Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
070125-08.1
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 8.1 TO: Mayor and Town Council July 1, 2025 SUBJECT: Resolution No. 52-2025, denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s action conditionally approving Development Plan request DEV24-0009 allowing the development of The Ivy, a 105-unit assisted living facility, and Tree Removal request TR25-0013 to allow the removal of five Town-protected trees. The property is located at 828 Diablo Road, currently occupied by Sloat Garden Center (APN: 196-270-029) DESCRIPTION This application is a request from O&I Development to redevelop a 2.72-acre parcel, located at 828 Diablo Road with the construction of a new three story 105-unit assisted living facility. There are 91 trees on the subject property proposed for removal, five of which are Town-protected trees. BACKGROUND In January 2023, the Town adopted a new Housing Element (2023–2031), certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), to comply with state-mandated housing laws. Danville was assigned a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 2,241 housing units across all income levels, requiring the Town to identify and rezone sites suitable for higher-density residential development. The Town did not have land zoned for residential use at sufficient densities to meet the RHNA and was required to find appropriate sites throughout Danville to designate for multifamily housing. The subject site was identified as “Opportunity Site W” and rezoned to allow multifamily residential development at 30–35 units per acre. This rezoning is part of the Town’s compliance with state housing law, intended to facilitate housing production and avoid state penalties for noncompliance. Consistent with this zoning and state housing law, the applicant submitted a proposal for The Ivy, a three story 105-unit assisted living facility. The project architectural and landscape plans were reviewed by the Town’s Design Review Board (DRB) on March 13 and April 10, 2025. At the April 10th meeting, the DRB recommended the Planning Commission approve the project’s architecture, landscaping, and color and material board. PAGE 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 The Planning Commission reviewed and approved Development Plan request DEV24- 0009 and Tree Removal request TR25-0013 during their meeting on May 27, 2025. On May 28, 2025, the Town received an appeal of this approval from John Phillips, owner of 15 Betten Court (Attachment K). The appeal letter raises issues regarding the appropriateness of the use of the Class 32 CEQA Exemption, concerns related to the effects of wind-borne pollution during remediation, lack of impartiality of the soils pollutant and remediation company (Terracon), and lack of public access to the reports. Applicable State Laws The State of California has declared a housing crisis in the State and has passed and/or strengthened a number of laws aimed at promoting infill housing development. A jurisdiction may not impose local laws that conflict with State law. State laws which apply to this application include: The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) was first approved in 1982 and was amended in 2017 and 2024. This law, often referred to as “the anti-NIMBY law,” prohibits local jurisdictions from denying a housing application which meets objective development standards. A qualifying housing application can only be denied upon making a finding that the project would cause a “specific, adverse impact” to public health. The Housing Crisis Act (HCA) was approved in 2019 and amended in 2021. Amongst other things, the HCA prohibits local jurisdictions from denying a housing application or reducing its density based on subjective design standards – a project can only be reviewed against objective, quantifiable standards, conditions and policies. State Density Bonus Law (DBL) was approved in 1979 and amended at least 13 times, most recently in 2023. DBL allows a developer to increase the density of a residential development above the maximum allowed density under the site’s General Plan land use designation in exchange for providing affordable units, or age restricted (55 years or older) senior developments (no affordable units required). In addition, developments which qualify under the DBL are entitled to receive requested incentives, concessions, and waivers to reduce otherwise required development standards. Under the DBL, an applicant may utilize an incentive, concession, or waiver regardless of whether they elect to incorporate density bonus units. APPEAL Appeal and Town Responses The appeal letter raises issues regarding the appropriateness of the use of the Class 32 CEQA Exemption, concerns related to the effects of wind-borne pollution during remediation, lack of impartiality of the soils pollutant and remediation company PAGE 3 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 (Terracon), and lack of public access to the soil reports (Attachment K). The applicant has written a letter in response to the issues raised in the letter of appeal (Attachment L). The appellant contacted the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). DTSC provided a response to the Town recommending the Town require the applicant’s participation in their Voluntary Cleanup Program and Agency Oversight as a condition of approval (Attachment O). Class 32 Categorical Exemption/Environmental Impacts The appellant states that the proposed development should not be declared exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) via the Class 32 Exemption, used for infill housing developments. The appellant contends that the known existence of hazardous materials in the soil constitutes an Unusual Circumstance which could result in significant environmental effects and would invalidate the use of the Class 32 infill exemption. However, the contamination is a pre-existing condition from the historical use of the site. The proposed project does not cause soil contamination. Rather, it