
Analysis dated September 29, 2005 by Brown and Caldwell
H. Laurel Place Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration dated
November 2006 by LSA
I. Archaeological Study dated January 16, 2006 by Holman &Associates.
J. Geologic Peer Review dated November 21, 2005 by Darwin Myers
Associates
2. Approval of Subdivision, County File #SD05-8769 is contingent upon the
Board approval of the Rezoning for this site, County File # RZ05-3171 which
rezones the site from R-20 to R-15.
3. This approval allows for a maximum of 8 residential lots.
4. This application is subject to an initial application fee, 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. You may obtain current costs by
contacting the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be sent
to you shortly after permit issuance.
Indemnification
5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the
subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless
the County, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, of annul, the Agency's approval
concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within
the time period provided in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly
notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate
fully in the defense.
Compliance Report
6. At least 45 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of grading permit,
which ever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a report on compliance with
the conditions of approval with this permit for the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator. The fee for this application is a deposit of$1,000 that
is subject to time and materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit,
additional fees will be required.
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. (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 335-1207.)
B. Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to
demonstrate compliance with the condition of this report prior to filing
the final map.
Child Care
7. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall
pay a fee of$400.00 per lot upon which a residence is being built for childcare
facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors.
i
i
i
Page 2
Police Services
8. The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to
maintain and augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for
the parcels created by this subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per
parcel annual amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) then
established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to
provide for the tax shall be completed prior to filing the Final Map. The
property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of holding the
election, payable at the time the election is requested by the owner. Allow a
minimum of three to four months for processing.
Park Dedication
9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute
$2000.00 per lot upon which a residence is being built to the County for Park
Dedication fees.
Residential Design
10. The esi e to be eenstfueted on lots 1 and 5 are to 1.e limited tee sto fy and a
bim of -22 feet high 4efn-finished grade. At least 30 dayspr-iorto a,
,,rdif.., of the p the ., ,,.lioant shall submit „ .leed disel,.s,,, for- lets 1
and—5– wish is sweet to the fev-iew and -approval of the Zening
Administrater. The „ e of the deed disclee,,-e is to inn the t1yer-s of
lots land 5 thM there : .. height .-estr etio o their- homes .. outlined abe..e
The residential building height for the homes to be constructed on all the approved
lots shall not exceed one story in height.
Sanitary Sewer Line/Bore and Jack Operation under Mount Diablo Creek
11. Prior to construction of the Sanitary Sewer Line from the end of Toby Drive
to the project site the applicant shall obtain all the necessary approvals, rights
of way, rights of entry, permits and/ or easements for the construction of the
sewer line.
12. At least 45 days prior to any site disturbance (throughout these conditions site
disturbance means any disturbance of land from the end of Toby Drive, up to,
and including, the project site) the applicant shall submit to the Building
Inspection Department a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the
construction, period of the project. Measures to protect water quality during
the bore operation of the sanitary sewer line beneath Mount Diablo Creek
shall be developed and implemented.
It is not required that the SWPPP be submitted to the RWQCB, but it must be
maintained on-site and made available to RWQCB staff upon request. The
Page 3
SWPPP shall include specific and detailed Best Management Practices
(BMPs) designed to mitigate construction-related pollutants. At a minimum,
BMPs shall_ include practices to minimize the contact of construction
materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints,
solvents, adhesives) with stormwater. The SWPPP shall specify properly
designed centralized storage areas that keep these materials out of the rain.
The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the
construction site supervisor, and must include both dry and wet weather
inspections. (MM HYD-1)
13. At least 45 days prior to any site disturbance the applicant shall submit to the
County Zoning Administrator, County Public Works Department and the City
of Concord Public Works Department a sanitary sewer construction plan for
the decided upon sewer line alignment (either Route A or B), that provides
measures to protect water quality during the bore operation of the sanitary
sewer line beneath Mount Diablo Creek. This plan shall be subject to the
review and approval of the County and City of Concord Public Works
Department and review and approval of the County Zoning Administrator..
The plan shall provide details involved in constructing the sewer line, which is
required to be gravity flow, from Tobi Drive to the project site including, but
not limited to, showing the alignment of the proposed sewer line from Tobi
Drive to the project site, with cross sections showing the proposed sewer line
crossing under the Mount Diablo Creek. The plan shall also show the location
of the pits on either side of the creek and any trees in proximity to the
proposed sewer line alignment. (HYD-1).
14. The applicant shall maintain all construction operations at least 10 feet from
the top of the bank and at least 5 feet from the canopy of vegetation growing
along Mount Diablo Creek and shall not affect of the bank of the creek. (MM
BIO-2).
15. The applicant will ensure that any drilling fluids used in the horizontal.boring
process for the installation of sewer liner are properly contained and dewatered
on-site or properly disposed of off-site. If on-site containment and dewatering
methods are used, the applicant and its contractors will ensure that the
containment area is protected from surface water runoff and erosion. (MM
HYD-3)
16. The applicant or its contractor shall prepare and implement a frac-out
contingency plan for any boring activities that use pressurized drilling fluids
(other than water). The plan will be subject to approval by the County and
City Public Works Division before boring can begin. If the boring method
does not use pressurized drilling fluids, then no frac-out contingency plan is
Page 4
i
required. The frac-out plan will include: measures intended to minimize the
potential for a frac-out associated with boring activities; provide for the timely
detection of ,frac-outs; and ensure an organized, timely, and "minimum-
impact" response in the event of a frac-out and release of drilling fluid (i.e.,
bentonite). The contingency plan will require, at a minimum, the following
measures:
• A full-time monitor shall attend all drilling to look for observable
frac-out conditions or lowered pressure readings on drilling
equipment.
• If a frac-out is identified, all work shall stop, including the
recycling of drilling fluid. In the event of a frac-out into water, the
pressure of water above the tunnel will keep excess mud from
escaping through the fracture. The location and extent of the frac-
out will be deter-mined, and the frac-out will be monitored for four
hours to determine whether the drilling fluid congeals (bentonite
will usually harden, effectively sealing the frac-out location).
If the drilling fluid congeals, no other actions, such as disturbance
of the streambed, shall be taken that would potentially suspend
sediments in the water column.
• Surface releases of bentonite shall be allowed to harden and then
will be removed. The contingency plan shall identify additional
measures to be taken to contain or remove the drilling fluid if it
does not congeal, such as removal by suction hose using a vacuum
truck. (MM HYD-4)
17. If site disturbance commences between March and August, a qualified
wildlife biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey at the project site
and at any trees adjacent to the pipeline and along Mount Diablo creek at the
location of the pits to determine if any birds are nesting in or adjacent to the
project site or pipeline area. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted
within 15 days prior to the start of work from March-May and within 30 days
prior to the start of work from June-August. If the allotted amount of time (15
or 30 days) elapses between the survey and site disturbance, the survey shall
be repeated prior to site disturbance. If active nests of either migratory birds
or birds of prey are detected on or adjacent to the site, a no-disturbance buffer
(generally 75 feet for passerines and 250 feet for raptors) in which no new site
disturbance is permitted until the qualified biologist determines that the young
have successfully fledged. The size of the no-disturbance buffer shall be
determined by a qualified wildlife biologist in consultation with CDFG, and
shall take into account local site features and existing sources of potential
disturbance. (MM BIO-3)
Regulatory Compliance
18. At least 15 days prior to any site disturbance for the bore and jack operation
the applicant shall provide evidence to the County that they have submitted a
Page 5
notification of Streambed Alteration to the California Department of Fish and
Game for the sanitary sewer bore operation. The applicant shall comply with
all conditions imposed by the Department.
Trail
19. U.-:,,r to eee.. ing the final map the ,...1:.ant shall dedie to a 1-2' trai-1
easement to the !'tity of(`.,nee-d g fall . as she,,,.. on the above ref.enee.i
tentative map. Aber dedie^tion has been aeeepted by the !-':t.,, rivthe appl:...,Y,t
u"s
shall ^ ns4uet an asphalt trail to City standards-.The applicant shall make an
offer of dedication to the City of Concord for a 12-foot wide trail easement
and construct or bond for an asphalt trail that meets City standards, as shown
on the tentative map, prior to the filing of the Final Map.
Deed Disclosure regarding Public Trail
20. At least 30 days prior to the recording of the map the applicant shall submit a
deed disclosure for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The
purpose of the deed disclosure is to inform the buyers of lots 1 through 8 that
a public trail is planned to the west of the property line.
Deeded Development Rights on Lot 8
21. Concurrent with the recording of the Final Map the applicant shall dedicate
development rights to the County at the northwest section of lot 8 as shown on
the tentative map. The applicant shall also record a deed disclosure on this
parcel that states this is a restricted development area. This condition is cross
referenced to condition of approval #53.
Fencing/Gate
22. At least 30 days prior to filing the final map the applicant shall submit a
fencing plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The
fencing plan shall include new fencing between the project site and the rear of
the properties located on Laura Drive. The approved fencing shall be installed
prior to occupancy of the first residence that is constructed on the project site.
23. The applicant shall install a temporary gate at Lot 8 to prohibit access to
Lopez property until trail is extended to Myrtle/Bailey Road. The gate shall
have a sign on it that states that this is the future location of a public trail. This
gate shall be installed prior to occupancy of the residence on lot 8.
Trees
24. This permit allows the removal of the trees that are noted for removal in the
above referenced arborist report. The applicant shall follow all of the
Page 6
recommendations contained in that report. Tree 4850, an Elm tree, will be
assessed for removal when the final placement of the home on lot 3 is
determined. If it is not consistent with the design of the lot, tree # 850 is
approved for removal.
25. Prior to any site disturbance the applicant shall submit a Temporary Protective
Fencing plan prepared by a licensed arborist for review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator.
26. At least 30 days prior to any site disturbance the applicant shall submit an
arborist report for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that
addresses the off-site trees that may be impacted by the sewer line from the
end of Toby Drive to the project site. If Route B is decided upon the report
shall evaluate the impacts on the large oak tree located on the City of Concord
property and any other trees from the creek to the project site. The report
shall make recommendations.for tree protection, if needed, which shall be
followed by the applicant.
27. Prior to the occupancy of each unit the applicant shall plant at least one (24
gallon minimum) native tree, with irrigation system in the front yard of each
residence.
Lighting Control
28. Outdoor lighting associated with the proposed development shall be designed
and located to minimize ambient light levels for any given application, consis-
tent with public safety standards. Lighting shall be placed in areas of
pedestrian activity and at building entrances, and shall be minimized
elsewhere. Ornamental, pedestrian scale lighting fixtures shallibe utilized to
the degree possible. Lighting fixtures shall be designed to minimize glare;
direct light downward onto the project site, and shall be shielded to prevent
overspill of light onto other properties. No lighting shall blink, flash or be of
unusually high intensity or brightness (MM AEST -1).
Air Quality
Control Measures for Construction Emissions
29. Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, the following measures will be
implemented on the project site during the construction period:
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or
require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
Page 7
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging
areas at construction sites.
• Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access
roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil
material is carried onto adjacent public streets (MM AIR-1).
Geology
30. The recommendations of the Jensen-Van Lienden Associates, Inc.,report shall
be implemented during design and construction where appropriate to
minimize expansive soils on structures. Potential foundation systems include:
pier and grade beam; structural concrete mats or post-tensioned slabs; pad
overcutting to provide uniform swell potential; and soil subgrade moisture
treatment (MM GEO—2).
31. Prior to issuance of building permits, chemical testing of representative
building pad soils shall be submitted to determine the level of corrosion
protection required for steel and concrete materials used for construction. In
order to protect against corrosion where it is found to be a potential issue, the
project applicant shall use sulfate-resistant concrete and protective linings to
encase steel piping buried in native soils (MM GEO-3).
32. The geotechnical engineer shall observe and monitor grading and provide a
grading completion report prior to issuance of building permits and shall
monitor foundation and drainage installation and document their observations
in a report submitted to the Building Inspection Department prior to framing
(MM GEO-4).
Hazardous Materials
33. Debris on the site, including car batteries and appliances shall be disposed of
properly. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall provide
a written statement to the County detailing a plan for cleaning the site
including details of where/how the various materials will be disposed or
recycled. Prior to issuance of a grading permit a final version of the plan with
copies of disposal/recycle receipts/documentation shall be submitted to the
County. (HAZ-1)
34. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall decommission any
on-site septic systems in accordance with state and County requirements and
Page 8
provide evidence of decommissioning to the County Building Inspection
Department. (MM HAZ-2)
35. Prior to demolition of structures that may contain Lead Based Paint (LBP), a
comprehensive EPA/HUD-level Lead Based Paint survey shall be conducted.
If any LBP is identified, it shall be removed from the site in accordance with
all applicable regulations, including OSHA guidelines.(MM HAZ-3). Prior to
demolition a complete Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act-level pre-
demolition Asbestos Survey shall be conducted. A licensed asbestos
abatement contractor shall be retained to abate identified asbestos-containing
material in accordance with all applicable regulations (MM HAZ-4).
Construction Conditions
36. The Applicant shall comply with the following construction noise, dust, litter
control and construction traffic requirements:
A. Construction Period Development Activity Restrictions — Contractor
and/or developer shall comply with the following construction noise,
dust, litter, and traffic control requirements:
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 on the calendar dates that these holidays are
observed by the state or federal government as listed below:
New Year's Day (State and Federal)
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal)
Washington's Birthday/Presidents' Day (State and Federal)
Lincoln's Birthday (State)
Cesar Chavez Day(State)
Memorial Day(State and Federal)
Independence Day(State.and Federal)
Labor Day(State and Federal)
Columbus Day(State and Federal)
Veterans Day(State and Federal)
Thanksgiving Day(State and Federal)
Day after Thanksgiving (State)
Christmas Day (State and Federal)
For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur,
please visit the following websites:
Federal Holidays http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp
California Holidays http://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm
Page 9
B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to
fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good
condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as
air compressors; concrete .pumpers and power generators as far away
from existing residences as possible. Unnecessary idling of internal
combustion engines shall be prohibited.
C. Prior to the commencement of any construction (e.g. grading,
demolition) on the site, the applicant shall designate a construction
supervisor to serve as a noise disturbance coordinator. The coordinator
will be responsible for responding to any inquiries/complaints regarding
noise activity on the site. The name, title, and telephone number.of the
coordinator shall be posted conspicuously at the project site. The
coordinator shall transmit to the Community Development Department
at two weeks intervals, any records of any complaints along with the
disposition..
D. At least one week prior to commencement of grading or construction,
the Applicant shall prepare a notice that grading or construction work
will commence. This notice shall be posted at the site and mailed to all
owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the exterior
boundary of the project site as shown on the latest equalized assessment
roll. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title,
phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for
maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all
times and shall consist. of persons with authority to indicate and
implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of
individuals responsible for noise and litier control, tree protection,
construction traffic and 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 all notices shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community
Development Department. A list of the names and addresses of the
property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed shall
accompany the notice.
E. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a plan shall be
submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval,.
addressing construction noise, dust, litter and construction traffic, along
with specific measures to address these impacts. Any violation of the
approved program or applicable ordinances shall require an immediate
work stoppage. If necessary, construction work shall not be allowed to
resume until an appropriate construction bond has been posted.
Page 10
F. The Applicant shall not interfere with existing neighborhood traffic
flows. An on-site area in which to park earth-moving equipment and
employee vehicles shall be provided.
G. The worksite shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the
cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be
removed from the site.
H. All chemicals and petroleum products stored on-site during,construction
shall be within a bermed containment area or other appropriate facility.
The handling, storage and disposal of any hazardous materials used on
the site will be in accordance with a business plan (or equivalent) on file
with the County Health Services Department, Hazardous Materials
Division. All refueling and vehicle maintenance activity shall be located
away from the creek corridors.
37. Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, the following measures will be
implemented on the project site during the construction period:
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require
all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers
on all unpaved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at
construction sites.
Sweep daily(preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads,
parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil
material is carried onto adjacent public streets. (MM AIR-2)
Street Names
38. At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map, proposed street name shall be
submitted for review by the Community Development Department, Graphics
Section (Phone #335-1270). Alternate street names should be submitted. The
Final Map cannot be certified by the Community Development Department
without the approved street names.
Construction and Demolition Debris
39. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of the building and/or Demolition
Permit(s), the developer shall submit a"Debris Recovery Plan' demonstrating
how they intend to recycle, reuse or salvage building materials and other
debris generating from the demolition of existing building and/or the
construction of new buildings. At least 30 days prior to the final inspection of
the first residential unit not including models, the developer shall submit a
Page 11
completed "Debris Recovery Report" documenting actual debris recovery
efforts including the quantities of recovered and landfilled materials) that
resulted from the project.
PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
SUBDIVISION 05-8769
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 Tentative Map and Stormwater Control Plan received by
the Community Development Department on April 4, 2006.
COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO
RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP.
General Requirements:
40. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision
shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title
9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional
approval statement. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined
below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department
and are based on the revised Tentative Map received by the Community
Development Department on*r,,..o., beF 16, April 4, 2006.
41. Applicant shall submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil
engineer to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division,
along with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements
required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this
subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and
striping plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division.
Roadway Improvements (Laurel Drive Frontage):
42. Applicant shall construct curb, 4-foot sidewalk, longitudinal and transverse
drainage, necessary street lighting, and 10 feet of pavement widening and
transitions for the ultimate planned half-width of 18 feet along.the project
frontage of Laurel Drive. Face of curb shall be located 18 feet from the
centerline of Laurel Drive.
Page 12
Private Roadway (On-Site—Laurel Place):
43. Applicant shall construct an on-site roadway system to current County private
road standards with a minimum traveled width of 20 feet, with 8 foot wide
shoulders, within a minimum 29 foot wide access easement. The proposed
private road shall be subject to the review and approval of Public Works and
the Fire District.
44. Applicant shall construct a paved cul de sac turnaround at the end of the
proposed private road, as shown on the tentative map and subject to the
review and approval of the Fire District.
Access to Adjoining Property:
Proof of Access
45. Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works of the acquisition of all
necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the
construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and
drainage improvements.
Encroachment Permit
46. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and
Permit Center for any work done within the public road right of way of Laurel
Drive.
Sight Distance:
47. ' hall rprovide-adequate stepping sight distance at the iire.seet; ,n o
the proposed private ...1 .,..1 Laurel Drive F a th f gh tra ffi,,. design reed
F 35 miles r hetin Landscaping, ally F othe obst uetio
must be. laee,l to maipAain adequate sight distance The applicant shall provide
sight distance at the intersection of the proposed private road and Laurel Drive
by complying with County Ordinance Code Section 82-18 and the current
Public Works Standard Plans for required clearance at intersections.
Parking:
48. Parking shall be prohibited on one side of the private road where the curb-to-
curb width is less than 36 feet and on both sides of any private road where the
curb-to-curb width is less than 28 feet. "No Parking" signs shall be installed
along these portions of the road, subject to the review and approval of Public
Works.
Page 13
Street Lights & Sewer Service (LAFCO actions):
49. 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, or apply for annexation to another street
light financing mechanism approved by the Public Works Department.
Annexation shall occur prior to filing of the Final Map. The applicant shall be
aware that the CSA L-100 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 a street light service
area does not include the transfer of ownership and maintenance of street
lighting on private roads.
49A. Prior to filing the final map the applicant shall provide proof to the Zoning
Administrator that they have complied with LAFCO requirements as they
relate to sewer service to the site. The County will not accept any sewer
service facilities for operations or maintenance.
Maintenance of Facilities:
50. Applicant shall develop and enter into a maintenance agreement that will
insure that the proposed private roadway and any street lights will be
maintained and that each parcel in this subdivision that will use the private
roadway and street lights, if any, will share in its maintenance. The County
will not be responsible for maintenance of any private facilities proposed as a
.part of this subdivision application.
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 and any private street lights.
Underground Utilities:
52. All new and existing utility distribution facilities shall be installed
underground.
Exception
The applicant shall underground or relocate the existing overhead PG&E
transmission poles currently located approximately along the easternop rtion
of the abandon railroad right of way to the location shown on the tentative
mom. All other poles on-site shall be undergrounded (or removed as required).
Page 14
Drainage Improvements:
Collect and Convey
53. Applicant shall collect and convey all stormwater 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 a natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the
Ordinance Code.
Exception
An exception for the northern portion of proposed Lot 8 is granted provided
that the applicant maintains the existing drainage pattern, does not construct
any .improvements that generate runoff, and does not dispose concentrated
storm water flows onto downstream properties, subject to the review and
approval of Public Works. In addition, the applicant shall grant deed
development rights to Contra Costa County over the northerly portion of Lot
8, as shown on the tentative map, to prevent the construction of future
improvements that could adversely impact downstream properties.
53A. The proposed project is located within the Mount Diablo Creek Watershed.
There are known inadequacies in Mount Diablo Creek in the vicinity of this
project. Applicant shall demonstrate that the existing downstream drainage
system(s) that receives storm water runoff from this project is adequate to
convey the required.design storm (based on the size of the contributing
watershed) and, if necessary, construct improvements to guarantee adequacy.
The applicant shall obtain the necessary rights to construct off-site drainage
improvements.
54. The applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in
compliance with the Ordinance Code and Public Works Design Standards.
55. Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s)
and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner.
56. Any surface or subsurface storm drain facility within the subdivision
conveying runoff from private streets or more than one parcel shall be
installed within a minimum 10-foot wide private storm drain easement.
57. DA 33B has inadequate maintenance funding. The construction of this
development should not result in added costs or reduction of revenue for the
County or Flood Control District. As one of the mitigation measures for the
adverse drainage impacts of this development, the applicant shall annex into a
Page 15
County Maintenance Benefit Assessment District (MBAD) to provide a
perpetual funding source for maintenance of the regional drainage area
facilities. The County is in the process of forming this MBAD. If this MBAR
is formed prior to final approval of this development, then the applicant shall
annex into the MBAD.
58. Applicant shall construct creek capacity improvements as called for in the
"Mount Diablo Creek Watershed Study" and as directed by the Public Works
Department, Flood Control Division,
OR
Applicant shall contribute $0.25 per square foot of additional impervious
surface area to the Mount Diablo Creek watershed drainage deficiency fund,
to be used for future creek improvements.
Provision 11C.3" of the NPDES Permit:
59. This project shall fully comply with the County's Stormwater Management
and Discharge Control Ordinance, the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, and the
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As part of these
requirements, the applicant shall incorporate Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable into the design of this project,
implement them and provide for perpetual operation and maintenance for all
treatment BMPs.
60. A Stormwater Control Plan received on April 4, 2006 by the Community
Development Department was reviewed and determined to be preliminarily
complete. Although the Stormwater Control Plan has been determined to be
preliminarily complete, it is subject to revision during the preparation of
improvement plans, as necessary to bring it into full compliance with C.3
stormwater requirements. The applicant shall submit to the Public Works
Department a final approved Stormwater Control Plan that has been certified
and stamped by a licensed, professional Civil Engineer, Architect, or
Landscape Architect.