would remediate the existing condition consistent with stringent regulatory standards governing the removal, handling, and disposal of contaminants. The appellant has not provided any evidence to support the assertion that the removal of the pollutants would result in an environmental impact. The appellant implies that the soil contamination is an “unusual” characteristic, which distinguishes it from other Class 32 exempt projects, and therefore the project is not subject to the Class 32 exemption. However, the subject site is an infill site similar to many other urban infill sites throughout California. Many of these sites have a history of commercial or industrial use, and contamination is a common occurrence. The Town has determined that the Class 32 exemption remains appropriate. Impartiality and Public Availability of the Soil Reports The soil testing was completed by Terracon Consultants Inc., a well-known and licensed company. All reports, including the Phase I Environmental Assessment and Limited Site Investigation, are and have been available on the Danville Town Talks website. A link to that site was provided to all surrounding residents as part of the Town’s public notification. The appellant was directly emailed a link to find these studies prior to the Planning Commission meeting. PROJECT EVALUATION Environmental Site Assessment PAGE 4 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Attachment I) was prepared for the project by Terracon Consultants, Inc. The ESA recommended that a Limited Site Investigation (LSI) (Attachment J) be conducted to assess the environmental conditions connected to former buried pesticide containers, dieldrin concentrates, and the surface catchment drainage ditch. The investigation concluded that the former pesticide storage containers and surface catchment drainage ditch are not impactful and do not require further assessment. The investigation also concluded that dieldrin and chlordane are present at concentrations exceeding residential land use environmental screening levels and recommends the excavation and disposal of impacted soils. The remediation of the existing on-site contaminants would be addressed in a Work Plan which would: delineate impacted soils, establish appropriate methods of excavation and removal of soil, establish health, safety and air monitoring protocols, detail sampling and reporting procedures, and provide a plan for transportation and disposal of the excavated material. The Work Plan would receive oversight either by California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), a County monitoring program, or a third party consultant with expertise in hazardous materials remediation managed by the Town. Density Bonus This application includes a density bonus request under DBL (Attachment D). The zoning allows for 35 units per acre on a 2.72 acre property for a total of 95 units. As allowed under the Law, the applicant is asking for a 10.5% density bonus of 10 additional units for a total of 105 units. The applicant is requesting waivers to reduce several otherwise applicable development standards established under the site’s M-35; Multifamily Residential zoning designation. A waiver is defined as a reduction or modification of a development standard and/or other regulations which would otherwise physically preclude construction of the project. There are no limits to the number of waivers an applicant can request. The DBL also states that, if the applicant requests waivers, and provides some evidence of physical preclusion, a jurisdiction can deny the request only if: 1. the waiver or reduction would have a “specific, adverse impact upon health or safety.” 2. the impact is “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete,” and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. PAGE 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 In addition, courts have ruled that features such as increased ceiling heights and other “amenities” such as courtyards, open areas, etc. can be the basis for the waiver. The applicant for this development is requesting three waivers: 1. Height – The subject M-35 zoning district requires an average maximum height of 35 feet with a mix of 33, 35, and 37 feet heights. The proposed project would have an average height of 37.5 feet with a maximum height of 40 feet. The majority of the building would be 35 feet with architectural gable elements reaching 37 and 40 feet. A minimum of 7.5% of the three story building is required to be expressed as two or two and a half stories. The proposed project will not have any portion expressed as two or two and a half stories. 2. Retaining Wall Height – The retaining wall along the western side to the back of the property is proposed to have a height between 6’5” and 13’5”, while the zoning district limits retaining wall height to six feet. 3. Second and Third Story Setback – The zoning district requires side and rear yard setbacks to be a minimum of 50 feet for second and third story building elements. The project proposes a minimum of 22 feet for the second and third story rear and side yard setbacks. The proposed minimum setbacks are 36’7” along the southern (left) side, 22 feet along the northern (right) side which would abut El Cerro Blvd., and 128 feet along the western (rear) side. The setbacks are relatively consistent for all three stories excluding minor differences to allow for building articulation and architectural features across the four elevations and three stories. General Plan The site’s General Plan land use designation is Residential – Multifamily – High Density Special, which requires a residential density of 30-35 units per acre. The proposed 105- unit development on the 2.72 acre site results in a density of 38.6 units per acre, which exceeds the required density range. Zoning The site is zoned M-35; Multifamily Residential Zoning District. This district allows a residential density of 35 units per acre and establishes development standards to control the massing and siting of the development. Except for the requested waivers described above, the proposed project is consistent with the development standards. Trees A Tree Evaluation was prepared for the project by Bob Peralta Arbor Consulting PAGE 6 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 (Attachment G). The project proposes to remove 91 trees, most of which are related to the historic plant nursery use of the site. However, five Town-protected Valley Oak trees (Trees 410, 411, 415, 459, and 490) are requested to be removed. Trees 410 and 415 are proposed for removal due to incompatibility with the proposed development, and trees 411, 459, and 490 are proposed for removal due to the existing deteriorating health of the trees. The removal of Town-protected trees would be mitigated by the planting of new oak trees. Parking Under the Town’s Municipal Code, one parking space per every three beds is required for assisted living facilities. The project includes 105 units with 110 beds, resulting in a parking demand of 36.6 spaces. The project proposes 60 on-site parking spaces. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the project (Attachment H) includes a parking analysis. The study concluded that, based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual for senior housing, the project would provide sufficient parking to meet the peak parking demand. Traffic The TIA report includes analysis of potential impacts related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), intersection Level of Service (LOS), Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Parking. Based on the results of the TIA, no adverse impacts related to the project were identified and no mitigation is required. Stormwater/Hydrology A Stormwater Pollution Control Plan (SPCP) was prepared for the project by CBG Engineering. As required, all runoff from impervious surfaces would be collected and conveyed to be filtered through bioswales or basins prior to leaving the site. Geotechnical Report A Geotechnical Engineering Report was prepared for the project by Terracon Consultants, Inc. The report provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of the foundation and floor slabs for the proposed project. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONEMNTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) STATUS The project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15332, Class 32 – Infill Development Projects. This project qualifies for a Class 32 Exemption because it meets the following PAGE 7 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 conditions: a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the project and determined that no adverse impacts related to the project were identified and no mitigation is required. No environmental impacts would be created as part of this development. Existing contaminants would be remediated as part of this development. e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Remediation of existing contaminants is not an impact of the project but a benefit. No evidence supports a need for further CEQA review. PUBLIC CONTACT Public notice of the July 1, 2025, hearing was mailed to property owners within 750 feet and posted on the Town website. A total of 150 notices were mailed to surrounding property owners. Posting of the meeting agenda serves as notice to the general public. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 52-2025, denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Development Plan request DEV24-0009 allowing the development of The Ivy, a 105-unit assisted living facility, and Tree Removal request TR25-0013 to allow the removal of five Town-protected trees. The property is located at 828 Diablo Road, currently occupied by Sloat Garden Center. Prepared by: Riley Anderson-Barrett Project Planner Reviewed by: Diane J. Friedmann PAGE 8 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 Development Services Director Attachments: A - Resolution No. 52-2025 B - Public Notification and Map & Notification List C - Architectural Plans D - Applicant’s Density Bonus Request Letter E - Civil Engineering Plans F - Landscape Plans G - Tree Evaluation Report H - The Traffic Impact Analysis (Summary, Full Report available on Danville Town Talks) I - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Summary, Full Report available on Danville Town Talks) J - Limited Site Investigation (Summary, Full Report available on Danville Town Talks) K - Letter of Appeal L - Applicant’s Response to Appeal M - Communications with Agencies N - Public Response O - DTSC Communications RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S ACTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUEST DEV24-0009 ALLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE IVY, A 105-UNIT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, AND TREE REMOVAL REQUEST TR25-0013 TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF FIVE TOWN-PROTECTED TREES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 828 DIABLO ROAD, CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY SLOAT GARDEN CENTER (APN: 196-270-029) WHEREAS, O&I Development (Applicant and Owners) have requested approval of a Development Plan (DEV24-0009) application to construct a 105-unit assisted living facility; and WHEREAS, a Tree Removal permit (TR25-0013) is requested to allow the removal of five (5) Town-protected trees; and WHEREAS, the site is located at 828 Diablo Road, and further identified as APN: 196- 270-029; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (DBL), the applicant has requested waivers related to building height, second and third story setbacks, and retaining wall height; and WHEREAS, the project is Categorically Exempt From the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15332, Class 32 – Infill Development Projects; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2025-04 conditionally approving Development Plan request DEV24-0009 and Tree Removal request TR25-0013 during their meeting on May 27, 2025, with an appeal period to end on June 6, 2025; and WHEREAS, an appeal filed by