61. All construction plans (including but not limited to: site, improvement,
structural, mechanical, architectural, building, grading and landscaping plans)
shall comply with the preliminarily approved Stormwater Control Plan
(SWCP) or any subsequently revised SWCP, the County's Stormwater
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, the "Stormwater C.3
Guidebook" and the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control'
Board. All construction plans shall include details and specifications
necessary to implement all measures of the SWCP, subject to the review and
approval of the County. To insure conformance with the SWCP, the applicant
shall submit a completed "Construction Plan C.3 Checklist" indicating the
Page 16
location on the construction plans of all elements of the SWCP as described in
the "Stormwater C.3 Guidebook".
62. All water quality features shall be located within public road rights of way or
public utility easements to allow County access for any future inspection
and/or maintenance purposes.
63. Any water quality features that are designed to retain water for longer then 72
hours shall be subject to the review of the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector
Control District.
64. Prior to building permit final and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the
applicant shall provide an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) plan and
execute any agreements identified in the SWOP, which pertain to the transfer
of ownership and/or long-term maintenance of storm water treatment or
hydrograph modification BMPs.
65. Applicant shall provide cost estimates for the complete financing and
perpetual maintenance of the water quality features proposed with this
application for the review and approval of the Public Works Department. This
estimate shall include all long term costs associated with these water quality
features including, but not limited to, Operation and Maintenance, financing,
inflation indexing, and replacement costs.
66. Applicant shall cooperate fully in the formation of financing mechanisms (e.g.
Benefit Assessment District) to insure that all costs associated with the
perpetual Operation & Maintenance, administration and reporting of these
water quality features (including costs associated with all required County
administration and reporting) are paid for by the property owners that are or
will be benefiting from this development.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES):
67. 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 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.
Page 17
Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins.
Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area.
Slope pavements to direct runoff to landscaped/pervious areas, where
feasible.
Shallow roadside and on-site swales.
Provide educational materials regarding the Clean Water Program to new
homebuyers:
Prohibit or discourage direct connection of roof and area drains to storm
drain systems.
Other alternatives, equivalent to the above, as approved by the Public
Works Department.
ADVISORY NOTES
• Although the Stormwater Control Pian has been determined to be preliminarily complete,
it remains subject to future revision, as necessary, during preparation of improvement
plans in order to bring it into full compliance with C.3 stormwater requirements. Failure
to update the SWCP to match any revisions made in the improvement plans may result in
a substantial change to the County approval, and the project may be subject to additional
public hearings. Revisions to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents
may also be required. This may significantly increase the time and applicant's.costs
associated with approval of the application.
• 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.
• . Applicant shall comply with the drainage fee requirements, for Drainage Area 33B as
adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee must be paid prior to filing a Final Map.
• 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.
• 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.
• The project shall comply with the City of Concord requirements.
Page 18
• The project shall comply with Fire District requirements.
• The project shall comply with the Contra Costa Water District requirements.
• The project shall comply with LAFCO requirements.
GACurrentPlanning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\SD058769-1 COAs.doc
Page 19
Exhibit 4
CEQA Determination/
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Community
Contra
Dennis M.Barry,AICP
-Fie......ty BI=UlIeULur
Development ( !�'
Department Costa
Count
County Administration BuildingGEL f DEC 0 5 2006 i.
651 Pine Street "a 1-�-
4th Floor, North Wing ; Fr,
Martinez, California 94553 0095 �— — E F+ ¢ 0U0 d '� CLERK:
CON
k 3161, COSTA 'MUNTY
Phone: WV DEPUTY
(925) 335-1210
e
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
County File Ws RZ05-3171 & SD05-8769
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:
LENOX HOMES (Applicant), GREG WOLFE (Owner), County File #'s RZ05-3171 & SD05-8769:
Applicant requests approval of a rezoning from R-20(20,000 square foot minimum lot size)to R-15
(15,000 square foot minimum lot size) and vesting tentative map approval to subdivide a 3.7 acre
parcel into 8 lots. The property is located at 4925 Laurel Drive in the Concord area. (R-15)(ZA: J
-17) (CT: 3331) (Parcel# 116-100-050)
Potentially significant impacts related to Aesthetic, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology,
Hazardous Materials, Water Quality and Utilities/Service Systems have been identified in the initial
study. However,the applicant has agreed to mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts to a
less than significant level.
A copy of the mitigated negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration
may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, 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., January 4, 2007. Any comments should be in writing and
submitted to the following address:
John Obome
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month
It is anticipated that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at
a meeting of County Planning Commission in the near future.You will be notified by mail when the
meeting is scheduled at the Planning Commission. The hearing is anticipated to be held at the
McBrien Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Room 107, Martinez. It is expected that the
Planning Commission will also conduct a hearing on the application at that same meeting.
Project Planner
qA, -,Vt-Z_
John Obome
cc: County Clerk's Office (2 copies)
LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY AND
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Contra Costa County File Numbers
Subdivision No. SD059769
Rezoning No. RZ053171
Submitted to:
.John Oborne. Project Planner
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
North Wine -4th Floor
Martinez. CA 94553
Prepared by:
LSA Associates. Inc.
2215 Fifth Street
Berkeley. CA 94710
510.540.7331
LSA,
November 20o6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. SUMMARY INFORMATION.......................................................................................... I
B. CHECKLIST................................................................................................................... 10
1. AESTHETICS.................................................................................................. 10
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES...................................................................12
Ill. AIR QUALITY................................................................................................. 13
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES...............................:.......................................... 17
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.............................................................................21
Vl. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.................................................................................23
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. ...........................................27
VI11. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. ....................................................30
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING........................................................................36
X. MINERAL RESOURCES...................... ...........37
XI. NOISE..............................................................................................................38
X11. POPULATION AND HOUSING.....................................................................40
X111. PUBLIC SERVICES........................................................................................41
XIV. RECREATION.................................................................................................42
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.....................................................................43
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.........................................................45
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE..........................................50
C. REPORT PREPARERS ..................................................................................................52
D. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................................................................52
I'It!11--MIRI'I II IC1"Iti-MNDT'AlIii 1-11 Ili-1.1&,11 IR I131x�i, �
FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Vicinity and Regional Location..................................................................................1)
Figure 2: Aerial Photo and Proposed Sewer Alignment.........................................................................5
Figure 3: Proposed Tentative Subdivision Map and Proposed Sewer Alignment Alternatives.............7
Figure 4: Sewer Extension Future Service Boundary .............................................:............................47
I'1I-CLI VJ I lATIII Ill(INlIM1,1I),I'('IA-1- 1 1'lu«e IS d-l l l/21121 K6 ��
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISI ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2001 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
A. SUMMARY INFORMATION
1. Project Title:
Laurel Place Subdivision/County File # SD058769
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:
John Oborne, Project Planner
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
(925) 335-1207
4. Project Location:
As shown in Figure 1, the project site is located within an unincorporated area of Contra Costa
County,to the northeast of the City of Concord and southeast of the Concord U.S.Naval Weapons
Station. The street address for the project site is 4925 Laurel Drive and the site is approximately 900
feet northeast.of-Concord Boulevard:3nd approximately 900 feet southeast of Bailey Road.
APN: 116-100-050
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Curt Blomstrand
Lenox Homes
3675 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 270
Lafayette,CA 94549
6. General Plan Designation:
Single Family Residential- Low Density (1.0 to 2.9 dwelling units per acre/43,650 sq. ft. maximum
lot area)
7. Zoning:
R-20 (20.000 sq. ft. minimum lot area)
P�<L.., <.D.�FR,MNI P,•„n. �,.1 w,„ ,.„ I h�... 1
CONCORD
r
NAVAL WEAPONS
.\` STATION
v
�U44Dti
"Q� c v „rvN vfs OGT' Q�
°q
�C
rd, `f� �r `s� �4o M£s„° a ar"'J:' •+ �S2�,F�v T ^ ;P� `-'
..r.. ��roC. J£�F y'tlCl y Y• CT '�`;vN _i§£#D44P� y.
�OryCOH
FNM DC `Rr\ L` -. 4, $ E
L
r <tisr
s
y
St`-
REGIONAL LOCATION w. a c ,'a "s , uA
•Fh U ?y ��"1 �•3
C
Verville \ RFF\ "r rl
\ N�t9 CT'
NW
\
FW.Id
Ifs.L � :.-•vf �. U ( ea,,y .,.. o� — ^g.
sL�M�
Xa�i .{ ,�y Rmwry nntiocn w ,F ��lr( .4
h
( \ Drmilk J BGNwF _ kid �( \n
S Fr sm' ;'.O&IaM�' SWC F(Oa, SUTryFR GM1 \�,w �'(p,7'C�
1 _\•cY rENM W UUR T;'✓ s�V T
\ fbywrd lrvennwe �fUq ? oII/ \.1„ a
S A FIGURE I
ZZ PROJECT STTE
:.(.�—: Laurel Place Su6dim.ann Prf!jecf
N
UNINCORPORATED
CONTkA COSTw CProject Vicinity and
.. ' UUNTI'
0Q—� Regional Location
FEET
SOURCE'. RAYAREA MFTROTHOMASGUIDE.2004 Ltin ASSorI4TF.S-IN('..3nn6
I:/C(C0601 iamcl cnntcsAwnres/FIE_Lai 109.'19/0GI
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISI ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2004 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
8. Description of Project:
Existing Conditions and Setting. The 3.9-acre project site is located in a residential neighborhood
within a small pocket of unincorporated Contra Costa County. The project site is bounded by Laurel
Drive, a rural two-lane road, on the southwest. Laurel Place, a dirt road which provides access to the
site from Laurel Drive, parallels an abandoned railroad line along the northwest edge of the site. Sub-
urban residential uses are adjacent to the site to the northwest, northeast and southeast. Fencing along
the northwest,northeast and southeast of the site separates the site from adjacent lots. Mount Diablo
Creek is located approximately 300 feet south of the site.
As shown in Figure 2,the northwestern portion of the site includes a residence, a garage,three barns,
storage shed,and several horse paddocks. Open areas used for grazing and horse training are located
in the eastern and southern portion of the site. The original one-story stucco-sided bungalow on the
site was constructed in the 1950s and additions were made in the 1980s. Prior to the construction of
the house,the site and surrounding area had been used for cultivation of almonds. The relatively flat
site gently slopes towards the west. Several large trees and shrubs are located on the site near the ex-
isting residence in,the northern and western portions of the project site.
The project site is accessible from downtown Concord, Interstate 680, and Highway 242 by Concord
Boulevard. Laurel Drive connects the site and the immediate neighborhood with Concord Boulevard
via Ayers Road.
Proposed Project. The proposed project is an eight-lot subdivision that includes rezoning cIf the
property from R-20(20,000 sq. ft. min lot size)to R-15 (15.000 sq. ft. min.lot size),construction of a
28-foot wide private road,construction of a class one trail along the western boundary of the site,and
the extension of a sewer line that crosses under Mount Diablo Creek from the existing Concord sewer
main located near the end of Tobi Drive to the project site.
a. Residential Development. As shown in Figure 3, the proposed project would subdivide the
project site into eight residential lots ranging from 15,001 square feet to 20,396 square feet (net area).
Eight detached, single-family homes would be constructed on the site. The proposed subdivision
would have a density of 2.7 dwelling units per net acre.
b. Landscaping and Open Space. Open space would be provided in the yard areas on each lot.
Certain landscaped areas along the street would be designed as filtration planters for stormwater run-
off. There are 23 trees on-site; all trees, aside from one valley oak and.possibly one elm tree,would
be removed during the site development process.
C. Transportation,Circulation and Parking. Laurel Drive provides access to the project area.
Laurel Drive terminates at Laurel Place, a private drive on the project site. Access to Lots 1 and 2
would be provided from Laurel Drive. Access to lots 3 through 8 would be provided from Laurel
Place. Improvements to Laurel Place would include paving with asphalt concrete,and concrete curb
and gutter improvements. and extension of the roadway into the center of the site. The roadway
would be approximately 28 feet wide (curb to curb) with wider tum areas to accommodate fire de-
partment vehicles and would terminate in a cul-de-sac. On-street parking would be permitted along
one side of Laurel Place.
I''C'C'CIKn1U'kUl)IICI'tiV.ti-MM)\I'uh0.\I.uwl l'LcIti J.i11�IRxvi �
I �
{
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISI ON PROIECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
is
}d-
A 12-foot wide asphalt trail would be constructed along the western edge of the site, west of Laurel
Place. The trail would connect to proposed sections of the trail to the north and the trail easement
would be granted to the City of Concord. Development rights to the northwest panhandle of the lot
would be granted to the County, prohibiting development,aside from the construction of the pedes-
trian trail and improvements to the sewer and utilities.
d. Site Preparation. Site preparation would include the demolition of all existing structures in-
eluding the house, buildings, barns, sheds, fencing and removal of all underground utilities-servicing
existing structures. The existing septic tank and two'leach fields would be removed along with exist-
ing asphalt and concrete. Minimal grading would be required to construct future building pads.
c. Sanitary Sewer Extension. As part of the proposed project,the Concord Sanitary District
>� sewer services would be extended to the project site. The project applicant and the Concord Building,
Neighborhood & Engineering Services Department are considering two possible sewer alignments,
Routes A and B,shown on Figure 3.
The Route A sewer alignment would entail the extension of an 8-inch main west under the Laurel
Place cul-de-sac and continue west via a proposed sanitary sewer easement through private residential
property. The line would then continue south in a proposed sanitary easement under Laura Drive and
cross below Mount Diablo Creek by bore and jack. The proposed sewer line would then extend west
below City of Concord right-of-way in a proposed sanitary easement to the existing sewer line south-
west of the project site,near the end of Tobi Drive.
The Route B sewer alignment would extend an 8-inch main west under the Laurel Place cul-de-sac
and then south under the proposed Laurel Place, continuing south in an existing 20 foot utility ease-
ment for approximately 3.30 feet. Then the Route B sewer line would cross in a westerly direction
under Mount Diablo Creek by bore and jack, continuing west below City of Concord right-of-way in
a proposed sanitary easement to the existing sewer lint; located near the end of Tobi Drive. w`
The bore and jack operation for either alignment would require two pits on either side of the creek,
dug approximately 10 feet from the top of the creek bank as shown on Figure 3. No trees or vegeta- "
tion would be removed as a result of the bore and jack operation. Otherwise. all necessary permits,
easements, and dedications would be required.
L Construction and Phasing. Details of the construction and phasing are not known at this time.
g. Approvals. County approvals necessary for the proposed project include:
• Rezoning from R-20 single family (20.000 square feet minimum lot area) to R-15 single family
(15,000 square feet minimum lot area)
• Vesting Tentative Map
• Stormwater Management Plan
s.
s
j
4
5:
'Ceavninr,annuersus-MNDNuMicUrmelPWiIS u.. IIC1.4mv,i 4
xN
g
FSa
I � k
c
4 � � i* � ✓.. +, .'�' ��'$d..�` , � t �:C }blit �
eilel
PO
�E
"1 LTi' r, ✓e P �+ S�J•�a LLr�:� ,A 14� 'f t° _ d f i+y� � 4� 1
qi� 71
1 eA
We
ell'('
r�1312
iP' Yl�f
Iw f1 Y .�; (.� n'PQ�`� e }�t ,�..: "!AW
r � w;�y'�� � • � Sa a �' h+- = r ,``"t ?ia"`
N+' r ,,
r jy
Nlikl11
a
ry
f. Y
� r
gym,: `.. s �`
�lp
I I I
r/
I
1'
11
1 'v3IJ7ANJ1 / 't)
Now
1 ], IIX.flfpl[x1.11IT.
PWnp 100Xn 1p
WHIT,p�p'IY H �x108 WhY1fYJ11
E Y[MI 10 EI / ,y I[�\7(t15LMn a Uxln II IY A(Y�
1111,Pi
�.1`q`
us[wx arum el _- r __
�; ww.0 neral _1 __ ___ A _
LOT B t !Oi 7 r 107 B - -
1 'x` idlle zr(umsL, 7." 1[uoisl r. u,ux z lao5sl "
MITI.1 PCD; +. 1 13.Rasrsr Aw 1
u \'. 1]C 0. r• PM 131 0 R PM 1]10 1 <
1 +J`1 illi V `�ENVELLPC I Jn '
-
xum 5 r
E'. e
s
\ l}!yn A... f ty.. ev xi Irainl ^
PAD 23]3 k I
Sib]LOT,
ir.rHrt \t,
r
i. �C i I PM-1]10
a
i.. �'r'.•.
�
sairm uc� �K `\`Tyw.mv' t. '--ItlY
__
—4..[[sliei b r `^_ s ::I
ua[•p•µWoeP� \\ \.,.�, ..'LOT 2. 1
s3. 1 1
xPI-nouRx m[uw[AIIMa s s s.r LOT'I 1
r.Ixnl +[sm.SY fuossl t ,
r \
PAD.231.0 so01 s.r'K,l 1
ai .\ \ 4 / i' I Peo-2310 r
ENVELOPEST nl�
—� -.
1. .l IIIA ex9Ptf .( M k
tL e2J wwrwl cI.LWEL ��y7IiI�E / tl
\ -,t•b'Y -—'T (RSRRR[o)SIM YW,Ex Ek ^
' w v J+71IcIJ
V71111—!WP;
t .. nwR'A IKrtflx:[rzl YMfl P4N KmXA[x1 J ...'.
y'
{ I �
i•. - 1+ Jlo .. lTvt ld": 19N71 .Y 9 ma Al ^Y t11
Fdli['A}IKIfR11AR1 YMR Y.Vx ALIdYCM1 g5.xi. 0PN HSx4PLPH..OSS[ `�i el �d Yy�gl
_IWt f : rwpIIq �_ arts � �n1 ` [Ronvxu S�Ot
^ P
c \
i. DRIVE
��- x�Y 1 RP11E'B%1PIi(Rflfl[U13EMR YYN 4xHY[Nf IU J ` .
r
1-fir 1 I 1
L S A LEGEND FIGURE 3
7 ml nxnrary --___ sm[moc nuRAna nwrrR _
P[r[R m sT"T"I coxma nao
Pw-nl.o Pm PAo[ rxwnwR nl WAnox 1.71
nrsnxc zu.]u.s[wR Isd[[rrtol III'to S'...r[R[(IxPa nAxl
—s— mmvsxR sx.l.x.s[Mx ^'oPa¢o AC P.Imc Laurel Place $ubdji.l\IIIA Pr'Oiect
. [xrsnxc w.rze Izw[[xml ��, ,� pELVuvps[o wwr[mA.
Ioo coo
RmRQPx^ ° Proposed Tentative Subdivision
n x ---tiw Rx.�xxu raw
nlslmc S.PRux Iswccxcm
TIP04R ST.RRxx [nirvlt TRU, Map and Proposed Sewer
Alignment Alternatives
SOURCE: PERMCO.2000
LtC,000601 IYUmI PIUCC'OEUres Fc_3 a1 (11/1?/Ob) —
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISI ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project site is located in a pocket of unincorporated Contra Costa County, surrounded by the
Concord Naval Weapons Station to the north and the City of Concord to the east. South and West. In
both the County and City of Concord, suburban residential development is the predominant land use
in the area.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits,financing approval,or partici-
pation agreement):
• Contra Costa County Fire District;
• Contra Costa County Building Department;
• Contra Costa County Public Works Department;
• City of Concord.Sanitary District;
• City of Concord Public Works Department;
• Army Corp of Engineers;
• Contra Costa Water District; and
• Central Sanitary District.
scar.nlwunnucT.evti- Nom nu wlPw. lx , iimrzuiw, 8
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISI ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DkAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the follow-
ing pages.-
u Aesthetics O Agricultural Resources ■ Air Quality
M Biological Resources O Cultural Resources ■ Geology/Soils
W Hazards&Hazardous Materials ■ Hydrology/Water Quality O Land Use/Planning
O Mineral Resources O Noise O Population/Housing
0 Public Services 0. Recreation O Transportation/Traffi c
M Utilities/Service Systems O Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Determination. (To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(71 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
11 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made
by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
O 1 find that the proposed.project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
U 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact' or"potentially sig-
nificant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been ade-
quately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
O l find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, be-
cause all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable_standards. and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
as I0 ; _
Signature Date
John Oborne. Project Planner
r'LruK,(i1TR1 11),11 Plus isama nn1120'i 9
�p
'011ill N
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISI ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 1006 INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAR&TION
B. CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than
Significant gation In- Significant No Im-
Impact corporated Impact pact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not
limited to,trees, rock outcroppings,and historic buildings
within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qual-
ity of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
u) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
The County General Plan designates two main scenic resources: I)the San Francisco Bay/Delta estu-
ary system:and 2) scenic ridges, hillsides and rock outcroppings.' The proposed project would not be
located in the vicinity of the San Francisco Bay or Delta estuary system and would not interfere with
these scenic water resources. The project site is located in a relatively flat area and would not impact
a scenic ridge, hillside or rock outcropping.
Views of hillsides and ridge, however, are available from the project site, and include vistas desig-
nated as"scenic"by the General Plan. The proposed project would contain residences not higher than
2'/stories or 35 feet, consistent with zoning development standards and with the type and height of
detached, single family residences on neighboring parcels. Additionally, the project would not be
visible along public thoroughfares as it would be located on a cul-de-sac street surrounded by residen-
tial development. Therefore,the proposed project-would not have a substantial adverse effect on sce-
nic vistas.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a State scenic highwav? (No Impact)
State designated scenic routes within Contra Costa County include sections of State Route 24 (east
portal ofCaldecott Tunnel to State Route 24 near Walnut Creek) and Interstate 680 (Alameda County
line to State Route 24).'Portions of State Route 4 are eligible for designation as a State scenic high-
Contra Costa County.2005.Contra Costa Counrn General Plan, Open Space Element,pp.9-4.January.
California Department of Transportation.2006.California Scenic Highway Program. Website:
www.dot.ca.aov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwv Lhtml.April.
zeox,P.PB DixTsys.Nn nl m u. .i Pw.e i.v ao ,iir inixx., 10
Ww"raw WAR".
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC'. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROTECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
way. These highways are not within the project vicinity and the project site is not visible from these
highways.
The County General Plan designates roadways with countywide scenic value. The closest roadway to
the project site with such a designation is Kirker Pass Road.' However, Kirker Pass Road is over a
mile from the project site and designated portions of the road are not visible from the site.Therefore,
the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway
or County scenic roadway.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Less-Than-Signifeant Impact)
The implementation of the proposed project would result in the construction of eight detached single-
family residences and would change the character of the site from a rural residential and equestrian .
property to a suburban residential development. This change is consistent with the General Plan and
proposed zoning designations for the site, and is consistent with the scale and type of residential de-
velopment surrounding the site. Therefore,the proposed project would not degrade the character or
quality of the site or its surroundings.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated)
It is assumed that there would be additional lighting associated with the new residences and landscap-
ing and therefore the proposed project would create a new source of light and glare in the area. The
following mitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure AESTHETICS-1: Outdoor lighting associated with the proposed devel-
opment shall be designed and located to minimize ambient light levels for any given appiica-
tion, consistent with public safety standards. Lighting shall be placed in areas of pedestrian
activity and at building entrances, and shall be minimized elsewhere. Ornamental; pedestrian
scale lighting fixtures shall be utilized to the degree possible. Lighting fixtures shall be de-
signed to minimize glare, direct light downward onto the project site, and shall be shielded to
prevent overspill of light onto other properties.No lighting shall blink, flash or be of unusu-
ally high intensity or brightness.
/
1
'Contra Costa County.2005.Contra Costo Counn,General Plot?, Transportation and Circzdauon Element,pp.5-
20.Januarc
I•Ll ivr.il'I'11I i'�ISI,+MNI)V'Blii l�in,l P4v..Lti Jnill/�121v11
�8
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. - LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROJECT
NOVEMBER IUOB INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Potentially
Significant
Potentialh, finless Miti- Less Than
Significant gation In- Significant No Im-
Impact corporated Impact pact
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environ-
mental effects. lead agencies may refer to the California Ag-
ricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)
prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an op-
tional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland
of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to a non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature,could result in conversion
of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of'Statewide Importance(Farm-
land), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultur a/use? (No Impact)
The project site currently consists of residential and equestrian uses,and is surrounded by suburban
residential development. The site isnot used for agricultural purposes and is not designated as impor-
tant agricultural land by the County General Plan. It is classified as"Urban and Built-Up Land" by
the State Department of Conservation. Therefore,the implementation of the proposed project would
not convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact)
The project site is not zoned for agricultural uses and is not operated under a Williamson Act con-
tract.
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nattn-e, could
result in conversion or Farmland to non-agricultural use? (No Impact)
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the extension of sewer infrastructure to the
project site. However,the site is surrounded by residential development and the extension of services
into the area would not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The project, which
would increase housing in an alreadv-urbanized area, could reduce development pressure on regional
agricultural areas.
y't:ltrr.rrl•I'Ier rlii rl"I S�I�MNII'1'rrlrlr.\I.rnel PWi.Iti J...rl l/.I/]Irr., 12
I �
V
y=
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROTECT
NOVEMBER 8006 1N:TIAL STUDY/DkAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D£CLARATION t '
?3:
i
?1 - Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than
Significant gation In- Significant No lm-
Impact corporated Impact pact _
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available.the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the fol-
lowing determinations. Would the project: ?'
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b)-Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standard(including releasing emissions which ex-
ceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
1
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concen-
trations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number `
of people?
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less-Tl:an-
Significant Impact)
The main purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area into compliance with the requirements of
federal and State air quality standards. Such plans describe air pollution control strategies to be im-
plemented by a city, county, or region. Contra Costa County and the project site are located in the San
Francisco Bay air basin and are within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management Dis-
trict(BAAQMD). The latest air quality plan, the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy was developed in
order to bring the region into compliance with State and federal air quality standards. The Contra
1 a r'.
Costa County General Plan is consistent with the ozone strategy. The project is consistent with the
General Plan land use designation and therefore would not conflict with the Bay Area 2005 Ozone
Strategy.
I t
b) Violate any air gualip,standard or-contribute substantially to an existing or projected air qual-
itl'violation? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated)
x'r
Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would occur over the short term in asso-
ciation with construction activities such as grading and vehicle/equipment use. Long-term emissions
would result from vehicle trips associated with residential use of the project site. The discussion be-
low describes potential air quality violations that could occur as a result of the following: construction
c,
' Pkcc�w.ulmftnouLTs is mNDll mimtl.0 Nw.v lA v, n.nn . lj �.i.
h`
1
q
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVIS I ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2000 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLAk ATION
equipment exhaust emissions; fugitive dust; long-term vehicle emissions:and local carbon monoxide
hot spots.
Construction Equipment Exhaust Emissions. Construction period emissions would result from im-
plementation of the proposed project. Construction activities are a source of organic gas emissions.
Solvents in adhesives, non-waterbase paints, thinners, some insulating materials and caulking materi-
als would evaporate into the atmosphere and would participate in the photochemical reaction that ere-
ates urban ozone. Asphalt used in paving is also a source of organic gases for a short time after its
application.
During construction various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment would be in use. In 1998, the
California Air Resources Board (ARB) identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a
toxic air contaminant(TAC). The ARB has completed a risk management process that identified po-
tential cancer risks for a range of activities using diesel-fueled engines.°High volume freeways, sta-
tionary diesel engines and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic(e.g., distribu-
tion centers and truck stops) were identified as having the highest associated risk.
Health risks from TACs are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure. Unl ike the
above types of sources, construction diesel emissions are temporary, affecting an area for a period of
days or perhaps weeks. Additionally, construction-related sources are mobile and transient in nature,
and the emissions occur within the project site. Because of its short duration, health risks from con-
struction emissions of diesel particulate would be a less than significant impact.
Construction Dust. Construction dust would affect local air quality at various times during construc-
tion of the proposed project. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months creates a
high potential for dust generation when and if underlying soils are exposed.Clearing, grading and
earthmoving activities have a high potential to generate dust whenever soil moisture is low and par-
ticularly when the wind is blowing.
The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of par-
ticulates downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the potential to create a nuisance at
nearby properties or at previously completed portions of the proposed project. In addition to nuisance
effects, excess dustfall can increase maintenance and cleaning requirements and could adversely af-
fect sensitive electronic devices.
Emissions of particulate matter or visible emissions are regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Man-
agement District(BAAQMD) under Regulation 6 "Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions." Spe-
cifically,visible particulate emissions are prohibited where the particulates are deposited on real
property other than that of the person responsible for the emissions and cause annoyance.
The proposed project would also be subject to the above regulations as a result of the dust produced
by the demolition of the existing structures on the site. Additionally, dust particles from demolition
may contain lead from lead-based paint (LBP) and asbestos, which was used in a wide variety of
building products. Both materials were routinely used in construction prior to 1978,the year the Envi-
California Air Resources Board.Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from
Diesel-Fueled Engines and Gehicies.October 2000.
R.u:cax,n iwauDi ic-rsvc.nm�uwmLn ri,a is d„ m v�,.. 14
N �
a,
4'.
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROJECT kk`
NOVEMBER 2004 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION +%
9
�a
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned LBP and asbestos-containing materials from use in rest- s'
dential construction. (The residence on the site was constructed in the 1950s.) ('
s>
If the building contains asbestos, it will be subject to District Regulation 11, Rule 2: Hazardous Mate-
rials;Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing.Airborne asbestos fibers pose a serious
heath threat and demolition which does not comply with the requirements would be considered to '
have a significant impact. Impacts related to exposure to L13P and asbestos-containing materials are
discussed in section VII, Hazardous Materials below.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce construction,impacts to a less- T
than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD,the following meas-
ures will be implemented on the project site during the construction period: t`
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily:
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to main-
tain at least two feet of freeboard.
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved ac-
cess roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers)all paved access roads, parking areas and
staging areas at construction sites.
Y.
• Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto ;
adjacent public streets.
Long-Term Emissions. The BAAQMD has set thresholds of significance for operational period
emissions. Below these thresholds, project.operation,emissions from mobile sources are antici-
pated to have a less than significant impact; however, projects within 20 percent of the threshold
are requited to undergo a more detailed analysis. The BAAQMD threshold of significance for the
ozone precursor nitrogen oxide (NOx) is 80 pounds per day. Projects generating fewer than 2.000
n vehicle trips per day are assumed to contribute NOx emissions below this threshold.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the construction of eight residential units. L
Based on ITE Trip Generation average rates, the project would generate a total of 77 daily trips.' The
increase in long-term vehicular emissions generated by the proposed project is not anticipated to.ex-
ceed the BAAQMD's operations threshold and would have a less than significant impact on local and
regional air quality.
Local CO Hot Spots. The primary mobile source pollutant of local concern is carbon monoxide
(CO), which is a direct function of vehicle idling time caused by traffic flow conditions. While
CO transport is limited, it does disperse over time with distance from the source under normal
meteorological conditions: Under certain extreme meteorological conditions. CO concentrations E`
_ z
Institute of Transportation Engineers.2004.Trip Generation.7th Edition. Single Family Detached Housing.Code
re 210.June. z.e
'C'lZxiPItPRIIDUCItiVS-MNI)V'uf,I.Vyur llluee lti Joll l/_I/_ixxJ 15
NMI
I 7 r
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
proximate to a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthy levels affecting local sen-
sitive receptors(e.g., residents, school children, the elderly, and hospital patients). Typically,
high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable
levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. The minimal increase in traffic as a re-
sult of the proposed project would not change the level of service in the project vicinity. Potential
impacts related to CO emissions would be less than significant.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the pro-
ject region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
(Less-Than-Significant Impact)
See III b above. Based on long-term emission estimates,the proposed project would not result in sub-
stantial impacts to the levels of any criteria pollutant.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated))
Construction of the proposed project may expose surrounding, sensitive land uses to airborne particu-
lates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of pollutants associated with the use of construction
equipment (e.g., diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). Sensitive receptors are facilities or land uses
that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants,
such as children,the elderly, and people with illnesses. Since there are residential areas next to the
site, sensitive receptors could be exposed to increased pollutant concentrations, especially during con-
struction. Additionally,the following schools are within 0.5 miles of the project site:Ygnacio Valley
Christian School,Ayers Elementary School, and Silverwood Elementary School. Sensitive receptors
at these schools could be exposed to construction-period airborne particles and fugitive dust. Imple-
mentation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level:
Mitieation Measure AIR-2: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-] to reduce construction-pe-
riod air quality impacts to sensitive receptors.
Air pollution associated with the proposed project would be primarily vehicle related,and would not
necessarily be concentrated in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, implementation of the pro-
posed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less-Titan-Significant
Impact)
The proposed project would not generate objectionable odors. In addition. the proposed project is not
located downwind from any significant odor sources (e.g., landfills, sewage treatment plants)that
could affect person within the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would
not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people or subject people to object-
ionable odors.
p{L'��v,ti III'Iti�Oi ICI'\LLQ-MNIJVuFIiU.NcI RWM.LS Jac I/_113�W✓ 16
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DP.AFIMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Bi
v `
J,4
Potentialh, s:
Significant Less Than
Potenlialh Unless Miti- Signifi-
Significant gation In- cant lm- No Im-
Impact corporated pact pact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect. either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local
or regional plans,policies, or regulations,or by the Cali-
forma Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife %I
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,
coastal,etc.)Through direct removal,filling,hydrologi-
cal interruption,or other means? r,
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native t:
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with es-
tablished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or +_
ordinance?
I') Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Con-
servation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan or
other approved local. regional.or State habitat conserva-
tion plan`' `
#L-
The following assessment of biological resources is based on information from a biological resources «,
study completed by Mosaic Associates, LLC6, an arborist report by Joseph McNeil' and a reconnais-
sance survey conducted by an LSA biologist on September 4, 2006. These reports are available for
public review at the Contra Costa County Development Department.
s ;
Mosaic Associates.Inc..2006.Biological Resources Report. 4925 Laurel Drive, Concord, Contra Costa County. �
July'31.
'Joseph McNeil.Consulting Arborist,2005.Report for Trees on and hnmediateh=Adjacent to the Project Site on
Laurel Drive. November 9.
I'TWl "Pill IN"1"I MIJI,I 6L.,Lv 1N-1IFJac1lIP alNMn ' - 17
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVI51 ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER tOOG INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any spe-
cies identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service' (Less-Titan-Significant Impact)
The project site includes a residence, horse boarding facilities,and ruderal/non-native grass land.
Vegetation on the project site is highly disturbed by the extensive horse grazing. Most of the site con-
sists of buildings and horse paddocks. Some of the paddocks are partially denuded and are dominated
by non-native grasses and ruderal plant species. The narrow portion of the site west of the buildings
and paddocks is ungrazed and supports non-native grasses,ruderal plant species, and scattered valley
oak(Quercus lobata), coast live oak(Quercus agrifoila), and California black walnut(Juglans cali-
fornico var. hindsii)trees.Non-native grasses on the site include foxtail barely (Hordeum rnurinum
ssp. lepor•inum), wild oat(Avena sp.),and ripgut brome(Bromus diandrus). Ruderal native and non-
native plants observed on the site include pigweed (Amaranthus sp), alkali mallow(Malvella lep-
rosa), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), common knotweed(Polygonum arenastrum), fire-
weed(Epilobium brachycorpum)and narrow-leaved milkweed(Asclepias fascicularis).
The project would also include the extension of the sewer line from the project site to an existing
trunk sewer system located in the-City of Concord near Tobi Drive, approximately 850 feet to the
southwest. There are two alignments currently under consideration.
Route A sewer alignment would be as follows: across an easement between residences on Laura
Drive; south under Laura Drive; beneath Mount Diablo Creek; and west under an unpaved City of
Concord access road to Tobi Drive. The two pits on either side of Mount Diablo Creek which fadili-'
tate the jack and bore operation would be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the top of bank,. outside
of the areas of riparian vegetation in the adjacent uplands. The access road area south of Mount
Diablo Creek, including the location of the two pits, is sparsely vegetated with ruderal plants and non-
native grasses such as puncture vine(Tribulus terrestris),pigweed, bur clover(Medicago polymor•-
pha), foxtail barley.and ripgut brome. The second alignment under consideration, Route B, would be
as follows: south from the project site in an existing 20-foot-utility easement; beneath Mount Diablo
Creek by the same bore and jack method as described above:then west under City of Concord land to
Tobi Drive. The bore and jack operation would be set back from the top of bank as described above in
Route A.
A biological reconnaissance survey was conducted at the project site on April 27, 2006 to determine
the potential for the site to support special-status species, and to identify other sensitive biological
resources such as jurisdictional waters of the United States! In addition, a reconnaissance level sur-
vey was conducted at the project site and the proposed pipeline extension area by an LSA biologist on
September 4. 2006. Prior to these two reconnaissance surveys,a list of special-status plant and wild-
life species was compiled from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)" California Na-
B Mosaic Associates.Inc.,2006.Biological Resources Report, 4925 Lourel Drive, Concord, Contra Costa County.
July 31.
9 California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG).2006. Rarefind.California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB).
P CCLIM.IIIURI iI111l:I N15-A1NI r.IVlili.l.:iiu.l l'll..lti�.III/_i/Olvv. I S
f �
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIV181 ON PROiE CT
NOVEMBER 1DD6 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
rt
Jh
6t
4
tive Plant Society (CLAPS)Inventorn of Rare and Endangered Plants of Californias° and the CNPS
on-line database.'' No special-status plant or wildlife species were observed on the project site during
the reconnaissance surveys. The project site and the pipeline area support ruderal habitats that are dis-
turbed and thus are unlikely to support special-status plant and wildlife species including Bridge's ":.
coast range shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta nickliana bridgesii), a species identified as poten-
tially but unlikely to occur at the site in the Mosaic Associates' report. Bore pits for the sewer under
crossing would be located outside of the drip line of trees located along the creek bank. Potential im-
pactsto special-status plant and wildlife species would be less than significant. y`
a
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and YVildlife Service? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation ,
Incorporated)
Wood Biological Consulting' conducted a formal wetland delineation at the project site on May 26,
2005. There is a linear depression located along the west side of the project site that appears to have y>.
been created by.a beam from the former rail line. The linear depression does not appear to meet the
technical parameters of a wetland subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, =
Regional Water Quality Control Board or California Department of Fish and Game. The project ap-
plicant will submit the findings of the delineation to the:U.S. Army Corp of Engineers for verifica-
tion.
The proposed project includes the extension'of a sanitary sewer line beneath Mount Diablo Creek,
approximately 300 feet southwest of the project site. This proposed pipeline and the associated pits
are located in uplands and will not impact any potential jurisdictional wetlands or non-wetland waters
of the United States. Drilling operations would be conducted above creek top of bank and would not
require the removal of riparian vegetation. Vegetation in this area consists of ruderal upland plant es
species. The proposed project could adversely affect water quality in Mount Diablo Creek through the
discharge of pollutants in runoff during and after construction and accidental discharge of soil during
the bore operation. Implementation of the following two mitigation measures would reduce this im-
pact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure BIO-l: Implement Mitigation Measure HYD-I,to prepare a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which will include Best Management Practices(BMP)to
- t"r
prevent potential water quality degradation. f
fi
Mitieation Measure B10-2: The applicant shall maintain all construction operations at least 10
feet from the top of the bank and at least 5 feet from the canopy of vegetation growing along
Mount Diablo Creek and shall not affect of the bank of the creek. w
t,
10 California Native Plant Societv(CNPS).2001.Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California(sixth edi-
tion).Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee.David P.Tibor,.Convening Editor.California Native Plant Societ}'.Sac-
ramento.California.x 388 pp.
California Native Plant Society(CNPS).2001.on-line lnventory of Rare and Endangered Plants v7-06c T 11-06,
httn://cnns.tieh.amus.neve=i-biniimiinvenutn.cei t
12 Wood Biological Consulting.2006,Wetland Delineation.492:5 Laurel Place.Concord.Contra Costa Count%.June
7.2006.
,s
-- 99 i
P'CCL'�N�,1\I'It�101 l(;Iti,Iti MNI)\I'',M1I�.,I u,n,l N.—I��.,� II'112iu��i '
Ym
. { ` ne x
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISI ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water-Act(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Through
direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Less-Than-Significant Im-
pact)
See IV.b, above.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory/fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites' (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated)
Shrubs and trees on the project site and adjacent to the pipeline and pits could provide nesting habitat
for a variety of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA). Development of the
proposed project includes the removal of several trees and shrubs. This could significantly impact
tree-nesting migratory birds and/or birds of prey. Although the bore and jack operation for the sewer
extension would be set back 10 feet from the top of the bank,the bore and jack operation and exca-
vating the pits could disrupt birds protected under the MBTA that are nesting in the adjacent trees in
Mount Diablo Creek. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce thi s impact
to a less-than-significant level' '
Mitieation Measure BI0-3: If site disturbance commences between March and August, a
qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey at the project site and at
any trees adjacent to the pipeline and along Mount Diablo creek at the location of the pits to
determine if any birds are nesting in or adjacent to the project site or pipeline area. The pre-
construction survey will be conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work from March-
May and within 30 days prior to the start of work from June-August. If the allotted amount of
time(15 or 30 days)elapses between the survey and site disturbance,the survey shall be re-
peated prior to site disturbance. If active nests of either migratory birds or birds of prey are
detected on or adjacent to the site, a no-disturbance buffer(generally 75 feet for passerines
and 250 feet for raptors) in which no new site disturbance is permitted until the qualified bi-
ologist determines that the young have successfully fledged. The size of the no-disturbance
buffer shall be determined by a qualified wildlife biologist in consultation with CDFG, and
shall take into account local site features and existing sources of potential disturbance.
e) Conflict with anv local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? (Less-Titan-Significant Impact)
Policies within the General Plan support preservation of significant trees, natural vegetation, and wild
life populations.''
13 Contra Costa County.2005. Contra Costa Counn,General Plan, Conservation Element.January.
P.!CL'OKIIIYItI Illi I('fS\I.�-MNOUuElic\I,nvcl Pliic I�J.n /�/�ixv20
1 I
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, LAUREL PLACE SU901VISI ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
�y
4
The County's Tree Protection Ordinance requires a permit to remove protected and heritage trees.1d
Anv tree with a circumference of at least 22 inches or any multi-stemmed tree with a circumference of
40 inches,where the circumference is measured at 54 inches above ground level, requires a tree per-
mit for removal.
The arborist's report surveyed 42 trees either on-site or off-site, along the property line.Out of the
approximately 22 trees on site. 21 would be removed. Of the 21 trees to be removed, 20 have a cir-
cumference greater than 22 inches(or 40 inches for multi-trunk trees). Based on the health and struc-
ture of the 20 heritage trees proposed for removal;the arborist's report recommends two for retention
(tree #850 and #861). Tree#861 is located within the extension of Laurel Drive right-of-way and
must be removed to accommodate the roadway. Tree 8850, an Elm tree with a 94-inch circumference,
may be removed but at this point would remain until improvement plan details are finalized.
Trees on adjacent properties would be protected as necessary from construction activity, as outlined '
in the arborists report. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources.As a result, this impact would be less than significant. i z
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat,Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other-approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? (No
Imp/pct)
The project site is not subject to the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural `'.
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. th
SA'
Potentially
_ Significant
Potentially Unless Mili- Less Than
Significant gation In- Significant No Im-
1 Impact corporated Impact pacte-.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Y
-J
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
„ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique eeologic feature" `j
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
14
Contra Costa County Municipal Code.Chapter 816-4. Heritage Tree Preservation District,and Chapter 816-6.
Tree Protection and Preservation. ..1
' I'KCLlx.ii l\IIt��U11C[SLLti MMJWuM1IwU.uwal I'In<i IS J.. ,I ll:l/2xx,, 71
v-
i
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVI51 ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 1006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following section is based on a cultural resources study for the project site conducted by Holman
Archaeological Consultants&Associates.15'This study is available for review at the Contra Costa
County Community Development Department.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
The house on the project site was originally constructed in the 1950s. The garage was added in 1956
and additions to the house were made in the 1980s. The house is a single-story stucco bungalow. It is
a typical example of the post-war construction that is still prevalent in the general area, and thus lacks
any particular architectural distinction which may qualify it for further analysis. There are no known
significant historic resources or events associated with this site.
h) Cause a substantial adverse change in the.Significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
Based on the environmental setting of the project site, it was previously determined that the site had a
moderate sensitivity for containing historic and prehistoric archeological resources.A literature re-
view and a field inspection were conducted in Winter 2006.No evidence of historic and or prehistoric
resources was discovered;no additional research is warranted.
If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during project activi-
ties,all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist con-
tacted to assess the finds and make recommendations. The archaeologist shall submit a plan for
evaluation of the resources to the Community Development Department for approval.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic fea-
ture? (Less-Tian-Significant Impact)
There are no known paleontological resources,or unique geologic feature or sites on the project site,or
within the immediate vicinity.Should paleontological resources be uncovered during grading or other on-
site excavation(s), earthwork within 50 feet of these materials shall be stopped until a certified
professional archaeologistlpaleontoIogist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find
and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) if deemed necessary.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Less-
Than-Significant Impact)
The project site is developed and the probability of finding human remains is minimal. However, if
human remains are encountered during construction of the proposed project,. work within the vicinity
of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time,
an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation. Project personnel shall not collect or move
any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin,the
Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification.
Nolman Archaeological Consultants& Associates.2006. Cultural Resources Study of the Proposed Subdivision
8769 Laurel Place.Concord.Contra Costa County.California..lanuaiy.
r tcav+i rre�n n���zusalNrnFiad,cuyiud Pmcc Is d,i I Ir Iann22
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISI ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER I006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD)to in-
spect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated
grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment,the archaeologist shall prepare a report document-
ing the methods and results. and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains
and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of
the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the project applicant,the appropriate County agencies, and
the Northwest Information Center.
Potentially
Significant
Potentialh, Unless Miti- Less Than
Significant gation In- Significant No Im-
Impact corporated Impact pact
V1. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ad-
verse effects, including the risk of loss,injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated 1 7
11
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 Geol-
ogy Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? O
iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefac-
tion?
iv)Landslides? 0
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable.or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading. subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil. as defined in Table 18-1-
B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating sub-
stantial risks to life or property?
I•'l�-i•+I`I'lVi illl iLl.'IS�MNI)\I'iil+lic�iu•I I'la.I\J.,,111/ I/^Ixxi7
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROJECT
NOVEMBER. 2000 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
Potentially
Significant
Potentialh Unless Miti- Less Than
Significant gation In- Significant No Im-
Impact corporated Impact pact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal sys-
tems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
waste water?
Darwin Myers Associates peer reviewed a geologic report prepared by Jensen-Van Lienden Associ-
ates, Inc., in June,200516, for the project site and prepared a summary of that study.17 The following
assessment of geology and soils is based on these two reports, which are available for public review
at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department.
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injut3), or death involving. i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geol-
ogn Special Publication 42; ii)Strong seismic ground shaking; iii) Seismic-related ground fail-
tire, including liquefaction; iv)Landslides?
i) Fault Rupture (No Impact). The San Francisco Bay region is a seismically active region that
is subject to large earthquakes: there are 30 known faults in the Bay Area that are considered capable
of generating earthquakes. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone that encompasses recently ac-
tive and potential active traces of the Concord fault passes 3 miles southwest of the project site, and is
the nearest active fault. Therefore; implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons
or structures to substantial adverse effects due to the rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii) Ground-shaking (Less-Than-Significant Impact). Ground shaking, rather than surface fault
rupture- is the cause of most damage during earthquakes, because it affects a much broader area.
Three major factors affect the severity (intensity) of ground shaking after an earthquake: the size
(magnitude) of the earthquake: the distance to the fault that generated the earthquake; and the geo-
logic materials that underlie the site. Thick, loose soils, such as Bay mud, tend to amplify and prolong
ground shaking.
According to the Safety Element of the County's General Plan,the site is in an area rated"moderate
damage susceptibility'. The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the build-
ing codes and County Grading Ordinance. The Uniform Building Code(UBC) requires use of seismic
parameters which allow the structural engineering analysis for buildings to be based on soil profile
types." Compliance with building and grading regulations would keep risks within generally ac-
cepted levels.
".Jensen—Van Lienden Associates Inc.2005.Geotechnical Engineering Studd-, Proposed Subdivision 8769.Con-
cord.CA.June 17.
1' Darwin Myers Associates.2005.Geologic Peer Review-30 Dqv Comments. Project No.308.i.05. November 21.
s Uniform Building Code. 1997.Volume 2.Div.5,pg.2-23.
I'^A:LLixn,IPIiI,I N IT,��ItiMNI)I'uFl,c\I.uuil l'I,iix I�J,v l l/`Il�,,,x„ 74
J
f
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROJECT
NOVEMBER 10011 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
— G
iii) Ground Failure and Liquefaction (Less-Than-Significant Impact). Soil liquefaction is a phe-
nomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers located close to the ground surface. These
soils lose strength during ground shaking. Due to the loss of strength, the soil acquires a "mobility" 1,
sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most susceptible to lique-
faction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine-grained sands that lie relatively close to the
ground surface. Loose sands that contain a significant amount of fines (silt and clay fraction) may d
also liquefy.
According to the Safety Element, the site has a"generally moderate to low" liquefaction potential.
Previous mapping of the area indicates the site is covered by floodplain deposits from Mount Diablo "
Creek(QhaF); which are underlain by Late Pleistocene alluvium at depth." The geologic survey of
the site by Jensen Van-Lienden examined six boreholes on the site and corroborated previous maps of
the area. Materials examined are consistent with I to 2 feet of clayey top soil overlying.Pleistocene
alluvium. These soils do not have liquefaction potential.
s..
iv) Landslides (No Impact). No landslides are shown on maps for the area published by the U.S. ,
Geological Survey.20
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitiga-
tion Incorporated)
The 1977 Soil Survey of Contra Costa County indicates that the erosion hazard is low and the prelim- $,1'
inary finding of the County peer review geologist is the site is suitable for residential use. The poten-
tial for soil erosion and loss of topsoil is greatest during the period of earthwork activities and be-
tween the time when earthwork is completed and when new vegetation is established, or asphalt is
laid. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential risks of soil erosion 1>
or loss of topsoil to a less-than-significant level: t
p a,a
Mitieation Measure GEO-1: Implement Mitigation Measures HYD-I to prepare a Storm Water t
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
by,�
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, at-that would become unstable cis a result
of the project, and poteratiallr result in on- or of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, t
liquefaction or collapse? (Less-Titan-Significant Impact)
Review of the existing geologic data indicates that the project is feasible. There is no landslide haz-
ard. t,
t<;
s
w Hellep.E.J.and R.W.Gravmer. 1997.Omternary Geologi,of Contra Costa Count),and Scn-rounding Pores of
Y
Alameda, Marin,Sonoma Sbinnq. .Srrcrnmento, and San Joaquin Cozuuies, California. cr Digital Database. U.S. Geoloeical Y,
Serve}',Open File Report 97-98.
0 Nilsen.T.H.. 1975.Preliminan Photoinverpretive Map of Landslide and Otter Surficial Deposits 01 the Clavton
75 Minute Quadrangle. Contra Costa Counm. U.S.Geological Survey.Open File Map 75-277-12.
gzi
I',K'L'llw.lil\I'It1IDIIL'I SUV MM)\I tihli.0l .'lu.11l/`Il?ixu,1 2� _
E,
t
1
1 . .�
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISI ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incor-
porated)
Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture changes that can cause heaving and cracking
of slab-on-grade or pavement and structures built on shallow foundations.Expansive soils are an en-
gineering issue that can result in building damage due to volume changes and can be reduced by:
placing slabs on select granular fill; by use of rigid mat or post-tensioned slabs; or drilled pier founda-
tions with pier depths extending below the depth of seasonal moisture change.
The proposed building sites and roadways are underlain by moderately to highly expansive soils, and
some soils in the vicinity are corrosive. The Jensen-Van Lienden Associates. Inc.,report provides
recommendations for foundations, but further evaluation of grading plans and foundation plans is
warranted prior to issuance of construction permits in order to: ensure that the grading, foundations
and drainage plans are consistent with the intent of the geotechnical report; provide Jensen-Van
Lienden Associates, Inc. the opportunity to add supplemental recommendations (e.g. quality of im-
port fill); and ensure that plans include effective measures to control moisture around foundations.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce potential risks from expansive
and corrosive soils to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure GEO-2: The recommendations of the Jensen-Van Lienden Associates, Inc.,
report shall be implemented during design and construction where appropriate to minimize ex-
pansive soils on structures. Potential foundation systems include: pier and grade beam; struc-
tural concrete mats or post-tensioned stabs;pad overcutting to provide uniform swell potential;
and soil subgrade moisture treatment.
Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Prior to issuance of building permits, chemical testing of repre-
sentative building pad soils shall be submitted to determine the level of corrosion protection re-
quired for steel and concrete materials used for construction. In order to protect against corro-
sion where it is found to be a potential issue,the project applicant shall use sulfate-resistant
concrete and protective linings to encase steel piping buried in native soils.
Mitigation Measure GEO-4: The geotechnical engineer shall observe and monitor grading and
provide a grading completion report prior to issuance of building permits and shall monitor
foundation and drainage installation and document their observations in a report submitted to
the Building Inspection Department prior to framing.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are 1701 available for the disposal of waste water? (No Impact)
The proposed project would be served by public sewers and would not require the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal systems.
Ncca�niwennuclsu�MNuPmB=dowc�Pwit i,v a,... is in_,.., - 26
V ,
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROTECT
NOVEMBER ROUE INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
N
Vt
P - - Potentialiv
Significant °
Potentiallc Unless Miti- Less Than
Significant gation In- Significant No Im-
Impact corporated Impact pact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would ;,
the project:
3.i
f '
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ-
}?_
ment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of
hazardous materials? #>.:
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ-
ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,substances, or waste within one- .;
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of haz-
ardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government 1 .
Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment9 'j.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
s-
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? j
Iry
I) For a project located within the vicinity of a private an h `
strip, would the project result in a safety hazard for peo-
pie residing or working in the project area? '
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacua-
lion plan? '
9t.>
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, '
'x injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where resi-
dences are intermixed with wildlands?
a) Create a significant ha=ard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) k`:
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of eight new residences and
associated landscaping,the extension of a road,. and the extension of a sewer line. Although small
quantities of commercially-available hazardous materials could be used within the new residences,
I'iC'CC i V,0I i kODI ICT SII ti-MNI1TUHILMAU I P11111 P,J.1.t 111_IRI KM _ 77 +"
E'
t3'
4
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
consistent with residential uses. and could be used for landscape maintenance,these materials would
not be used in sufficient quantities.to pose a threat to human or environmental health. While gas and
diesel fuel would typically be used by the construction vehicles, Best Management Practices (BMPs)
would be utilized to ensure that no construction-related fuel hazards occur. Therefore,implementation
of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials.
As part of the building pen-nit process, all plans are reviewed for compliance with applicable Building
and Fire Department requirements,pursuant to the Uniform Building and Fire Codes, and all other
related County requirements.No additional measures would be required.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hasardous materials into the environ-
mens? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated)
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed for the site by AEI Consultants in May,
2005. " The discussion below summarizes the findings of the assessment, which is available for re-
view at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department.
The project site is located in a residential and agricultural area of Contra Costa County. Historically,
the site was used for residential and horse boarding uses. A one-story house, adjacent garage,three
barns, four covered hose pens, and one storage shed are located on the site. The original house, barns,
and garage were built in the 1950s and the house was enlarged in the 1980s.
The site does not have any recognized environmental conditions defined as the presence or likely
presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products under conditions that indicate an exist-
ing release, past release-or a material threat of a release into structures on the property or into the
ground,groundwater,or surface water of the property. Additionally, historically recognized environ-
mental conditions are not found on the site.
The project site contains household debris such as furniture, boxes, wire, wood and other building
materials, pipes,tools, car batteries, and household appliances that will be removed from the site. If
not properly disposed of, certain components of this debris may present a hazard to the public. Im-
plementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Debris on the site, including car batteries and appliances shall be
disposed of properly. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit,the applicant shall provide a writ-
ten statement to the County detailing a plan for cleaning the site including details of where/how
the various materials will be disposed or recycled. Prior to issuance of a grading permit a final
version of the plan with copies of disposal/recycle receipts/documentation shall be submitted to
the County.
There are two septic systems are located on the site: one has not been used for at least 25 years and
the other is currently in use. The current septic leach field is located on the west side of the property.
If not properly decommissioned. materials may present a hazard to construction works on site as well
'' AEl Consultants.2005.Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. 4925 Laurel Drive, Project No. 11343.May 19.
Ptill va111,101101111 tiVS-MNDV'uhI ll.0 cl IN—IS Jnc 11 IC I/JNM.I 28
�- LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROIECT
NOVEMBEk 2004 _ INITIAL STUDY/DkAFIMITIGATED NEGATIVE CIECLARATION ¢�
Yr;
ars
as the public. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level:
f
k$
Mitieation Measure HAZ-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the applicant shall decommis- , ,
Sion any on-site septic systems in accordance with state and County requirements and provide
t :
evidence of decommissioning to the Building Division. ,
The existing residence on the project site was constructed during the late 1950s,and therefore may
9
' contain lead-based paint(LBP) and/or asbestos-containing materials. Demolition of this structure may
release lead particles and asbestos fibers into the air,where they could potentially pose a health risk to "j
construction workers and the general public. . k'
implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impacts of exposure to LBP to rV
a less-than-significant level '
Mitieation Measure HAZ-3: Prior to demolition of structures that may contain LBP, a compre
hensive EPA/HUD-level Lead Based Paint survey shall be conducted. If any LBP is identified,
it shall be removed from the site in accordance with all applicable regulations, including OSHA
guidelines.
Implementation of the following.mitigation measure would reduce the impacts of exposure asbestos-
containing materials to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: Prior to demolition, a complete Asbestos Hazard Emergency Re-
sponse Act-level pre-demolition Asbestos Survey shall be conducted. A licensed asbestos
abatement contractor shall be retained to abate identified asbestos-containing material in actor-
dance with all applicable regulations.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school' (Potentially Sign ifPcaat
Unless Mitigation Incorporated) a'+
Ygnacio Valley Christian School is located within 0.25 miles of the project site. As described in Sec- 1`
tion VII.a and VII.b above, the proposed project includes the construction of residential units and
would not result in the routine use, transport, or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous mate-
rials. However,the hazardous materials may be released into the environment during the demolition '
of existing structures. implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impacts
of exposure to hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level:
Mitieation Measure HAZ-5: Implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-3 and HAZ-4. lid
d) Be located on a site which it included on a list o)-hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant '
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment' (No Impact)
The project site is not located on the list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Govern-
meet Code Section 65962.5 and would not pose a significant health hazard to the public.or environ-
ment,
5=
P Olt x 11PRf)Di L'I�%JS Plo.i Is d11 IR 1121xv,l -)9
_ 4n
M1}
�x)
1
1._
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISI ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2DO6 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a
safeq/hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact)
The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport.
J) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact)
The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.'
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergenci,response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
The proposed project would develop eight new residences, improve and extend Laurel Place and ex-
tend a sewer line. The project is located at the dead-end of Laurel Drive and would not impair or
physically interfere with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan. Additionally, the road ex-
tension and improvements have been designed to County standards, and thereby would be of an ade-
quate width and grade to accommodate emergency vehicles, as well as emergency evacuation.
In addition, as part of the building permit process,all plans are reviewed for compliance with appli-
cable Building and Fire Department requirements,pursuant to the Uniform Building and Fire Code,
and all other related County requirements.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury 07--death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas Or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands' (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
The project site is located in a low to moderate fire hazard area as designated by the California De-
partment of Forestry and Fire Protection."` Additionally,the site is not located near an urban/wild-
land interface. The Concord U.S. Naval Weapons Station, located near the project site is designated
for urban uses by the County's General Plan and is not a high fire hazard area. Therefore..the pro-
posed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss from wildfires.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Mili- Less Th an
Significant gation In- Significant No im-
Impact corporated Impact pact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
aj Violate any seater quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Dvett and Maim.2003. Concord General Plan Update,Map Ados.August 20.
V XC'L✓AiIPI<INIi LT1�I, M�111I'iiM1lilnirtl l'WIti Janl II/_Illxwi 30
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PRO IECT g
NOVEMBER 1006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE ❑ECLARATION #'e,
4
O
Potentially t j:
Significant
Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than
Significant gation In- Significant No lm-
Impact corporated Impact pact '
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering r i
of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)? ;:
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area. including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river. in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area., including through the alteration of the a ❑ • ❑ .;
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?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed °
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of pol-
luted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? �
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood r
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
�- map?
h"
hj Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
z,
ti which would impede or redirect flood flows? Zy.;.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
in ury or death involving flooding, including flooding of ;
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by selene.tsunami, or mudflow?
L:
a„.
�1
a) Violate anti water gtralih standards or waste discharge regtrirenrents.' (Potentinllp Sign
cant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) `'''
)f
I"(:C'IRAIIV'N11>UL'I'S\ISMNDYI+I.\I.vu lll. l-SI.ill'I/'iin, ,I �'0
q8”
4
I 4
� i R
j
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SVBDIVISI ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLAIJATION
Construction Period Impacts. Construction period activities could cause a deterioration of water
quality due to erosion, fuel leaks.. tire wear, sediment release, and the exposure of polluted soil to rain.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level:
Mitigation Measure HYD-1:The project applicant shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Pre-
vention Plan (S WPPP)designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through
the construction period of the project. Measures to protect water quality during the bore opera-
tion of the sanitary sewer line beneath Mount Diablo Creek shall be developed and imple-
mented.
With the above noted plan, the applicant shall also submit a sanitary sewer construction plan for
the decided upon sewer line alignment(either Route A or B),that provides measures to protect
water quality during the bore operation of the sanitary sewer line beneath Mount Diablo Creek.
This plan shall be subject to the review of the County and City of Concord Public Works De-
partment and review and approval of the County Zoning Administrator.
The plan shall provide details involved in constructing the sewer line, which is required to be
gravity flow, from Tobi Drive to the project site including, but not limited to, showing the
alignment of the proposed sewer line from Tobi Drive to the project site, with cross sections
showing the proposed sewer line crossing under the Mount Diablo Creek.The plan shall also
show the location of the pits on either side of the creek and any trees in proximity to the pro-
posed sewer fine alignment.
It is not required that the S W PPP be submitted to the RWQCB, but it must be maintained on-
site and made available to RWQCB staff upon request. The SWPPP shall include specific and
detailed Best Management Practices(BMPs) designed to mitigate construction-related pollut-
ants. At a minimum. BMPs shall include practices to minimize the contact of construction ma-
terials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants,paints, solvents,adhesives)
with stormwater. The S WPPP shall specify properly designed centralized storage areas that
keep these materials out of the rain.The S WPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be im-
plemented by the construction site supervisor, and must include both dry and wet weather in-
spections.
Operation Period Impacts. The proposed project is subject to the San Francisco Bay Region Re-
gional Water Quality Control Board C.3 provisions. A Stormwater Control Plan (S WCP) has been
designed for the proposed project in accordance with the requirements outlined in the Contra Costa
County Stormwater C.3 guidebook to minimize potential runoff pollution during the life of the pro-
posed project.23 The proposed project would include two filtration planters. The planters would be
located on either side of Laurel Place. The planter on the west would be approximately 5 feet wide
and 325 feet long. The planter on the east would be approximately 6.5 feet wide and 218 feet long.
Though the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surface on the site and would
increase the rate of runoff, the diversion of the runoff due to the filtering process would increase the
time of concentration to the point where there would be no increase in the peak run off due to the
'J Perrnco Engineering L Manalaement.2006.Laurel Place, Subdivision 5769, Contra Costa County, California,
Stormwater Control Plan, March 29.
PxWa 11Jul vu S.Nmlo weecu.umd rmcv Is aim IIq IC4MN'J j2
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROJECT
NOVEMBER. 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
{
t
proposed development. In addition, runoff from the project site would be directed to either on-lot fil-
tration planters or streetside filtration planters thereby providing treatment to virtually all of the storm
runoff prior to entering the County's storm drain system and Mount Diablo Creek.
b) Substantiallv deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater re-
charge 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)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
Existing site conditions, i.e., low permeability clay soils, limit the amount of groundwater recharge
that occurs naturally on the site. The proposed development would not substantially alter existing
conditions because it would utilize infiltration planters to filter runoff on site before conveying the
4 water to the storm drain system. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in direct addi-
tions or withdrawals to existing groundwater because it would utilize the public water system (Contra
Costa Water District).
Y
} c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the al-
teration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result insubstantial ero-.
sion or siltation on-or off-site? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
Under existing conditions, the project site drains in two directions. The northern 1.06 acres drain to
the western edge of the site, along the old railroad right of way towards Myrtle Drive to the north.
The southern 2.71 acres also drains west to the edge of the site and then southwest towards Mount
Diablo Creek. Construction of the project would slightly alter the existing drainage pattern but in-
i
creased rates of runoff would be offset by diversion to filtration planters and would not result in an
increase in peak runoff. Therefore, the minor alterations to the existing drainage pattern would not
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the al-
teration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of sur-
face runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off site? (Less-Tit an-Signiftcnnt
Impact)
The existing site is developed with one residence and several accessory structures. Implementation of
the proposed project would result in construction of eight residences and would increase the amount
of impervious surface,thereby, increasing the amount of stormwater runoff from the site. However, as
discussed above,the proposed filtration planters would filter runoff and slow the rate of runoff from
the project site so that peak flows are not increased. Therefore. the proposed project would not sub-
stantially alterthe existing drainage pattern or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-
off in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Less-Than-Significant Impact)
a —
PkTox•nI\YHGDUCISUS-MJUWuM1Ia'U.umd PWm l[uac illrzlrzxxa
33
r
f1
I
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISI ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2nn6 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D£CLARATION
The proposed project would capture runoff caused by the increase in impervious surfaces through
filtration planters at various locations on the project site. As mentioned in Sections VIII.c and VIIIA,
above,the project would not result in increased amounts of peak runoff. Implementation of the S WCP
would reduce potential pollutants in runoff to acceptable levels(see Section Vlll.a).
j7 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation In-
corporated)
A well is located near the rear of the house and should be properly abandoned. If the well is not prop-
erly decommissioned, it could be damaged during construction, potentially resulting in impacts to
groundwater quality. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the level of
significance of this impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the applicant shall properly
abandoned the existing well on site in compliance with the California Department of Water Re-
sources, California Well Standards and County requirements and provide evidence of abandon-
ment to the Building Division.
The bore and jack operation for placing the sewer lines under Mount Diablo Creek would utilize a
horizontal boring process, which may use a mixture of bentonite (an inert clay)or other additives to
support the boring and move the cuttings back to the access pit. These fluids are typically screened
onsite and recirculated back into the boring during drilling. Upon completion of the drilling project,
the fluids would require disposal. Improper handling and/or discharge of the drilling fluids, if used,
could result in a significant impact to surface water quality. However, implementation of Mitigation
Measure HYD-3, which requires appropriate management of drilling fluids, would reduce this poten-,
tial impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure HYD-3: The applicant will ensure that any drilling fluids used in the
horizontal boring process for the installation of sewer line are properly contained and dewa-
tered on-site or properly disposed of off-site. If on-site containment and dewatering methods
are used,the applicant and its contractors will ensure that the containment area is protected
from surface water runoff and erosion.
In addition, drilling near the ground surface or close to the bed of a surface water body introduces the
potential for an unplanned "frac-out," in which the pressure of the drilling fluid generates a surface
rupture, causing a release of the fluid to the ground surface or water column (if drilling is conducted
under an actively flowing creek). Although most drilling fluids are nontoxic, a release can smother
habitat and increase turbidity and suspended sediments in the water column. Implementation of Miti-
gation Measure HYD-4,which requires the preparation and implementation of a frac-out contingency
plan, would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant-level:
Mitigation Measure HYD-4: The applicant or its contractor will prepare and implement a
frac-out contingency plan for any boring activities that use pressurized drilling fluids(other
than water).The plan will be subject to approval by the County Public Works Division before
boring can begin. If the boring method does not use pressurized drilling fluids,then no frac-
out contingency plan is required. The frac-out plan will include: measures intended to mini-
mize the potential for a frac-out associated with boring activities; provide for the timely de-
I'til�I✓dll!I'IlI IINI�'I'vUv-MNI IPIIiiUuw.'I I'I,.Iti Jnv Il ll:llllx✓.I 34
l'.
/
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2066 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
1!
tection of frac-outs; and ensure an organized,timely, and "minimum-impact"response in the
event of a frac-out and release of drilling fluid (i.e., bentonite).-.
The contingency plan will require,at a minimum,the following measures:
• A full-time monitor will attend all drilling to look for observable frac-out conditions or
lowered pressure readings on drilling equipment.
• if a frac-out is identified, all work will stop, including the recycling of drilling fluid. In
the event of a frac-out into water,the pressure of water above the tunnel will keep excess
mud from escaping through the fracture.The location and extent of the frac-out will be
determined, and the frac-out will be monitored for four hours to determine whether the
drilling fluid congeals (bentonite will usually harden, effectively sealing the frac-out lo-
cation).
• If the drilling fluid congeals,no other actions, such as disturbance of the streambed,will
be taken that would potentially suspend sediments in the water column.
• Surface releases of bentonite will be allowed to harden and then will be removed.
The contingency plan will identify additional measures to be taken to contain or remove
the drilling fluid if it does not congeal, such as removal by suction hose using a vacuum
truck
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other food hazard delineation map? (No Impact)
The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area and, therefore, would not result in
the placement of housing in a flood hazard area.
w h) - Place within a 100-vear food hazard area structures which would impede or redirect food
flows? (No Impact)
As mentioned in Section Vlll.g.. above, the project site isnot located within a 100-year flood hazard
area. Therefore, development of the site would not result in the placement of structures which would
impede or redirect the flood flows.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, in- z
cluding flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (No Impact)
The project site is not located in a flood-prone zone, including an area subject to flooding as a result
of dam or levee faiIure.Z'
2'Association of Bav Area Govemments. 1995.dov Area Dann Failure h7u ndatioln Hazards, Website: r
www.aba2.ca.gov/bavarea/eqmaps/darnfaiiure/danifail.hunl.
III<i it li it lI, MNI1V'iiFliiJ.uw lVluvc 1.\Jig. I l/'_IIZIW✓J35
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISI ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2004 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
f Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudfloA,? (No Impact)
The project site is situated approximately 230 feet above mean seal level and is not located near the
Suisun Bay or any other large bodies of water.The potential for the project site to be inundated by
seiche, tsunami or mudflow is not significant.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than
Significant gation In- Significant No]at-
Impact corporated Impact pact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
_ a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or ■
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan,specific
plan. local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or.mitigating an environ-
mental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
a) Phvsicallt/divide an established community? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
The project site is located at the dead-end of Laurel Drive and is not currently connected with the sur-
rounding community via other roads. A fence separates the site from residences to the west, along
Laura Drive. Implementation of the project would not divide the neighborhood or impede the use of
public access routes in the vicinity of the project site. Additionally,as part of the proposed project,a
12-foot wide pedestrian trail would be constructed along the western edge of the lot, which could im-
prove pedestrian access through the area.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agencv with jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal pro-
gram, or'zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
The County General Plan designates the project site as Single-Family Residential-Low Density (SL),
which allows for 1.0 to 2.9 single family units per net acre and a maximum lot size of 43,560 square
feet. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a density of 2.7 units per net acre and
would conform to the allowed uses for the site.
The project site is zoned R-20, but would be rezoned to R-15 as part of the proposed project. This
change in zoning would be consistent with surrounding districts: parcels to the west and south are
zoned R-10 and parcels to the north and east are zoned R-20. The proposed project conforms with the
R-15 requirements for lot area and dimensions. Therefore.the proposed project would not conflict
P LCU✓.n ll'HnUI u_VIIS-MNI NIhiM1Ld.umvl Plei<I[Jne l lclelK,l
_36
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVIS I ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARArION
with any applicable land use plan, policy. or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the pro-
ject.
The City of Concord has indicated in a letter, dated November 2,2006,that after the sewer design is
approved by the appropriate agencies and all the permits, easements and dedications have been ob-
tained by the developer to construct the sewer line,the City will maintain the sewer system from the
project site to the connection with the existing City sanitary sewer system as described above. It does
not appear that the site would require annexation to the City for sewer service since in 1964; by Reso-
lution Number 2423,the City Council approved sewer service to this area as part of an Ulti mate Sew-
erage Service Boundary.
c) Conflict with ani,applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan? (]Vo Impact)
The project site is not subject to a habitat conservation plan,nor is it located within a significant eco-
logical area as designated by the General Plan.
Potentially -
significant
- potentially Unless Miti- Less Than
Significant gation In- Significant No Inn-
Impact corporated Impact pact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral re-
source that would be of value to the region and the resi-
dents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan. specific plan or other land use plan?
q) Result in the loss of availabilim of known mineral resource that would be of value to the re-
gion and the residents of the State? (No Impact)
No known mineral resources are present on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project
would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site deline-
ated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact)
The project site is not designated by the general plan or other land use plans as a locally-important
mineral recovery site.
I'iLL0W. kPIR,IDI ILT[US-MM)4t,bh,JAI I'la-li ll/_I/lrnv.,
37
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISI ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than"
-, Significant gation In- Significant 'No Im- -
Impact corporated Impact pact
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance,or applicable,standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise lev-
els in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ .
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in
,the project area to excessive noise levels?
a) Exposure ofpersons to or generation of noise levels in excess ofstandards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less-Than-
Significant Impact)
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound.Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiolo-
gical or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep.
Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A deci-
bel (dB)is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound. Sound levels in dB
are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic
energy,while 20 dB is 100 times more intense and.30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB
increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Sound intensity is nor-
mally measured through the A-weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the
frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A-weighted sound level is the
basis for 24-hour sound measurements which better represent how humans are more sensitive to
P'LCCWEI IIPRODUCI'tiV5-MM)V'uhlmUnmd Fla-Edi 11 lCdxn 38
i
u -
i
p:
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2004 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITICAIEU NEOA71VE D ECLARATIDN
Y!
4'
sound at night. These measurements include the day/night sound level (DNL)and the Community
Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).'s
The Countv General Plan establishes an acceptable noise environment for residential land uses of 60
dBA Ld,.Noise levels ranging up to a 70 dBA Ld„ are conditionally acceptable.Noise contours for
existing and future time periods are provided in the General Plan for freeways, major arterials, and
railways. The proposed project site is in a suburban, residential area and is not located adjacent to l
significant noise sources. The existing noise environment would be less than 60 dBA Ldn which is .
considered acceptable for residential uses.
t
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
Construction of the proposed project would require minor excavation and earthwork activities. AI-
though these activities could result in infrequent periods of high noise,this noise would not be sus-
tained and would occur only during the temporary construction period. No pile driving or other con-
struction activity that would generate very high noise levels or ground borne vibration would occur
within the project site. Therefore, this impact is considered less-than-significant.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
The long-term use of the project is residential. This land use would not generate high ambient noise
levels. The project would not generate enough traffic to create a perceptible change in traffic noise in
the vicinity of the project site. No substantial long-term increase in ambient noise levels is expected `'
as a result of project implementation.
r-
Ell
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity,
above levels existing without the project? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could temporarily in-
crease ambient noise levels. However,these noise levels would occur in association with minor exca-
vation and earthwork activities_, would be intermittent and short term, and would not be considered
significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
i-
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?(No Impact)
a
t=
'S La is the 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight.obtained after the addition of 10
decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m.and 7:00 a.m.CNEL is the 24-hour A-weighted average
sound level from midnight to midnight.obtained after the addition of 5 decibels to sound levels occurring in the evening
from 7:00 p.m.to 10:00 p.m.and after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m.
Source:Handbook of Acoustical Measurement and Noise Control. 1991. # `
4"r
I'R'r�r•dIIIPItIIOIICf M1V�-MNO\I'uf.liuVvwell luL 11 Jn. Ill:ll`Ixr., 39 k+,'
k'
SR
-♦ S v
n
�! f2
l
yi
.
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUODIVISI ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 7086 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
The County General Plan provides airport noise contours for Buchanan Field airport and Byron air-
port. The proposed project would not be located in an airport land use plan or within two miles of a
public or public use airport.Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose per-
sons within the project site to high levels of airport-related noise.
J) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact)
The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore,the proposed project
would not expose on the project site to excessive airport-related noise.
Potentially
_ Significant.-., ..
Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than
Significant gotion In- Significant No Im-
Impact corporated Impact pact
X11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly(for example,by proposing new•homes and busi-
nesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,neces-
sitating the construction of replacement housing else-
where?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other infra-
structure)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
The proposed project would replace the one single-family residence on the site with eight single-
family residences and would therefore increase the population on the site from approximately 2.5 per-
sons to 20 persons.26 Contra Costa County has a population of 1,006,486 persons;"this increase
would not be a substantial population growth.
The proposed project would not indirectly induce a substantial growth in population through the ex-
tension of sewer services as the majority of parcels in the area are developed. Many of the parcels are
currently on septic service and the extension of the proposed sewer line could benefit these properties.
Based on an average of 2.5 persons per household(Contra Costa County General Plan,pp.3-15).
21 U.S.Census Bureau,2005,American Community Survey for Contra Costa County.California.
I`LLLIvdI HAW 1111 IC'11111-MNIN uEli,\I.r l PI.-IS Joc I111211Nn v.I 40
a
LSA AS S OCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROJECT
NOVEMBER 7054 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
h) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
The proposed project would develop eight single-family residences on a site having one residence and
several accessory structures. Since the site is predominantly undeveloped, implementation of the pro-
ject would not displace a substantial number of housing units or people and would not necessitate the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
c) Displace substantial numbers ofpeople, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Less-Titan-Significant Impact)
As described in Section Xll.b, above,the proposed project would result in the displacement of one
household. This displacement is not,substantial and would not necessitate the construction of re-
placement housing elsewhere.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than
Significant gation In- Significant No Im-•
Impact corporated Impact pact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
aj Would the project result in substantial ad'vdrse`physisal 13
impacts associated with the provision of new or physi-
cally altered governmental facilities,need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,the construc-
tion of which could cause significant environmental im-
pacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,re-
sponse times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse pirvsical impacts associated with the provision
ofnew or phvsically altered governmental facilities, need for new or-phvsically altered govern-
mental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or otter performance objectives for
anv of the public services. Fire protection,police protection, schools,porks, other public facili-
ties' (Less-Than-Signiftcant Impact)
- rcca.A,r.rwnniians-mNira`,ni,�� �drweisa„,iin_irzaw., 41
�2� 1'
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVZS ION PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D£CLARATION
The project site is located in a pocket of unincorporated County land surrounded by the City of Con-
cord and both the County and City of Concord provide public services to the site. Public fire protec-
tion services are provided by Contra Costa Fire District and police protection services are provided by
Concord Police Department. School services are provided by Mount Diablo Unified School District.
Parks and recreational facilities are provided by both the County and the City of Concord.
The proposed project would result in the intensification of residential uses on an underdeveloped par-
cel within a suburban area.The increase in population would result in an incremental increase in de-
mand for fire, police, school and park services. Where required,the payment of in-lieu fees would
further reduce potential impacts related to the provision of public services. Implementation of the pro-
posed project.would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,
need or construction of government facilities.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than
'- Significant gation In- Significant No Im-
Impact corporated Impact pact
XIV. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighbor- ❑ ❑ ❑
hood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be'accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require ❑ ® ❑
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the envi-
ronment?
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other-rec-
reational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the racility would occur or be
accelerated.`' (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a population increase of approximately 18
persons on the project site. The proposed residences would include private yards. The increase in the
use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of the pro-
posed project would not be such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated. Where required, the payment of in-lieu fees would further reduce potential impacts
related to the provision of parks. Refer to XIII. Public Services, above.
b) Does.the-project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of rec-
reational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Less-
Than-Significant Impact)
Implementation of the proposed project would result in construction of a 12-foot wide decomposed
granite pedestrian trail at the western boundary of the project site. Native plant communities in the
area have been thoroughly disturbed by previous uses of the site and by Laurel Place, the existing
"til'lly.III\I'I<I11)I lllti\I�-MNI NIYillie.l en,'I I'W. Iti J.III/'1/'In YI _ 42
LSA AS S OCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROJECt
NOVEMBER 20DI, INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLAkA71CN
unpaved road, which is proximate to the proposed trait.Construction of the trail would not result in
significant impacts to the environment.
Potentially
Significant
Potentialhv Unless Miti- Less Than
. Signilicant gation In- Significant No Im-
Impact corporated Impact pact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation ❑ ❑ ❑
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street sys-
tem (i.e.. result in a substantial increase in either the num-
ber of vehicle trips.the volume to capacity ratio on roads,
or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of ser- ❑ ❑ ❑
vice standard established by the county congestion man-
agement agency or designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either ❑ ❑
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that re-
sults in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑
(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incom..
patible uses(e.g.. farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emereency access? ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs support- ❑ ❑ ❑
ing alternative transportation le.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
a). Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic loud and ca-
pach)/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)? (Less-Than-
Significant Impact)
The project site is accessed from the Laurel Place cul-de-sac.Laurel Drive, Ayers Road and Concord
Boulevard. In the vicinity of the project site, Concord Boulevard is four lanes,two in each direction.
The City of Concord General Ptah identifies Concord Boulevard as currently operating an acceptable
level of service (LOS) D. Future level of service under buildout conditions would also be LOS D.28
The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing residence on the project site and con-
struction of eight new residences. The proposed project would add approximately 77 daily trips and
za Dyett and Bhatia.2001 Concord?D30 General Plan, Planning Commission Review Draft, b ohne 1: General
Plan Update Policy Korkbook. April R. Paac>-G. -
I'1(.'C'CYN•IIINI2IJI II)CI,\ll\-MNI II'„I.lic.l.a,u.l l'IuzI,�J..ill/_'lllixr., 4�
4tr` of
�., t
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVIST ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLMRATION
eight peak hour trips to the local roadways.29 This increase is not expected to create a substantial in-
crease in the traffic on Concord Boulevard.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency or designated roads or highways?(Less-Than-
Significant Impact)
Implementation of the proposed project would add approximately eight peak hour trips to the local
roadways.This increase is not expected to exceed a level of service standard established by the Con-
tra Costa County Congestion Management Agency.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location ihaixesults in substantial safety risks? (No Impact)
The proposed project is not located within two miles of an airport. Implementation of the proposed
project would not result in a change to air traffic patterns.
d) Substantially.increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous inter-
sections)or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) .
Laurel Place would provide access to the site from Laurel Drive. This roadway would be extended
into the interior of the site and would be improved and paved. A 12-foot trail easement would be lo-
cated along the western boundary and public utility easements and access easements would be located
° along Laurel Place. The project has been designed to conform to County Public Works standards, and
would not include hazardous design features.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
Emergencyvakthcles would.-access the site from-Laurel Drive via Concord Boulevard and Avers Road.
Turnaround areas between Laurel Drive and Laurel Place, and on Laurel Place into the subdivision
have been developed to accommodate emergency vehicles. The proposed project would have ade-
quate emergency access.
fi Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
The proposed residential project would supply parking consistent with the County Zoning Ordinance.
The project would include parking spaces on each lot, in addition to on-street parking along one side
of Laurel Place.
g) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicvcle racks)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
The project does not conflict with adopted policies or programs supporting alternative transportation.
21 institute of Transportation Engineers.2004.Trip Generation.7th Edition. Single Family Detached Housing.Code
210.June.
r¢'ccix,mlPRurn 2Txv�-MNowuni�cuemd Pw.xis,k..,��rv2rvxi 44
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROIECI'
NOVEMBER 20114 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
IF
I
Potentially "-
Significant _
Potentinlhv Unless Miti- LessThan
Significant gotion In- Significant No Im-
Impact corporated Impact pact
i
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project: s
a
r a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the appli-
cable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing !'
facilities,the construction of which could cause signifi-
cant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the }_
construction of which could cause significant environ-
mental effects?
t
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the pro-
ject from existing entitlements and resources, or are new
or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
gj Comply with federal, State,and local statutes and reeula- 0
tions related to solid waste?
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (Less-That-Significant Impact)
The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site, and the Concord Sanitary District
would extend sanitary services to the site. The Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District pro-
vides treatment services to the Concord Sanitary District and has sufficient capacity to accommodate
planned growth within its service area over the next 35 years.30 As a result,the proposed project
would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
to DyetL and Maw.2005.op.cit.,p.9-7.
I'•t'Ctrai l\1•ltl ll>I1C fSV1MNOW0b1uU.owc114«ISJ.�II/2llilxx•I - 45
g�
E A
i
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISI ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expan-
sion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental ef-
fects? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated)
The proposed project includes the extension of a sewer line as shown in Figure New water or _
wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities would not be required for the
project. The following measure would reduce potential impacts of the sewer line extension to a less-
than-significant level:
Mitieation Measure UTILITIES 1: Implementation of Mitigation Measures B10-1, B10-2,
13I0-3, GEO-1,HYD-1, HYD-3 and HYD-4.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expans ion ofex-
isting facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less-
Than-Significant Impact)
The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface on the project site.The
Stormwater Control Plan, described in Section VIII.,Hydrology and Water Quality,would filter
stormwater on-site and would not result in an increase in peak runoff. Therefore,new or expanded
stormwater drainage facilities would not be required.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and re-
sources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by public ser-
vice systems. The level of water supplies required for the eight new single-family homes has been
anticipated and planned for by the County's 2005 General Plan. As part of the building perrnit review
process. the Contra Costa Water District would be consulted to confirm their ability to provide water
to the proposed development project.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's protected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments? (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
As described in Section XVI.a, above,the proposed project would require the extension of a sanitary
sewer line to the project site. Two alternate alignments are under consideration by the project appli-
cant and the Concord Building,Neighborhood& Engineering Services Department,as described pre-
viously in Summary Information, Project Description, Section 8.e, Sanitary Sewer Extension and as
shown in Figure 3. Both alignments could serve adjacent properties within the incorporated County
area, as shown in Figure 4. The project applicant would be entitled to receive reimbursement for the
trunk line extension of Route A through Concord Sanitary District's Certificate of Entitlement. The
reimbursement area would include approximately 137 properties in the County and 18 properties in
the City of Concord. Construction of Route B would be funded through an assessment district consist-
ingo of approximately 41 properties within the County.
Future sewer extensions from the proposed trunk line would be limited to the geographic service
boundary/reimbursement area shown in Figure 4 and could ultimately serve approximately 196
P biliI1PRIN)Ill"1:\11.4MMJW,tl,t,cU.vwrl PMcc I.S,Mc III aWq 46
y O L
o O '
w v �
v '
... NPVT .
o -•
0
1 `4
i � 9 ...
z MI�
"
kj°
` }
ac
+qac s,
i'kl��v'"�j
�Lx 13I m-n t4,A.}e sar a8 t r .�t �/+c � s1 �° 5� a'a'��9x�1 a d�Feky �Uk,x✓ � I u+ m
K•Sf I M1" � Y '+1 ft+ Y
5%,i,
x 3 s�ra1' !r{ $�,k r � �";.)aru yr „� ra �k
la ) n EF t .b (,. •; ILLv.J Lpisyw.
"fi°s zi°t i s w'« srq 'I 11 r '.r.' !r n.F is y o
yil ! Y 1 i• 5f m `Purr 11 �i klfii $'a frg rq 1I vA1/ia if KY w u
r � � � � L+z.— ^7"i i��-'. r ,»'�a�k t f �P�i +ti � a `•""bsf1�" ��� � ° � - t .
9'r 3 wa� �Idg x �.� �I+r dtsf t Pm4i��lih? H'r,W ✓i"rF"Sir�j � `�w�"""T^��$cp6,3�J °'�r&41mc � o ' , I �
o-ep gJJi 5 Ni e £
a
47
vi
�aa
�.'}qtr °7 ���a¢ :� ,�i � ,,, ��r�y� "�'�.:"r; ��ic •tet,.m��' �' %a�i��q'� i•i�i� ��$�
xy k
i Iw
f�l�
...
-
r}s li
—
5
PE
_a � t ^^,,a��,� fi h ♦
,Lt � �tCm`v`e'* t.°44J3 °'.. i o
�' \ 73 >• a a r 5 Y i T, a dr r a S �
r irr'^m r yrf9 ra +£rar•^r i2p r
4 b 1+
i hyr x � J
1 a' K5'y*v`il''J`
Z S r 1 `a'r KP ,.y 6ii £
x
`Val a r afii 1 wr f Y l x^tit i�k� t�i n iy fi °'� •' » _
.r/✓&'i'a/ t }�i x�. x�x p,.a 3u �? ,m is 4 y—i r r ns s { r z
} � o
BJPj Wu'
�ra =L .. r ra
� yk
J
- 7
v.
v
,..,. • o woe T e�� _.._ .....I_W... _ ._.. ._.. .. w. CC
p
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROJECT
NOVEMBER 200(, INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
properties. Based on the General Plan land use designations for the properties within the service area,
a mid-range development density could result in a total of 248 residential units. The capacity of the
proposed sewer lines would exceed this number of units in order to accommodate a gravity flow sys-
tem. However, it is unlikely that the boundaries of the service area would be expanded, as areas to the
east,west,and south are currently served by Concord Sanitary District. The area to the north is the
Concord Naval Weapons Station which due to its elevation could not be served by this gravity flow
system. In addition,the Concord Navel Weapons Station is undergoing a separate planning and envi-
ronmental review process.
The extension of services to the area has been an in the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan and
would not affect the City's agreement with Central Contra Costa Sanitary District for wastewater
treatment.31 The extension of sewer to the project site and potential future extension to properties in
the vicinity would not result in significant cumulative impacts to wastewater treatment.
As described in Section XVI.c, above,the proposed project would treat stormwater on-site and the
peak runoff would not increase after project development.Therefore, additional stormwater treatment
capacity is not required for the proposed project.
J) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to.accommodate the protect 's solid
waste disposal needs? (Less-Than4igniftcant)
As described in Section X VIA above, the proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site
that is already served by public service systems. The project vicinity is served by Concord Disposal
Services.. which transfers waste to the Contra Costa Recycling Center and Transfer Station. The waste
from the station is disposed of at Potrero Hills Landfill.The Potrero Hills Landfill has a remaining
capacity of 8.2 million cubic yards and estimated closure date of 2011. The existing landfill has ca-
pacity to accommodate the proposed project's solid waste disposal needs.
g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Less-
Than-Significant Impact)
Recycling receptacles would be provided within the.project site, in accordance with all statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.
" Pascual.Ales.2006.Director of Building. Neighborhood&Engineering Services.City of Concord. Personal communica-
tion with LSA Associates.Inc.October 12.
I'0.lLlxnl l\I'IU 104"t S,is.MNl nPulilrtllnwr�l9ea iS J,,a IV:ICxbi 49
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVIST ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Miti- Less Than
Significant gation In- Significant No Im-
Impact corporated Impact pact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species.cause a fish or wildlife popula-
tion to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community. reduce the num-
ber or restrict the ranee of a rare or endangered plant or
animal.or eliminate important examples of the major pe-
riods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually lim..
ited,but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively con-
siderable"means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the ef-
fects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.)
c)'Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.either
directiv or indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially re-
duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history/or prehistory? (Potentially Significant UnlessXitiga-
tion Incorporated)
As described in Section IV, Biological Resources,the proposed project could adversely affect riparian
habitat of fish and bird species. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 13I0-1, BIO-
I and 13I0-3,the impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. As described in Section
V. Cultural Resources, there are no identified cultural resources within the site. Implementation of the
proposed project would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species; 3) cause a fish or'wildlife population to drop below self'-
sustaining
elf'sustaining levels:4)threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) reduce the number or re-
strict the ranee of a rare or endangered plant or animal: or fi)eliminate important examples of the ma-_
jor periods of California history or prehistory.
b,) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerahle'
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects ofpgst projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable jirnore projects) (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
- YPC'CUv,1i I�VNOD��I'I'.611titiM�V'ul,li✓Il.u,u.I lii.r L��.rl ll'11'in✓.i 50
74 ,
R S
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISION PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2004 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The impacts of the proposed 'project are individually limited and are not cumulatively considerable.
The proposed project would result in the development of eight residential units in suburban Contra
Costa County. near the city boundary of Concord.All environmental impacts that could occur as a
result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementa-
tion of the mitigation measures outlined in this IS/MND.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on hzr-
man beings, either directly or indirectly' (Less-Than-Significant Impact)
The proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or
indirect adverse effects on human beings.
1"4:(:CIIGII\YI211NI IC"ItiV ti-MNIN'uf,li.\ILwil l'uc.IS W.iI1C IC'xx.i
51
J..
t:
Jv-
t"
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISI ON PROIECT
NOVEMBER 2004 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
C. REPORT PREPARERS
LSA Associates, Inc.
2215 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710 -
David Clore, AICP, Principal-in-Charge "
Shannon Allen,AICP,Associate, Project Manager
Hannah Young,Assistant Planner
Jennifer Morris, Word Processing
Patty Linder, Graphics Technician
g Other Preparers
John Oborne, Senior Planner, Contra Costa County
D. BIBLIOGRAPHY
AEI Consultants,2005. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 492.5 Laurel Drive, Project No.
} 11243. May 19.
1
F Association of Bay Area Governments, 1995. Bav At e(r Dam Failure Inundation Hazards. Website:
www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmat)s/damfailure/damfail.html.
t' California Air Resources Board, 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions
4._ from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October,
xx
California Department of Transportation, 2006. California Scenic Highway Program. Website:
y www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwvI.htmi. April.
Contra Costa County Municipal Code, Chapter 816-4, Heritage Tree Preservation District, and Chap-
ter 816-6, Tree Protection and Preservation.
a Contra Costa County, 2005. Contra Costa Coznmv General Plan. January.
Darwin Myers Associates,2005. Geologic Peer- Review-30 Day Comments, Project No. 3085.05. No-
vember 21.
,3
y*' Dyett and Bhatia,2003. Concord General Plan Update, Map Atlas. August 20.
s`.h
Dyett and Bhatia,2005. Concord 2030 General Plan, Planning Commission Review Draft, Volume I.-
General
.General Plan Update Policy Workbook, April S.
Y. Freeman, Dan.2006. Letter on the Proposed Sewer Design at the Laurel Place Property. Written com-
munication to Shannon Allen, LSA Associates. Inc. July 17.
Helley, E.J. and R.W. Gravmer. 1997. Ouaternary Geology,of Contra Costa County and Surrounding
Parts ofAlameda, Nlai•in, Sonoma Solano. Sacramento, and San.loaquin Counties, California:
a Digital Database. U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 97-98.
z
1
PwUa✓+uWRI'IF P-c PS 0-i 112 1131xx,I 57 .
k
J
.33g1 �9s,
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. LAUREL PLACE SUBDIVISI ON PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
Holman Archaeological Consultants&Associates.2006. Cultural Resources Study of the Proposed
Subdivision 8769 Laurel Place, Concord, Contra Costa County, California. January.
Institute of Transportation Engineers,2004. Trip Generation, 7th Edition. Single Family Detached
Housing, Code 210. June.
Jensen-Van Lienden Associates Inc. 2005. Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Subdivision
8769, Concord, CA. June 17.
Joseph McNeil, Consulting Arborist,2005.Report for Trees on and Immediately Adjacent to the Pro-
ject Site on Laurel Drive.November 9.
Mosaic Associates, Inc.,2006.Biological Resources Report, 4925 Laurel Drive, Concord, Contra
Costa County. July 31.
Nilsen,T.H., 1975. Preliminary Photo interpretive Map of Landslide and Other Surficial Deposits of
the Clayton 75 Minute Quadrangle, Contra Costa County. U.S. Geological Survey,Open File
Map 75-277-12.
Permco Engineering& Management,2006.Laurel Place, Subdivision 8769, Contra Costa County,
California, Stormwater Control Plan. March 29.
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1995. Water Quality Control Plan, June
21:
Uniform Building Code, 1997. Volume 2,Div. 5,pg. 2-23.
U.S. Census Bureau,2005. American Community Survey for Contra Costa County, California.
I1�0 ivalI11I0 IIII Jul W\ .MNIN'uM1II.LLuwel Muce IS uoc 11 IC II2INN.I 53
° o
O p � fj•� A
c � asap
�O
O �
Y
N p N G G
O U
b �
a G p O V N Y+
L' d a•^+ p U /v O
� O O
� .a•A °i a'U `�
o+ o. w =� ✓ � 'jam
6 p 0 N O v
GQ �.., m N 'N 9 N G v � G p•
O to N U •O N U A � G � C � O
y � p 3 � ✓:0 3 � � ',. p
d o u d
�� •its ✓ O^� i, y ° � N `J 7 N A
IF
Cy ^3 o A N G w F �
a O L V T s 'z
V T w ✓
• •�+ (� � � � N y� N P � J � N 4 a d Vc3 ..
a
YN
K N
np
CM
t/1 N N 9 Y Y + % Y ✓ 4+ @ 61
Vn •- r'C' w -4d
y y y o �t
�6 s"' O V UN d ✓ .G M G C N O 3. y O• '� 6
d ✓y N W y G o � '-"'
F''
i
i
N
i
O
4F 'v 'y C .FF F C y
a o o u a
0 bFn E o o o b= E o bn
C
O 'M ° F
G L L L O bD G L,
� E • o ° � ° � ° � EEo
a` 5n•v b°0� a` 5'n a eri a` tw� c°o� a`, nn
tu
L
T d
° G d you of E oG a° '� E ac E d Go v oc v ooEc' bcn.y 7g- E ooEtO E 00.2E
a m > c v C a o C
E > a- a a > 0. > a- a - as
a U Q a m ° a m - Q U q Q U O O m —C".
Q m °
V
° E r
y' u `° 0 0 0 0 0 ^c G c c
„ .. ,., 3 0 o L o ..
a
a: ° ' p ° ' o a F o o 'o
er o E `n Q `nam Ln 0
U v� r U v� i• U '^ O a) N �• OJ v� �'
eC p O O0
p C O 'Q N p 'Q G C '2 F C
p" w a` UU auu a` Om a` UU w` UU
c 3 o Yi t3
p s ..a o 0.o, 'E5
CL bo
0. y
a CIO
c L >
crvi c
.r r- N y 71
Q. ttl � � :b--, G •F '� U d W [tl O'C O U N U M
n « G y �a 3 p O vro A N O N
b9 O T'a 7 ° •D v 'O � .�.
n. N F ,g
o .� ° o � m ,� p oro •� � •o « ti .o .:] v � v
^ Rti G cC G _
0
. O 0 U L
w
0 -0
L U V m -, d ' a� v v L -,
rL
d m
5 a E w u u
° v E
m ro ° >,w boa ° u _ c=a :° 'm
G � � � •°_
S O L U C 3
u x c`a
N 'tb'p0 U
u c C7 n. m c o m a ro °• E E � ro N ° � i � •o U °^ C7 � .° o
L H U 3 N � U 'O �-" O i+ J.+ 'O � .y U 7 V1 U � N « •°
y,
a as 01 C yvi
a = s w E $ Q c — c o L o ❑ c c E
•,°-_, o 0 0 .a E o ° y c E ° m 'v ° w .°. t o o ° o d a .
Cd
14
M
O L
bq L O
O L O G b0 O
c O O N O N O N
Oj V -N o a.d nn
C . X v ' v
moo.
F m E o . a �-' a co o o
O C .O G m 0 O :� O cGnO O := °
o ° o ov o ° $ ° o °
no w` v
..
L
V.
y C
a g � rz gu
� og � o �
om o f c c c E c'r E
uV, a s a s a n aCLCLa s
C y 0 O O O O O O U O
ate+ O O O U O O O O p 0 O a O O
CG a t rn � ° cn c L v7 v ° am u °
E c v u v ❑ ❑ u o U v Eva °
N V Y m U y m U L m N
y, N NL N r"' 41 N L Y N L U N �" v C v �. N N L
6. UU 0. 07 W 0. UU 0. UU yUU 0...] QU 0. 0
v
' CQ
r U y m C V
0a) P
UU. at v O Q t
o v m c a N c ❑ 3 _ m m
d E
G W d .`-' .p
m w ' `v
v
m v Y a c 5 Z
moo ° E b v
--EUao � � m � ` mE o o �y oar = 03
Wv° 'm uto
nny 5 ^ v ¢ m
c N ° N
� :b M.-°
°-,c onU y o is Z5 5 'ubC
�
v C o E
U 'O ° _ �. O U id
v E L v is w .5 5 .m. _ v v
N O = G Y
'._
.fl a N y y u Np 3 E
o v m ° o o a .0 E °c° m U L N — it o v
6. c
L b N U G rpt U
Q 0 = N tJ v w° .� N N m pa d c° v N a v
4. v .5 v CLl ¢ Nei+
y t7 � N E G O � 7 x Z y .° .� 'x N � Z � •UL 'x Q c Z
to
tr 61 N y C 4) '7 �v+ — C .G m acl 0 .G 2 V ac) N G cN > .- Hca) O m cy-
G 'O iy vOi G E m E •L `
O Lm N C p" O LU, G a,H G Q 'vi G 'O O C
:. ° on v .o " _ w m o
W ro c v '- ^ is o ".Lm
_ _ _ _ _ � aE '� � �
� � Y '� roNo yooa � 'Y � o . 0. p > G
p ° a N o`n.5 n > a.0 -v v 0 o W
� J
G
o ° o
Y a`
O�'Yo O
G N In a
p
f
G
V, ,T✓y F 0 � M�,...
9 > o :p N
p j 7
CD `a
d U n ? A v c
GL � N ✓G .� GD °.
U
Y
Cn d G N J i-f✓ N N V-✓
A O p
fG ♦ N // �d 7 J �¢GG A
7G / w . oil W o 3 9 ..�,'•N- °>
��.
✓ y A
� ,,,.. y "T^''7 O .T, O a> Y ✓'�,yin rp.6 A A � J G -G O
.p w J td
� p � Yd90 o4d �"d ooW sG ma d '� apo 0cco
0 9 J o "cs m Jo 3N °, J d m c v � .G ...�y
� iee A� a
aS -0 t4 GcrNaF ro�� c3Jzo
O p �"' v O >� „' S> J A'° O•�7 N J G G 'rf,,. ,6 4 �,
'✓ J � G,. N .^< Y i A ,Jy' O N y;,, •+ A tJ) G y J .°Ocl
per ,-, N GO G A U r�G p N O•✓y JyU) ,-o " A 9 A y J A
vtoaoy o d` 3 3° m oy o cs i J
✓A ° w N �. L N 3O N Y .bb J i GO ° y.
G A r '✓ '.. N A 3 O O' op^ G p oo E'
m r Q„a N 3m 'o v y a77 y •�. 7 ti A A d o o
6 0 �c3 s o2 °3 m R 3 tL
N ,vJi d Ned v I Y J t r Cv G'�A O J y v G @J
m v o
17 m
G p � d A 7 ^� °J � G' ✓� ✓ 7 N ✓ � may" y Q ''w°� yi N
4p.K �� �' N T w d G ° ` r '9 Y ` A G •^�' .O c? J G � O G
o!� y ° y0-C A'U '��, 'm •• DA ° �j 7 q J N N G Y ,,, N � G
v "'✓ A'na d J -O N U .• p• t!1 "' G y N J y C '3 yi G t, J
. i dG 'r A N G "' •� J J p J ✓ b0"' Y J Y O O N '^ N
� � ° v� v �w A N P �"' .y u' � � a� N" d Op Q" �e N -p �' �i ✓
Y
i. v 0 9 C, A G G y y '�, t N.• N J
J 7. -C}
Q J �� KS" "' J .p O •+ F" � N v O$,� � J °y GO � � � A J w '3 -
a7y
r
� ^ G
%
z 7
Gam,.
p O o
9
G
G N G'GOGn p
G c�
nqV N � Q N
°
q � v
d
y G
v �';° ✓G
ti T JN y F
U
D oCE, n o
y
01,
d i '✓ Ul yJ ///i '✓
Y
o d C JA P
r✓ .K} Z q N N cC y F. Otr
ou
01
ys ro m N9 J
d� 9
r
G
*' O '✓ G d �' N .� '4 N U
N ✓ G F N y U NC
9a G ✓ N✓ N A fd 9
3 � Wo baa m o yrs os 30 o�
" v o �y � � � uo N v J o ffi ✓ 9 w `�
° ✓
.�,'� G '^4 y � a; � Ry y .✓, G ,r, y �, Y „ m y G �, U1 y .
y on�� G �✓y � 3 G �,� G w�` � R R Jnn o � � d o °_ 7 cs D� .J � Y
p� Gv, °: m v„ �. _� ofl •t% 3 � ,o " G :> °: :' � � ° � c5 G w G � i p .. Z
G.`a
e cs
d
� s R 4 % d m ° ayy o 4
.. E
> 3
G N
U
�
«
\ & �
of .
. a .
� \ .
ƒ �
S . -
�
\ �
\ � / ƒ� .
t .
y «
Exhibit 5
County Planning Commission
Staff Report
February 27, 2007
Agenda Item#
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2007
1. INTRODUCTION
LENOX HOMES (Applicant), GREG WOLFE (Owner), County Files RZ05-3171 &
SD05-8769: The applicant requests approval of the following:
a) Rezoning #RZ05-3171: Rezone the project site (approximately 3.7 acres) from R-
20, single-family residential (20,000 square foot minimum lot size) to R-15,
single-family residential (15,000 square foot minimum lot size); and
b) Major Subdivision #SD05-8769: Subdivide the project site into 8 single-family
residential lots.
The project site is addressed at 4925 Laurel Drive in the Concord area (Zoning: R-20)
(Zoning Atlas Page: J-17) (Census Tract: 3331) (APN: 116-100-050).
II. RECOMMENDATION
A. Find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was presented to the County Planning
Commission, and the Commission reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to making a decision on the
project; and
B. Find the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the County's independent
judgment and analysis and was prepared consistent with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines
and designated the Community Development Department as the custodian of the
documents which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the decision
is based; and
C. Find that on the basis of the whole record before it, the County has determined that
there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment; and
D. Adopt a motion to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the following:
rezone the site from R-20, Single Family Residential, to R-15, Single Family
Residential; and
E. Approve the vesting tentative for 8 lots, subject to the attached conditions and
subject to the Board's approval of the rezoning.
F. Adopt the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
this project.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan: The project site has a general plan designation of Single Family
Low Density(SL), (1.0-2.9 units per net acre).
B. Zoning: The project site is zoned R-20 (20,000 square feet minimum lot size).
C. CEQA Status: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was
prepared for the project and sent to the State Clearing House (SCH #2006122023)
on December 5, 2006 for a 30 day public comment period that ended on January
4, 2007. During the public comment period the County received two letters that
are addressed in section VIII of this report. The applicant has agreed to the
mitigation measures in the MND prepared for this project.
IV. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION
The project site is located in a pocket of unincorporated Contra Costa County,
surrounded by the City of Concord (see attached exhibit AA). The site is
surrounded by residential development beyond which in an easterly direction is
the Concord Naval Weapons Station(see attached exhibit A).
The project site consists of a single family residence, with stables and corrals.
This is proposed to be demolished prior to development. To the south and west of
the site is residential development on smaller lots and to the north and east is
residential development on larger agricultural lots, many with horses. Mount
Diablo Creek is located nearby to the south and southwest of the site.
V. PROPOSED PROJECT
The applicant proposes to rezone the project site from R-20 to R-15, and
subdivide it into 8 single-family residential lots. As part of the project the
applicant is proposing to construct a private road (Laurel Place) off of the existing
public road Laurel Drive, along with a pedestrian trail on the western boundary of
the site.
The applicant is also proposing to construct a sewer line from an existing sewer
main located in the City of Concord, near the end of Tobi Drive, to the project
site, which is currently on septic. There are two alternative alignments under
consideration, Route A or Route B, both of which pass under Mount Diablo Creek
(see the attached exhibit B)by bore and jack.
SR- 2
VI. AGENCY COMMENTS
Contra Costa Water District: In a letter dated December 2, 2005, the District
indicated that service will be available to the site upon completion of financial
arrangements and installation of all the necessary water facilities to District
standards.
Public Works Department, Engineering Services: In a memo dated October 19,
2006 and revised on November 22, 2006,the Contra Costa County Public Works
Department has submitted conditions of approval for the project which are
incorporated into this staff report.
City of Concord: In a letter to the County dated March 21, 2006, the City had the
following comments:
Summary of comments: The City will not accept maintenance of the 8-foot wide
filtration planter as shown on Laurel Place cross section.
Response: The City is not responsible for the 8-foot wide filtration planter as
shown on the Laurel Place cross section since that is part of the Storm Water
Control Plan that was submitted with the application and as such would be
included in the Operation and Maintenance plan for the project.
Summary of comments: The existing rear fences of properties on Laura Drive are
in a dilapidated state. These fences will need to be replaced to ensure privacy of
existing neighbors along the trail system.
Response: The applicant is required by condition of approval # 22 to install new
fencing around the perimeter of the site, including fencing between the rear yards
of Laura Drive and the proposed trail.
Summary of comments: Install temporary gate at lot 8 to prohibit access down
trail to Lopez property until the trail is extended to Myrtle/Bailey.
Response: The applicant is required by condition of approval # 23 to install the
temporary gate as requested by the City.
City of Concord: In a letter to the County dated November 2, 2006 (see attached
exhibit C), the City indicated that they will accept either of the proposed sewer
alignments (Route A or Route B) as long as it is a gravity flow system. And, once
the final design (including the sewer profile) has all the necessary approvals, the
developer will need to obtain all easements and permits necessary to construct the
sanitary sewer main. The letter goes on to state that after acceptance of the
construction of the sewer and offer of dedication of sewer easements by the City,
the City will maintain the sanitary sewer system from the property line cleanouts
SR- 3
to the connection with the City's existing sanitary sewer system located near the
end of Tobi Drive.
See section VII, CEQA Review, for more discussion of sewer service approval.
The applicant is required by conditions of approval #11,12 & 13 to comply with
the City of Concord's requirements for the proposed sewer alignment.
The letter goes on to state that once the proposed trail is constructed to City
standards and is dedicated to and accepted by the City, the City will maintain the
trail.
The applicant is required by condition of approval #19 to comply with the City of
Concord's requirements for the proposed trail.
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District: Memo dated April 7, 2006 attached.
VII. PUBLIC COMMENT
Early on in the permit process, in March of 2006, the County received a letter
(attached) from Kristine and Gary Blair who are adjacent neighbors on Laura
Drive. The letter indicated that the developer met with some of the Laura Drive
residents to discuss the project. The main concern was having the ability to tie
into the new sewer main since they are on septic. But, the letter goes on to state,
not all the neighbors are in agreement. However, there are a few lots that would
be able to benefit from the new sewer extension.
See Section VIII regarding sewer service approval.
VIII. CEQA REVIEW.
As previously noted, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
was prepared for this project and it was posted for 30 public comment period.
During the public comment period the County received two letters, one from the
Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and the other
letter from an adjacent neighbor.
The letter from LAFCO (see attached exhibit D), dated December 29, 2006, stated
that LAFCO is required to consider various factors when evaluating a project,
including, but not limited to the proposed project's potential impacts upon
agricultural land and open space, the provision of public services, including the
timely and available supply of water, adequate and proximate affordable housing.
To that end the letter contains the following comments:
SR-4
Sewer Service:
Summary of Comment: With regard to municipal sewer service the site is not
currently being assessed by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD).
Further, the site is not within the City of Concord boundaries; therefore neither
the CCCSD nor the City is authorized to provide services without either an
annexation or an out of area service agreement pursuant to Government Code
Section 56133,both of which require LAFCO approval.
Staff Response: By way of background, it has been the City's practice to provide
sewer service to this unincorporated island of the County based on a 1964 City
Council Resolution # 2423(see attached exhibit E) that established an ultimate
sewer boundary. The resolution goes on to state that after City approval, the
boundary that is established in the resolution shall be approved by the County
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors and finally to LAFCO for
approval and adoption as a guide in that body's deliberations.
According to the letter from LAFCO they have no record of such a boundary, and
moreover, LAFCO laws have changed significantly since 1964 and now public
services cannot be extended outside the City limits without LAFCO approval
pursuant to Government Code Section 56133.
On January 24, 2007 staff met with City Officials and Lou Ann Texeria of LAFCO
where it was determined that, despite past practices, providing service to this
unincorporated island from the City would require LAFCO approval. The
applicant is required by Condition of Approval 949A to comply with the
requirements of LAFCO as they relate to sewer.service to the project site.
Summary of Comment: The IS/MND for this project references a 1964 City of
Concord Ultimate Sewer Service Boundary, within which is the project site.
LAFCO has no record of such a boundary.
Staff Response: See above
Summary of Comment: The (IS/MND) indicates that CCCSD will provide
treatment services to the site. There should be an assessment of the district's
capacity.
Staff Response: Under Utilities and Service Systems in the Initial Study for this
project; Laurel Place Subdivision Project Initial Study, dated November 2006, it
is indicated that Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District provides
treatment services to the City of Concord and they have sufficient capacity to
accommodate planned growth within its service area (including this site) over the
next 35 years, according to Dyett and Bhatia, 2005, op. cit., p. 8-7. Concord
2030 General Plan, Planning Commission Review Draft, Volume 1: General Plan
Update Policy Workbook.
SR- 5
Water Service
Summary of comment: Water service to the project site should be verified.
Staff Response: The County received a will serve letter, dated 12/2/05,
from Contra Costa Water District that indicated they will provide water service to
the site subject to the District's requirements.
Street Light Service
Summary of Comment: The site is not currently being assessed by CSA L-100.
We could find no reference to the annexation.
Staff Response: The applicant is required by Condition of Approval#49 to apply
for annexation to CSA 1-100 Lighting District and pay all LAFCO fees.
Agricultural Land
Summary of Comment: The ISNIND states the site is used grazing and horse
training. Please quantify grazing activity.
Staff Response: The 3.7 acre project site contains a residence, garage, three
barns and several horse paddocks. There is minor non-commercial grazing
activity on the site.
Tree Removal
Summary of Comment: The IS/MND indicates that 21 mature trees are proposed
for removal in conjunction with this project. Are any of the trees blue oaks? How
would the project mitigate for the trees being removed.
Staff Response: There are no blue oak trees on the site. The applicant is required
to submit a landscape plan that provides for a street tree in front of each residence.
Affordable Housing
.Summary of Comment: Will the project provide for any affordable housing?
Staff Response: The project was deemed complete before the new County
affordable housing ordinance was adopted and is therefore exempt from that
ordinance.
SR- 6
Letter from adjacent neighbor, Kurt and Gina Carbone, addressed at 4935 Laurel
Drive
Summary of comments: We would request that no two story home be built in the
lot directly adjacent to us and when the proposed sewer line is brought in we
would like information on tying into that line, since we are currently on septic.
Staff response: Based on the location of the Carbone's property in relation to the
proposed subdivision staff concurs that 2 story homes potentially could encroach
on the privacy of the neighbors to the east(see exhibit F.) Consequently, staff
recommends that Lots 1 and 5 of the proposed subdivision be required by
condition of approval#10 to be a maximum of one story in height. In staffs
opinion there is ample room between the project and the neighbors to the south,
west and north that making this a requirement of all of the proposed lots is not
necessary. The developer has indicated that information regarding tying into the
septic system is available to interested neighbors through the City of Concord and
the developer.
IX. STAFF ANALYSIS / DISCUSSION
A. Rezoning:
The applicant proposes to rezone the project site from R-20, Single-Family
residential to R-15, Single Family residential. The project site is surrounded on
the northwest and southwest by R-10 zoning (10,000 square foot minimum lot
size), and on the north, east and southeast by R-20 zoning (20,000 square foot
minimum lot size), R-15 (15,000 square foot minimum lot size) and R- 40 (40,000
square foot minimum lot size).
The General Plan designation for the project site is Single Family Low Density
(SL), which allows 1.0 up to 2.9 units per net acre. With the proposed rezoning to
R-15 the density would be 2.7 units per net acre, which is within the density range
currently allowed on this site.
B. Tree Removal:
There are 21 trees on the project site, of which the applicant is proposing to
remove 19. Most of the trees on the site with three exceptions: tree #850, an elm
tree, tree # 861, an Italian stone pine and tree # 870, a small valley oak, are either
small or in very poor condition, and according to the project arborist not worth
consideration for preservation. Staff concurs with this assessment. The valley
oak tree (#870) will be preserved, while preservation of the elm tree will be
determined when the final placement of proposed residence on lot 3 is
determined.
SR- 7
C. Proposed sewer extension from Tobi Drive (located in the City of Concord) to the project
site
The applicant initially planned to construct a sewer trunk extension from an
existing sewer main located in the City of Concord to the project site using Route
B (see exhibit B) because it is the most direct route and it does not require
extensive trenching through existing streets.
After meeting with neighbors, members of the community, and the City of
Concord Public Works Officials regarding sewer service to the project site, the
applicant was requested to consider rerouting the sewer line through the Laura
Drive neighborhood and then to the project site via Route A. The Laura Drive
neighborhood consists of approximately 33 additional homes that are currently on
septic systems.
Route A is the alternative plan because the City of Concord and neighbors in the
Laura Drive area requested that the applicant investigate the possibilities of this
sewer route as an Alternative. This route does require the trenching of a portion
of Laura Drive and would also require the formation of a Benefit Assessment
District. Discussions are still underway as to which alignment works best. As
previously discussed, extending sewer service to the project site from the City
would require LAFCO approval.
D. Proposed sewer line alignment under Mount Diablo Creek
To gain access under the creek for either alignment A or alignment B a bore and
jack operation is proposed with drill pits on each side of the creek. The drill pits
are required by Condition of Approval #14 located above the top of bank by at
least 10 feet and the drilling operation is guided so the boring is well beneath the
bed of the creek.. According to the project biologist, this type of construction
method is commonly done because it avoids impacts to the creek. However, prior
to boring operations the applicant is required by condition of approval (COA#18)
to submit a notification of a Streambed Alteration to the California Department of
Fish and Game for the sanitary sewer bore operation.
With either alignment "A" or "B", impacts to trees are minimal because the bore
pits are located in areas that do not have trees. However, the proposed sewer
alignment B is within the drip line of two oak trees. The project is conditioned by
COA#26 to have an arborist provide recommendations.to mitigate any possible
impacts from the sewer alignment prior to site disturbance. If the impacts cannot
be mitigated, the alignment of the sewer line would be altered.
SR - 8
E. Frontage and Drainage improvements
Traffic and Circulation
The subject property fronts on Laurel Drive, which is a County maintained
roadway that has a current pavement width of approximately 16 feet within a 50-
foot right of way. The ultimate planned width for Laurel Drive is 36 feet of
pavement within a 50-foot right of way. Therefore, additional dedication of right
of way is not required. The applicant shall construct curb, 4.0-foot sidewalk,
longitudinal and transverse drainage, necessary street lighting, and 10 feet of
pavement widening and transitions for the ultimate planned half-width of 18 feet
along the project frontage of Laurel Drive. Face of curb shall be located 18 feet
from the centerline of Laurel Drive. A deferred improvement agreement was
previously recorded on the adjacent property to the southeast for similar frontage
improvements.
The, applicant shall construct an on-site private road that meets current County
private road standards, based on the typical section shown on the tentative map
and subject to the review and approval of Public Works and the Fire District. The
applicant shall construct a paved turnaround at the end of the proposed private
road, as shown on the tentative map and subject to the review and approval of the
Fire District.
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 stone drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse
having a definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm
drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural
watercourse.
Drainage along the northern property line (northern portion of Lot 8) appears to
be a diversion of the watershed. An exception from the collect and convey
requirements for a portion of Lot 8 is granted, provided that the applicant
maintains the existing drainage pattern, does not construct any improvements that
generate runoff; and does not dispose concentrated storm water flows onto
downstream properties, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works
Department. In addition, the applicant shall grant deed development rights to
Contra Costa County over the northerly portion of Lot 8 to prevent the
construction of future improvements that could adversely impact downstream
properties. Development rights shall be grant deeded over the hatched area of
proposed Lot 8, as shown on the revised tentative map.
The project site is within the Mount Diablo Creek Watershed. A majority of the
runoff from the,site will be collected by swales and storm drains and ultimately
SR- 9
1
conveyed to Mount Diablo Creek to the south. There are known inadequacies in
Mount Diablo Creek in the vicinity of this project. The applicant shall
demonstrate that the existing downstream drainage system(s) that receives storm
water runoff from this project is adequate to convey the required design storm
(based on the size of the contributing watershed) and, if necessary, construct
improvements to guarantee adequacy. The applicant shall also demonstrate that
Mount Diablo Creek has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional flows
and required design storm. The applicant shall obtain the necessary rights to
construct any off-site drainage improvements and maintain off-site drainage
facilities in perpetuity.
F. Proposed Trail:
The applicant is proposing to dedicate, to the City of Concord, a 12' trail
easement along the western boundary of the site in an abandoned railroad right-
of-way. This section of trail would be part of the City's Trail Master Plan. The
applicant is required by COA #19 to dedicate and construct an asphalt trail along
this portion of land to City standards as part of this project.
The applicant has provided evidence to the County that the Bay Point & Gayton
Railroad abandoned any and all interest in this Right-of-Way in the 1950's. In
1993 the County approved the merger of old APN #116-100-015 with this
abandon portion of the old railroad parcel by Lot Line Adjustment LL51-93.
X. CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission approve the subdivision
for 8 lots and recommend approval of the rezoning from R-20 to R-15 to the
Board of Supervisors.
G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\SD058769.stfrpt.doc
SR- 10
Exhibit 6
Pertinent Correspondence/
Documents
i
EXHIBIT 6-A
CITY or CONCORD 1 CITY COUNCIL
1455 Gasoline Alley - Susan A. Bonilla,Mayor
Concol'd, Califo'rma 94520-4805 Mark A. Peterson,Vice Mavor
ru: (925) 680-1660 ;'V�1;1`I�it' - -Helen M.All
Laura,'V1.Hoffineister
VA\V� �li�� /i
Qamar Khan,Director Public Works � _� � � �i� � William D.Shinn
- Mare Rae Lehman,City Clerk
Telephor(625)671-3045 Co— lie Thomas Wentling,City Treasurer
Lydia E. Du Borg,City Manager
November 2,2006
John Obome
Contra Costa County, Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Dear Mr. Obome:
Thank you for coordinating today's meeting with the developers of the Laurel Place Subdivision. As
was discussed at today's meeting,either of their proposed alignments for their sanitary sewer main
will work for us as long as it is a gravity-flow system. Once the final design (including the sewer
profile) is approved by the City, the developer will need to obtain all easements and permits
necessary to construct the sanitary sewer main. After acceptance of the construction of the sewer
and offer of dedication of sewer easements by the City of Concord,the City will maintain the sanitary
sewer system from the property line cleanouts to the connection with our existing sanitary sewer
system.
Similarly, once the proposed trail is constructed to our standards and is dedicated to and accepted
by the City of Concord,the City will maintain that trail. As discussed at today's meeting,this shall be
an asphalt trail rather than a decomposed granite trail.
Historically, the City of Concord has provided sanitary sewer service to parcels outside of Concord's
City limits,including other parcels in the same unincorporated County island as the proposed Laurel
Place Subdivision, using Contractual Service Agreements.
Sincerely,
Bruce Good
Manager of Infrastructure Maintenance
e.-mail: cirvinio@ci.concord.cams • W6311e: www.cityofconeord.org
EXHIBIT 6-13
d
I
f
Kristine and Gary Blair
4761 Laura Drive tj`" ' t ` ' ° G
Concord, CA 94521
925/689-2473
March 15, 2006
John Oborne
Senior Planner
County of Contra Costa
Administration Building—Community Development
651 Pine Street 2"d Floor--North Wing .-
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: Proposed Subdivision
Laurel Place Estates
Tract 8769 - Concord
Dear Mr. Oborne:
This letter is to confirm-our telephone conversation regarding the above mentioned subdivision and I want
to thank you for taking the time to talk with me. It is my understanding there will be three public hearing
meetings. The first regarding an environment study for the subdivision and then two additional meetings
with the planning committee at which time we will be able to voice our opinions. The adjoining property
owners will be notified of each of these meetings.
We are also in receipt of a letter dated March 1, 2006 from Lenox Homes regarding the development and
have met with Curt Blomstrand and Walt McEnerney on Saturday, March 11, 2006. Those attending the
meeting were Laura Drive property owners:
Mike and Ruthann Woodring 4773 Laura Drive, Concord, CA 94521
Dick Kingsmore 4785 Laura Drive, Concord, CA 94521
Dick Hardie 4779 Laura Drive, Concord, CA 94521
Mailing address: 2061 Strand Road,Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Margaret and Don Hendricks 4767 Laura Drive, Concord, CA 94521
Paul and Pramaul Williams 4755 Laura Drive, Concord, CA 94521
Kristine and Gary Blair, 4761 Laura Drive, Concord, CA 94521
Missing but represented was:
Margaret ONeill. 4749 Laura Drive, Concord, CA 94521
I think we.all agreed that our main concern is having the ability to tie into the new sewer main during the
improvements portion of construction of the subdivision. As you may know all of the lots on Laura Drive
have septic systems. And although it would be advantageous for all of our neighbors to be able to tie in,
that doesn't appear to be the case at this time. However there are a few lots, ours included, that would be
able to benefit from the new sewer line. It would be our intention to connect directly out the back of our
lot to the new main. Please see the attached drawing.
I
9 I
John Oborne- Senior Planner
Contra Costa County
Proposed Subdivision
Laurel Place Estates -Tract 8769 - Concord
March 15, 2006
Page 2 of 2
We love our home and the farmland abutting our property. We are sorry to say good bye to Joy and Greg.
Wolfe, they have been very good neighbors. But we are also happy for their good fortune as all of their
hard work has paid off. Although I,have not seen any house plans, the size of the lots and houses with
their amenities should be a nice addition to our close community and we will welcome our new
neighbors.
Thank you again for talking with me,and I look forward meeting you in the future. Should you have any
questions regarding this matter please contact me at my home number above or on my cell at 925/639-
6133.
Sincerely,
Kristine Blair
cc: Mike and Ruthann Woodring
Dick Kingsmore
Dick Hardie
Don and Margaret Hendricks
Paul and Pramaul Williams
Margaret O'Neill
Curt Blomstrand—Lenox Homes
Debra Raines—Planning Director- City of Concord
Mark DeSauinier—County Board of Superivsors
I
EXHIBIT 6-C
CONTRA COSTA LOCAL' :NCI'FORMATION CONMUSSION
651 Pine Street,Nix`th Floor • Martinez, CA 94553-1229
e-mail:LTexe(a�1afcoxccounty.us
ffcc
I (925) 335-1094 0 (925)646-1225 FAX
I
I
I
December 29, 2006
John Osborne, Project Planner
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, North Wing—4`" Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
SUBJECT: Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the Laurel Place Subdivision Project (RZ05-3171 and SD05-8769)
Dear Mr. Osborne:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Laurel Place Subdivision Project Initial Study and,
Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). As a Responsible Agency pursuant to the CEQA, LAFCO will
need to rely on the County's environmental document in consideration of any subsequent annexation,
reorganization or sphere of influence (SOI) applications relating to this project.
As an independent agency of the State, LAFCO's actions are discretionary. LAFCO can approve,
conditionally approve, modify or deny proposals for boundary changes.
LAFCO is required to consider various factors when evaluating a project, including, but not limited to the
proposed project's potential impacts upon agricultural land and open space, the provision of public
services, including the timely and available supply of water, adequate and proximate affordable housing,
etc. In consideration of these factors, we offer specific as well as general comments below.
Specific Comments
Water Service - It appears that the property (APN 116-100-050) is already being assessed by Contra Costa
Water District (CCWD). The IS/MND should provide an assessment of the district's capacity and ability to
serve the site. We suggest you verify with CCWD that the subject property is within their existing SOI and
service boundary and that the district has the capacity to serve the site.
Sewer Service - With regard to municipal sewer service, we have a number of concerns. The site is not
currently being assessed by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD). Further, the site is not
within the City of Concord boundaries; therefore neither the CCCSD nor the City is authorized to provide
services without either an annexation or an out of agency service agreement (pursuant to Government Code
§56133), both of which, require LAFCO approval.
There is reference in the IS/MND to the Concord Sanitary District. LAFCO has no record of such a
district. Please provide information regarding this district.
_The IS;!MND references a 1964 City of Concord Ultimate Sewerage Service Boundary (page 37). LAFCO
staff has discussed this matter with Concord City staff and explained that LAFCO has no record of such a
boundary.
Further, LAFCO laws have changed significantly since 1964. Public services cannot be extended outside
the City limits without LAFCO approval pursuant to Government Code §56133 (attached). The IS/MND
should be revised to assess the required LAFCO action (e.g., annexation, out of agency service, etc.).
Specifically, the required LAFCO action(s) should be referenced in the Project Description and LAFCO
should be listed under Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required.
The IS/MND indicates that the CCCSD will provide treatment services to the site (page 45). The IS/MND
should provide an assessment of the district's capacity.
Streetlighting Service—The site is not currently being assessed by CSA L-100. Annexation to this district
is typically a condition of approval required by the County. We could find no reference in the IS/MND to
annexation to CSA L-100, or the required analysis of LAFCO related issues.
The IS/MND should be revised to identify and assess the required LAFCO actions. Specifically, these
actions should be stated in the Project Description and LAFCO should be listed under Other Public
Agencies Whose Approval is Required. Analysis of LAFCO related issues should be included in the
appropriate sections (e.g,, public utility services). Without such references and analyses, LAFCO will be
unable to use the IS/MND when an annexation application is submitted.
Agricultural Land—The IS/MND states that the site is used for grazing and horse training. Please quantify
the grazing activity on the site.
Tree Removal — The IS/MND indicates that 21 mature trees will be removed in conjunction with this
project. Are any of these trees blue oaks? If so, the IS/MND should address impacts associated with the
removal of blue oak woodlands pursuant to SB 1334 (Kuehl, Ch. 732, Stats. of 2004). Does the County
have mitigation measures for the loss of mature trees? Are there any such mitigation measures proposed
for this project? Does the County.have a Tree Preservation Ordinance? Please send us a copy of the
arborist's report and any applicable County documents.
Affordable Housing—One of the issues of interest to LAFCO is the extent to which a proposal will assist in
achieving regional housing goals as determined by ABAG. Will this project provide for any affordable
housing? If so, please quantify.
General Factors
Pursuant to Government Code §56668 (attached), LAFCO is required to consider a number of factors in
reviewing a boundary change. We encourage you to reference these factors as appropriate, in your
environmental documents. This will help facilitate the LAFCO application process.
Thank you for your consideration!of these comments. Please contact the LAFCO office if you have any
questions.
i
Sincerely,
)'Lou Ann Texeira
Executive Officer
i
Attachments
e: Barbara Graichen, LAFCO Planner
56,133..
(a) A city or district may provide new or extended services by contract or agreement outside
-its jurisdictional boundaries only if it first requests and receives written approval from the commission
in the affected county. �
(b) The commission may authorize a city or district to provide new or extended services outside its
jurisdictional boundaries but within its sphere of influence in anticipation of a later change of
organization.
(c) The commission may authorize a city or district to provide new or extended services outside its
jurisdictional boundaries and outside its sphere of influence to respond to an existing or impending
threat to the public health or safety of the residents of the affected territory if both of the following
requirements are met:
(1) The entity applying for the contract approval has provided the commission with documentation of
a threat to the health and safety of the public or the affected residents.
(2) The commission has notified any alternate service provider, including any water corporation as
defined in Section 241 of the Public Utilities Code, or sewer system corporation as defined in Section
230.6 of the Public Utilities Code, that has filed a map and a statement of its service capabilities with
the commission.
(d) The executive officer, within 30 days of receipt of a request for approval by a city or district of a
contract to extend services outside its jurisdictional boundary, shall determine whether the request is
complete and acceptable for filing or whether the request is incomplete. If a request is determined not
to be complete, the executive officer shall immediately transmit that determination to the requester,
specifying those parts of the request that are incomplete and the manner in which they can be made
complete. When the request is deemed complete, the executive officer shall place the request on the
agenda of the next commission meeting for which adequate notice can be given but not more than 90
days from the date that the request is deemed complete, unless the commission has delegated approval
of those requests to the executive officer. The commission or executive officer shall approve,
disapprove, or approve with conditions the contract for extended services. If the contract is
disapproved or approved with conditions, the applicant may request reconsideration, citing the reasons
for reconsideration.
(e) This section does not apply to contracts or agreements solely involving two or more public
agencies where the public service to be provided is an alternative to, or substitute for, public services
already being provided by an existing public service provider and where the level of service to be
provided is consistent with the level of service contemplated by the existing service provider. This
section does not apply to contracts for the transfer of nonpotable or nontreated water. This section
does not apply to contracts or agreements solely involving the provision of surplus water to
agricultural lands and facilities, including, but not limited to, incidental residential structures, for
projects that serve conservation purposes or that directly support agricultural industries. However,
prior to extending surplus water service to any project that will support or induce development, the city
or district shall first request and receive written approval from the commission in the affected county.
This section does not apply to an'extended service that a city or district was providing on or before
January 1, 2001. This section does not apply to a local publicly owned electric utility, as defined by
Section 9604 of the Public Utilities Code, providing electric services that do not involve the
acquisition, construction, or installation of electric distribution facilities by the local publicly owned
electric utility, outside of the utility's jurisdictional boundaries. (Amended by Stats. 2000, Ch. 761;
Stats. 2002, Ch. 548.)
_,5,6.,668,, Factors to be considered in the review of aproposal shall include, but not be limited to, all of
the folowing:
(a) Population, population density; land area and land use; per capita assessed valuation;
topograpby, natural boundaries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; the
likelihood of significant growth in the area, and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated
areas during the next 10 years.
(b) Need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental
services and controls in the area; probable future needs for those services and controls;
probable effect of the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, or exclusion of alternate
courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent
areas. "Services", as used in this subdivision, refers to governmental services whether or not
the services are those which would be provided by local agencies subject to this division, and
includes the public facilities necessary to provide those services.
(c) The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions on adjacent areas, on mutual social
and economic interests, and on the local government structure of the county.
(d) The conformity of both the proposal and its anticipated effects with both the adopted
commission policies on providing planned, orderly, efficient patterns of urban development;
and the policies and priorities set forth in Government Code §56377.
(e) The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural
lands, as defined by Government Code §56016.
(f) The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the territory, the nonconformance of
proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, the creation of islands or corridors
of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries.
(g) Consistency with city or county general and specific plans.
(h) The sphere of influence of any local agency which may be applicable to the proposal being
reviewed.
(i) The comments of any affected local agency.
(j) The ability of the newly formed or receiving entity to provide the services which are the subject
of the application to the area, including the sufficiency of revenues for such services following
the proposed boundary change.
(k) Timely availability of water supplies adequate for projected needs including, but not limited to,
the projected needs as specified in §65352.5.
(1) The extent to which the proposal will assist the receiving entity in achieving its fair share of the
regional housing needs as determined by the appropriate council of governments.
(m) Any information or comments from the land owners or owners.
(n) Any information relating to existing land use designations.
i
ORIC EXHIBIT 6-1)
\` BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1 In the Matter of Ultimate
Sewerage Service Boundaries. RESOLUTION NO. 2423
2 � .
3
WHEREAS, the City of Concord, a political subdivision of the State of
4
California, empowered to provide sewerage service in the Concord area, and
5
WHEREAS, economical and efficient sewerage service is dependent upon
6
orderly development and expansion of this entity's sewerage service system, and
7
WHEREAS, orderly development and expansioncannot occur without planning
8
whish recognizes the future growth and demands that will be placed upon this
9
entity's system and works, and
10
WHEREAS, at this time the City of Concord anticipates that the area
11
ultimately served by this entity will extend to the boundaries shown on the
12
attached map, denotdd as "Exhibit All
13
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Concord agrees to assume
14
the responsibility for the administration of all sewerage service within the
15
ultimate service boundaries shown on Exhibit A, and requests the Planning
16
CommissionA ncorporate this. Resolution., along with Exhibit A, into the "Special
17
Phase of General Plans Sewerage, Contra Costa County - Ultimate Sewerage Service
18
Boundairles", and
19
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that after approval and adoption of "Special Phase
20
of General plans Sewerage, Contra Costa County - Ultimate Sewerage Service
21
Boundaries" by the County Planning Commission and the County Board of Supervisor ,
22
it be submitted to the Local,Agency Formation Commission for approval and adopti n
23
24 as a guide in that body's deliberations.
25 PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Coricord held on December 28, 1964, by the following vote:
26
AYES; Councilmen• W. Boggess, G. Krueger, B. Shary, R. Sher, N. Kestner
27 I
NOES, Councilmen: None
28 1
29 ABSENT: Councilmen: None
-------------------------------------
so
31 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly
i
32 adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
3
Concord held on December 28, 1964,:
ANNA M. BRAUN
CITY CLERK
8
9
10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
80
31
32
y
000erg
s+�
s
tRR'.
Iltt :
ttttt ♦:
t
Y 4 Sa •� � J� L� ,l'L�'� J � t
��. 0N4M too aJ apa(' CM1CA ` � i i
At fM1, 00 b0 • I
� l HWRt "7 ♦
w
r.»yg 1
S J
c,pG ,, tt� i� � s� �� �'tt a o; • '
p,•o. j .t O x �,W ,
t b L
� r i
a
1 \'
t�
p
' kq+
I
q � ;
5 t'
t. 2 j1
all
go
In
'ya
Nym
is m m yy
Cy
I p
V V a
t
Exhibit 7
Notification List
116040062 116061014 116061015
CONCORD CITY OF HOFFMAN GARY&YVONNE M HOWARD RICHARD W&BETH E K
1950 PARKSIDE AVE 1843 ANDREWS DR 1837 ANDREWS DR
CONCORD CA 94519 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116062001 116062002 116062006
AUGHTRY EUGENE JR&BARBARA B CRAWFORD MARK&KIM DROBATZ PAUL A&KIM G
4772 LAURA DR 1848 ANDREWS DR 1884 ANDREWS DR
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116062007 116062008 116062009
JOHNSON DEAN H TRE WOOLEN SALLAY J TRE COLARICH MARCELLA BAHLER TRE
1890 ANDREWS DR 1 4736 LAURA DR 4748 LAURA DR
CONCORD, CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116062010 116062011 116063001
PLAISTED RODNEY&MARGARET LOLLICH DONALD H&LOIS M TRE HILL ROBERT&DENA
TRE 4760 LAURA DR 4791 LAURA DR
4754 LAURA DR CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
CONCORD CA 94521
116063002 116063003 116063004
KINGSMORE RICHARD&GERTRUDE HARDIE W RICHARD&CYNTHIA TRE WOODRING MICHAEL J
M 2061 STRAND RD 4773 LAURA DR
CONCORD CA 94521
47LAURA DR WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 CONCORD CA 94521
116063005 116063006 116063007
HENRICH DONALD&MARGARET BLAIR GARY L&KRISTINE WILLIAMS PAUL&PRAMAUL K
TRE 4761 LAURA DR 4755 LAURA DR
4767 LAURA DR CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
CONCORD CA 94521
116063008 116063009 116063010
ONEILL MARGARET C WHALEY RONALD M TRE GIOVANINI BARBARA LTRE
4749 LAURA DR 4743 LAURA DR 4737 LAURA DR
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116063011 116063012 116063013
EDENSTROM DAVID W&CARLA PETERSON CARL L&NORMA TRE KIMMEL JOSEPH L&JUDITH A TRE
1906 ANDREWS CT 1907 ANDREWS CT 1781 LA CALLE
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116070007 116100001 116100003
LAND DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC IVMASHORE WILLIAM D&LORA L TRE JONES LENNIAL ZACK&ARDITH A
2568 ROLLING HILLS CT .4736 MYRTLE DR 4796 MYRTLE DR
ALAMO CA 94507 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116100004 116100016 116100017
YADAO ROLAND JR&MICHELLE GERHARDS JOSEPH E HSUEH PAUL Y J&HSUN W TRE
4806 MYRTLE DR PO BOX 21275 4790 MYRTLE DR
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
i
116100024 116100027 116100037
NAGY MICHAEL J&SANDRA E TRE NUTTING RONALD LEE&MARY DOYLE SHAWN B&JENNIFER
.4880 MYRTLE DR 4949 LAUREL DR 4810 MYRTLE DR
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116100038 116100039 116100041
GIBSON THOMAS M WHITWORTH BOBBY G&ELIZABETH FISHER GERARD P&LEE MARY
4802 MYRTLE DR 1878 SWISTA WAY 4937 LAUREL DR
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116100043
116100042 ENKEIT YARBERRY LAWRENCE&HOLLEY 11 JOHN 4
CHRISTENSEN KEITH&CINDY GUITIERREZ JOHN&CONNIE L
4844 MYRTLE DR TRE 4852 MYRTLE DR
4838 MYRTLE DR
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94R CONCORD CA 94521
116100045 116100046 116100047
TENNIS LINDA J CARBONE KURT F&GINA V REINHOLDT DARIN
4933 LAUREL DR 4935 LAUREL DR 4943 LAUREL DR
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116100048 116100050 116120027
HODGE BETTY JANE TRE LAUREL PLACE MORRISSEY DEAN
4939 LAUREL DR 3675 MT DIABLO BLVD#350 4940 LAUREL DR
CONCORD CA 94521 LAFAYETTE CA 94549 CONCORD CA 94521
116120028 116120029 116120049
BOWER CALVIN T&SUSAN L SANCHEZ FEDERICO J&SUZANNE F GALVIS CARLOS E&GLORIA
1856 DEBRA LN 1848 DEBRA LN 4900 LAUREL DR
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116120051 116120052 116120055
MLDR DYNAMICS LLC BLUE&GOLD DEVELOPMENT LLC PLEASANT VIEW LLC
PO BOX 4470 PO BOX 30213 1020 RIDGE PARK DR
STATELINE NV 89449 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 CONCORD CA 94518
116120056 116120057
PLEASANT VIEW LLC PLEASANT VIEW LLC
1020 RIDGE PARK DR 1020 RIDGE PARK DR
CONCORD CA 94518 CONCORD CA 94518
i
i
I
I
I
i
I
Historical Resources Information System
Public Works Foundation Center,Building 300
Building Inspection 1303 Maurice Avenue
Engineering Services Sonoma State University
Rohnert Park,Ca 94928-3608
CA Fish & Game, Region 3 City of Concord
P.O. Box 47 Contra Costa Fire District Attn: Bruce Good
Yountville, CA 94599 Consolidated 1950 Parkside Dr., MS/45
Concord, CA 94519
City of Concord Contra Costa Water District Mt. Diablo Unified School District
Attn: Mario Camorongan,P.E. 1331 Concord Avenue Superintendent Gary McHenry
1950 Parkside Dr., MS/52 P.O. Box H2O 1936 Carlotta Drive
Concord, CA 94519 Concord, CA 94524 Concord, CA 94519
Sheriff Office LAFCO
Admin. & Comm. Svcs. Darwin Myers Attn: Lou Ann Texeira
Regional Water Quality Control
US Army Corps of Engineers Board Lenox Homes
San Francisco District Attn: Dan Freeman
333 Market Street 8`h Floor San Francisco Bay Region 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Ste. 350
San Francisco, CA 94105-2197 1515 Clay Street, Ste 1400 Lafayette, CA 94549
Oakland, CA 94612
Lenox Homes Greg Wolfe
Attn: Curt Blomstrand 4925 Laurel Dr.
3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 350 Concord; CA 94521
Lafayette, CA 94549
Exhibit 8
Maps
Qa no �r
O
Fmherad ° � A �
<n ,
~ o°�m\�ahtb �ti0 ore�aY 11
d� ooa °' ood
�tr� T� 9a ai 9t
4i
� o
tilt'Diablo Creek '
R,
�a � LaurelePir ��
�r' Halo a,/cro@ C4ncortl.� r`� `1 rak'�i t
�� tf gary'�z
Stat:�
,y �x
N
m
�a mFa
t
O �
Taw, gg��
ffi�r O N w,
CL
q
II 11
,•r � � N W c7� vitt
CP
�r c diII,1g
a
a
Firarop,
u, z
A
oil .tf
�o 4
C7 fn
nNoa 2n
D fi
00
(y\ mmdm =
O G ca
..
o cr 01 co
m OL alb
tJf
co V
a
f
Owk
a
o c�
o.
0
o Baur
o m
\ b^e
h 2^ 8urefpla
ago N �e
y0� y to
� s
i�l}�fP �7•
o- a>
lI ff" f
toy y
daa l
r
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on Agenda Item #: '
Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date:
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair.
Personal inforrnation is optional. This speaker's card will be My comments will be: ❑ General
incorporated into the public record of this meeting. 25. For
A A El Against
Name: DA�1 �C� /V
I wish to speak on the subject of.
Address: .3(o 2 /Vt�®7-4
City:
G ,PLS
Phone: �Y�
I am speaking for: ❑ Myself
Organization: LeJ66x
❑ I do not want to speak but would like to
leave comments for the Board to consider
(use the back of this form)
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM Q Minute Limit) I wish to.speak on Agenda Item#: �.
Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date:
speaker's podium, and wait to be called liy the Chair.
� al
I Pei�sottal itifoi^niatton My Comments will be. V Gerie is optional. This speaker's card will be
incorporated into//the public record of this nteetitag. El For
Name (PRINT): /gof 1 �4+1W n e\ ❑ Against
To ensure vottr name iss announced cor-i•ectly,yott nary want to include its phonetic spelling
I I wish to speak.on the subject of,
Address: L-01 H0 ece/tSoG '[7i 5�r i r� 3. J,e,noK 1o"te_5
City:
? Phone:
I am speaking for: ❑ Myself
r ❑ I do 'not want to speak but would like to
9 Organization: �Q� leave comments for the Board to consider
�o`S A,» �n (Use the back of this form)
,
.S� y4��
PROOF OF PUBLICATION 07
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIAit.(�
County of Contra Costa
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and
not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter.
I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times, a
newspaper of general circulation, printed and published at
2640 Shadelands Drive in the City of Walnut Creek, County
of Contra Costa,94598.
And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of
general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
Contra Costa, State of California, under the date of October
22, 1934.Case Number 19764.
The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in
type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each
regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates,to-wit:
r
May 12,
all in the year of 2007
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Walnut Creek,California.
On this 15 day of May, 2007
...................
..........� ....................................................:
Signature
Contra Costa Times
P O Box 4147
Walnut Creek,CA 94596
(925)935-2525
Proof of Publication of:
(attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that published)
i
a
I
i
I
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC
HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
CONCORD AREA
NOTICE is hereby given
that on Tuesday,May=
2007 at 1:00 p.m. in the
County Administration
Building, 651 Pine Street,
Room 107(Corner of Pine
and Escobar Streets),
Martinez, California, the
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors will
hold a public hearing to
consider the following
planning matter: 1
Public Hearing on a Rec-
ommendation of the
County Planning Commis-
sion on a Request to
Rezone Property located
at 4925 Laurel Drive from
R-20, Single Family Resi-
dential to R-15, Single
Family Residential in the
Concord area. (Lenox
Homes - Applicant; Greg
Wolfe - Owner) (County
File #RZ05-3171) (Parcel
#116-100-050)
The location of the sub-
ject property is within the
unincorporated territory
of the County of Contra
Costa,State of California,
8enerally identified below
(a more precise descrip-
tion may be examined in
the Office of the Director
of Community Develop-
ment,County Administra-
tion Building, Martinez,
California):
The location of the sub-
ject site is 4925 Laurel
Drive,Concord.
For purposes of compli-
ance with the provisions
of the California Environ-
mental Quality Act
(CEQA),a Mitigated Nega-
tive Declaration of Envi-
ronmental Significance
(no Environmental Impact
Report required) has
been issued for this proj-
ect.
If you challenge the prot-
ect in court,you may be
limited to raising only
those issues you or
someone else raised at
the public hearing descri-
bed in this notice, or In
written correspondence
delivered to the County
at,or prior to,the public
hearing.
Prior to the hearing,Com-
munity Development De-
partment staff will be
available on Tuesday,
May 22,2007,at 12:30 p.m.
in Room 108,Administra-
tion Building, 651 Pine
Street, Martinez,to meet
with any Interested par-
ties in order to(1)answer
questions; (2) review the
hearing procedures used
by the Board; (3) clarify
the issues being consid-
ered by the Board;and(4)
provide an opportunity to
identify, resolve or nar-
row any differences
which remain in dispute.
If you wish to attend this
meeting with staff,please
call John Oborne, Com-
munity Development De-
partment, at (925) 335-
1207 by 3:00 p.m.on Mon-
day,May 21,2007 to con.
firm your participation.
Date: May 9,2007
. i f
i
John Cullen,Clerk of the
Board p
of Suervisors and
C '
Countunt y Administrator
By Katherine Sinclair,
Deputy Clerk
Legal CCT 2357456
Publish May 12,2007
i
i
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
CONCORD AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,May 22,2007 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Administration
Building, 651 Pine Street,Room 107 (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning
matter:
Public Hearing on a Recommendation of the County Planning Commission on a Request to
Rezone Property located at 4925 Laurel Drive from R-20, Single Family Residential to R-15,
Single Family Residential in the Concord area. (Lenox Homes—Applicant; Greg Wolfe—
Owner) (County File#RZ05-3171) (Parcel# 116-100-050)
The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa,
State of California, generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in the Office
of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building,Martinez, California):
The location of the subject site is 4925 Laurel Drive, Concord.
For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no Environmental Impact Report
required)has been issued for this project.
If you challenge the project in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County
at, or prior to,the public hearing.
Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday,May 22,
2007, at 12:30 p.m. in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, to meet with any
interested parties in order to (1)answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board;
(3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve, or
narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call
John Oborne, Community Development Department, at(925)335-1207 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, May
21, 2007 to confirm your participation.
Date: May 9, 2007
John Cullen, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
B,d�c �
TKatherine Sinclair,Deputy Clerk
f
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
IN THE MATTER OF
Public Hearing on a Recommendation of the County Planning Commission on a Request to
Rezone Property located at 4925 Laurel Drive from R-20, Single Family Residential to R-15,
Single Family Residential in the Concord area. (Lenox Homes—Applicant; Greg Wolfe—
Owner) (County File#RZ05-3171) (Parcel# 116-100-050)
Notice of hearing for Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 1:00 pm, was mailed this day, Wednesday, May
9, 2007.
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a
citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited Certified Mail with Contra
Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez,
California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice, on the above entitled
matter to the following:
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LIST
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez, California.
Dated: May 9, 2007
Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk
c ^
116040062 116061014 116061015
CONCORD CITY OF HOFFMAN GARY&YVONNE M HOWARD RICHARD W&BETH E K
1950 PARKSIDE AVE 1843 ANDREWS DR 1837 ANDREWS DR
CONCORD CA 94519 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116062001 116062002 116062006
AUGHTRY EUGENE JR&BARBARA B CRAWFORD MARK&KIM DROBATZ PAUL A&KIM G
4772 LAURA DR 1848 ANDREWS DR 1884 ANDREWS DR
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116062007 116062008 116062009
JOHNSON DEAN H TRE WOOLEN SALLAY J TRE COLARICH MARCELLA BAHLER TRE
1890 ANDREWS DR 4736 LAURA DR 4748 LAURA DR
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116062010 116062011 116063001
PLAISTED RODNEY&MARGARET LOLLICH DONALD H&LOIS M TRE HILL ROBERT&DENA
TRE 4760 LAURA DR 4791 LAURA DR
4754 LAURA DR CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
CONCORD CA 94521
116063002 116063003 116063004
KINGSMORE RICHARD&GERTRUDE HARDIE W RICHARD&CYNTHIA TRE WOODRING MICHAEL J
M 2061 STRAND RD 4773 LAURA DR
4785 LAURA DR WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 CONCORD CA 94521
CONCORD CA 94521
116063005 116063006 116063007
HENRICH DONALD&MARGARET BLAIR GARY L&KRISTINE WILLIAMS PAUL&PRAMAUL K
TRE 4761 LAURA DR 4755 LAURA DR
4767 LAURA DR CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
CONCORD CA 94521
116063008 116063009 116063010
ONEILL MARGARET C WHALEY RONALD M TRE GIOVANINI BARBARA LTRE
4749 LAURA DR 4743 LAURA DR 4737 LAURA DR
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116063011 116063012 116063013
EDENSTROM DAVID W&CARLA PETERSON CARL L&NORMA TRE KIMMEL JOSEPH L&JUDITH A TRE
1906 ANDREWS CT 1907 ANDREWS CT 1781 LA CALLE
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116070007 116100001 116100003
LAND DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC MASHORE WILLIAM D&LORA L TRE JONES LENNIAL ZACK&ARDITH A
2568 ROLLING HILLS CT 4736 MYRTLE DR 4796 MYRTLE DR
ALAMO CA 94507 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116100004 116100016 116100017
YADAO ROLAND JR&MICHELLE GERHARDS JOSEPH E HSUEH PAUL Y J&HSUN W TRE
4806 MYRTLE DR PO BOX 21275 4790 MYRTLE DR
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
30
Historical Resources Information System
Public Works Foundation Center,Building 300
Building Inspection Engineering Services 1303 Maurice Avenue
Sonoma State University
Rolmert Park,Ca 94928-3608
CA Fish & Game, Region 3 City of Concord
P.O. Box 47
Contra Costa Fire District Attn: Bruce Good
Yountville, CA 94599 Consolidated 1950 Parkside Dr., MS/45
Concord, CA 94519
City of Concord Contra Costa Water District Mt. Diablo Unified School District
Attn: Mario Camorongan,P.E. 1331 Concord Avenue Superintendent Gary McHenry
1950 Parkside Dr., MS/52 P.O. Box H2O 1936 Carlotta Drive
Concord, CA 94519 Concord, CA 94524 Concord, CA 94519
Sheriff Office' Darwin Myers LAFCO
Admin. & Comm. Svcs. Attn: Lou Ann Texeira
Regional Water Quality Control
US Army Corps of Engineers Lenox Homes
San Francisco District Board Attn: Dan Freeman
333 Market Street, 8ch Floor San Francisco Bay Region 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 350
San Francisco, CA 94105-2197 1515 Clay Street, Ste 1400Oakland, CA 94612 Lafayette, CA 94549
Lenox Homes Greg Wolfe
e
Attn: Curt Blomstrand 4925 GGr Laurel e
3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 350 Concord,Laurel
94r.
Lafayette, CA 94549
f/
116100024 116100027 116100037
NAGY MICHAEL J&SANDRA E TRE NUTTING RONALD LEE&MARY DOYLE SHAWN B&JENNIFER
4880 MYRTLE DR 4949 LAUREL DR 4810 MYRTLE DR
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116100038 116100039 116100041
GIBSON THOMAS M WHITWORTH BOBBY G&ELIZABETH FISHER GERARD P&LEE MARY
4802 MYRTLE DR 1878 SWISTA WAY 4937 LAUREL DR
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116100043
116100042 ENKEIT YARBERRY LAWRENCE&HOLLEY 11 JOHN 4
CHRISTENSEN KEITH&CINDY GUITIERREZ JOHN&CONNIE L
4844 MYRTLE DR TRE 4852 MYRTLE DR
CONCORD CA 94521 4838 MYRTLE DR CONCORD CA 94521
CONCORD CA 94521
116100045 116100046 116100047
TENNIS LINDA J CARBONE KURT F&GINA V REINHOLDT DARIN
4933 LAUREL DR 4935 LAUREL DR 4943 LAUREL DR
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116100048 116100050 116120027
HODGE BETTY JANE TRE LAUREL PLACE MORRISSEY DEAN
4939 LAUREL DR 3675 MT DIABLO BLVD#350 4940 LAUREL DR
CONCORD CA 94521 LAFAYETTE CA 94549 CONCORD CA 94521
116120028 116120029 116120049
BOWER CALVIN T&SUSAN L SANCHEZ FEDERICO J&SUZANNE F GALVIS CARLOS E&GLORIA
1856 DEBRA LN 1848 DEBRA LN 4900 LAUREL DR
CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521 CONCORD CA 94521
116120051 116120052 116120055
MLDR DYNAMICS LLC BLUE&GOLD DEVELOPMENT LLC PLEASANT VIEW LLC
PO BOX 4470 PO BOX 30213 1020 RIDGE PARK DR
STATELINE NV 89449 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 CONCORD CA 94518
116120056 116120057
PLEASANT VIEW LLC PLEASANT VIEW LLC
1020 RIDGE PARK DR 1020 RIDGE PARK DR
CONCORD CA 94518 CONCORD CA 94518
May.2 2007
Re: RZ053171, on the Board's agenda May 22, 2007 at 1:30pm
The attached is the notification list for the above referenced
project.
Thanks
John Oborne
51207
-4r
&4 us �s
2�� o 1
CAO Budget Division Approval: CAO Admin Approval:
Analyst Supv.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST
(Do Not Use This Form For Hearings) I�1
Agenda Date Requested: 5/22/07
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Person: John Oborne Phone: 925-335-1207
Proposed Agenda Language: HEARING on the County Planning Commission recommendation for
a request to rezone a 3.7 acre Darcel.from Single Family Residential (R-20) to Single Family
Residential (R-15 ocated at 4925 aurel Drive)R4-lie Concord area. (Lenox Homes -Applicant,
Greg Wolfe - Owfiier) (-County File: RZ05-3171) (Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development
Department)
Item Affects All Supervisorial Districts OR District ❑ 1, ❑ 11, 0111, ® IV, ❑ V
Item Submitted for:
❑ Consent Agenda: No discussion, no speakers, no opposition
Category: Other Actions (Select from dropdown list.)
❑ Presentation: Five minutes, people present to speak or receive
Discussion: Less than five minutes
® Deli eration: Longer than five minutes. Time est: 10 min.
Pe esenting the Presentation, Short Discussion, or Deliberation Item at the Board meeting:
Name: Catherine Kutsuris Phone: 5-1210
Visual Presentation: if any,please indicate input source and any special instructions for the Board Clerk:
Input Source: Flat art/transparencies (Select from the dropdown list.)
Special Instructions:
Copies required for meeting packets:
* Consent Agenda: Original and 2 copies, unless the item is 8 pages or more (single
sided), then 12 copies are needed*
* Short Discussion: Original and 13 copies*
* Deliberation: Original and 13 copies*
* If your department needs any executed copies of contracts or agreements returned to your department, you must
submit those copies in addition to the Board's minimum number.
Form Rev 10/20/03 JE
Public Hearing on a Recommendation of the County Planning Commission on a
Request to Rezone Property located at 4925 Laurel Drive from R-20, Single
Family Residential to R-15, Single Family Residential in the Concord area.
(Lenox Homes —Applicant; Greg Wolfe Owner) (County File #RZ05-3171)
(Parcel # 116-100-050) (Sup. Dist. IV)
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
CONCORD AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,May 22,2007 at 1:00 p.m.in the County Administration
Building, 651 Pine Street,Room 107 (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning
matter:
Public Hearing on a Recommendation of the County Planning Commission on a Request t
Rezone Property located at 4925 Laurel Drive from R-20, Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential in the Concord area. (Lenox Homes—Applicant; Greg Wolfe
Owner) (County File#RZ05-3171) (Parcel# 116-100-050)
e location o the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa
Cel State of California, generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in
the.Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building,Martinez,
��r California):
The location of the subject site is 4925 Laurel Drive, Concord:,
For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental'Significance (no Environmental Impact Report
required)has been issued for this project.
If you challenge the project in court,you may be limited to raisin ongly thothose issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this not ce;- r m written corresponde'hc delivered to the County
at, or prior to,the public hearing. I ,),:, 3 O P )-
Prior to the hearing, Community Developm t.D oaa ent staff-will be , ilab on Tuesday, May 22,
2007, in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Martinez,to meet with any interested
parties in order to(1) answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify
the issues being considered by the Board; and (4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve, or narrow
any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call John
Obome, Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1207 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, May 21,
2007 to confirm your participation.
Date: May 9,2007
John Cullen, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By
Katherine Sinclair,Deputy Clerk