John Phillips (owner of 15 Betten Court) in response to the Planning Commission decision to approve Development Plan request DEV24-0009 and Tree Removal request TR25-0013 was received on May 28, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Town Council did review the project at a noticed public hearing on July 1, 2025; and WHEREAS, public notification for the public hearing to consider this proposal was provided consistent with all requirements of the law; and Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 ATTACHMENT A PAGE 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 WHEREAS, the Town Council did hear and consider all reports, recommendations, and testimony submitted in writing and presented at the hearing; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Council denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s action conditionally approving Development Plan request DEV24-0009 and Tree Removal Permit request TR25-0013 allowing the development of The Ivy, a 105- unit assisted living facility located at 828 Diablo Road. FINDINGS OF APPROVAL Development Plan 1. The proposed development is in substantial conformance with the goals and policies of the Danville 2030 General Plan and the site’s Residential – Multifamily – High Density Special land use designation which allows multiple family residential development in the range of 30-35 units per acre. The applicant has requested a density bonus request for an additional 10 units under the State Density Bonus Law (DBL) which would result in a density of 38.6 units per acre. 2. The design of the proposed development is substantially in conformance with the site’s M-35; Multifamily Residential District. The M-35; Multifamily Residential District is listed as a consistent zoning designation under the site’s General Plan land use designation. Except for waivers for height, second and third story setbacks, and retaining wall height related to the DBL, the development is in conformance with the development standards established under the District. 3. The design of the development and the type of associated improvements will not likely cause serious public health problems, because water and sanitary facilities and services will be available to the parcel. The project has been reviewed by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, and the Town’s Building Division and it was determined that the site is adequately served by public facilities and services. 4. The design of the proposed development and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or subsequently injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in part because the project site is an area where development has previously occurred. 5. The design of the proposed development and proposed improvements would not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. There are currently no existing public easements for access through or use of the subject properties. Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 PAGE 3 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 Tree Removal Permit 1. Necessity. The primary reason for removal of five (5) Town-protected trees is that preservation of those trees would be inconsistent with the proposed residential development of the property and grading to accommodate the development, as well as the deteriorating health of three trees. 2. Erosion/surface water flow. Removal of the Town-protected trees will not cause significant soil erosion or cause a significant diversion or increase in the flow of surface water. 3. Visual effects. Removal of five (5) Town-protected trees will not significantly affect off-site shade or adversely effect privacy between properties due to the site’s topography, the other trees that would remain, and the locations of the trees in relation to other properties, and the addition of trees as part of the landscaping plan. Categorical Exemption The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as an Infill Development Project under Guidelines Section 15332, Class 32, based on the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation, all policies, and the applicable zoning designation. 2. The project is within the Town boundaries and is on a project site of less than five acres, substantially surrounded by urban uses. 3. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species based on the biological study conducted. 4. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality based on the studies conducted. 5. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. 6. In addition, the Town finds that there is no evidence demonstrating that the proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances (Guidelines Section 15300.2(c)). Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 PAGE 4 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditions of approval with an asterisk (*) in the left-hand column are standard project conditions of approval. Unless otherwise specified, the following conditions shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. Each item is subject to review and approval by the Planning Division unless otherwise specified. A. GENERAL 1. This approval is for Development Plan request DP25-0009 and Tree Removal request TR25-0013. These permits authorize the construction of a three-story 105-unit assisted living facility on a 2.72 acre site located at 828 Diablo Road. The Tree Removal permit allows for the removal of five (5) Town-protected trees. Development shall be substantially as shown on the project drawings as follows, except as may be modified by conditions contained herein; a. Architectural Plans, Elevations, and Floor Plans as prepared by B. Hills Architecture and dated March 26, 2025. b. Preliminary Landscape Plan as prepared by BLOCS Design dated March 19, 2025. d. Stormwater Control Plan as prepared by CBG Engineering and dated March 26, 2025. e. Tree Evaluation, as prepared by Bob Peralta Arbor Consulting, dated July 19, 2024. f. Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by EPD Solutions, dated February 26, 2025. g. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Terracon Consultants, Inc. dated May 28, 2024. h. Limited Site Investigation prepared by Terracon Consultants, Inc. dated September 11, 2024. i. Geotechnical Engineering Report as prepared by Terracon Consultants, Inc. dated September 6, 2024. Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 PAGE 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 2. This development may have a maximum of 110 beds. 3. This development is subject to the State Density Bonus Law. This approval includes the granting of waivers of development standards consistent with State Density Bonus Law. Approved waivers are as follows: a. Height – The subject M-35 zoning district requires an average maximum height of 35 feet with a mix of 33, 35, and 37 feet heights. The proposed project would have an average height of 37.5 feet with a maximum height of 40 feet. A majority of the building would be 35 feet with architectural gable elements reaching 37 and 40 feet. A minimum of 7.5% of the three story building is required to be expressed as two or two and a half stories. The proposed project will not have any portion expressed as two or two and a half stories. b. Retaining Wall Height – The retaining wall along the western side to the back of the property is proposed to have a height between 6’5” and 13’5”, while the zoning district limits retaining wall height to six feet. c. Second and Third Story Setbacks – The zoning district requires side and rear yard setbacks to be a minimum of 50 feet for second and third story building elements. The project proposes a minimum of 22 feet for the second and third story rear and side yard setbacks. The proposed minimum setbacks are 36’7” along the southern (left) side, 22 feet along the northern (right) side which would abut El Cerro Blvd., and 128 feet along the western (rear) side. The setbacks are relatively consistent for all three stories excluding minor differences to allow for building articulation and architectural features across the four elevations and three stories. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall reimburse the Town for notifying surrounding residents and interested parties of the public hearings and study sessions for the project. The fee shall be $264.00 ($135.00 + 150 notices X $0.86 per notice). 5. The following fees are due at building permit issuance or as otherwise approved by the Town: a. Child Care Facilities Fee.................................. $ 12,075.00 b. Stormwater Pollution Program Fee........ $ 228/building c. Park Land in Lieu Fee (based on units) ………$ 835,590 Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 PAGE 6 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 d. Excavation Mitigation Fee (SR).......................... $8,128.70 e. SCC Regional Fee........................................... $ 1,877/unit f. Residential TIP Fee......................................... $ 1,400/unit g. Tri-Valley Transportation Fee.................. $ 4,242.76/unit * 6. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall submit written documentation that all requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (SRVFPD) and the San Ramon Valley Unified School District have been, or will be, met to the satisfaction of these respective agencies. 7. Prior to the commencement of ground disturbance, including site preparation and grading activities, the applicant will ensure that all construction workers are trained to recognize archaeological resources which may be found on the site. 8. If previously unidentified cultural resources are encountered during construction or land disturbance activities, work shall stop within 50 feet of the find and the Town of Danville shall be notified at once to assess the nature, extent, and potential significance of any cultural resource find. The applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to implement a Phase II subsurface testing program to determine the resource boundaries, assess the integrity of the resource, and evaluate the resource’s significance through a study of its features and artifacts. If the resource is determined significant, the Town of Danville may choose to allow the capping of the area containing the resource using culturally sterile and chemically neutral fill material. If such capping occurs, then a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to monitor the placement of fill upon the resource. If a significant resource will not be capped, the results and recommendations of the Phase II study shall determine the need for a Phase III data recovery program designed to record and remove significant cultural materials that could otherwise be tampered with. If the resource is determined to be not significant, no capping and/or further archaeological investigation or mitigation shall be required. The results and recommendations of the Phase II study shall determine the need for construction monitoring. If monitoring is warranted, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to be present during all earth moving activities that have the potential to affect archaeological or historical resources. A monitoring report shall be submitted to the Town upon completion of construction. 9. Construction activity shall be restricted to the period between the weekday hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Mondays through Fridays), unless otherwise Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 PAGE 7 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 approved in writing by the City Engineer for general construction activity and the Chief Building Official for building construction activity. Prior to any construction work on the site, including grading, the applicant shall install a minimum 3’ x 3’ sign at the project entry which specifies the allowable construction work days and hours, and lists the name and contact person for the overall project manager and all contractors and sub- contractors working on the job. 10. The applicant shall apply the following measures during construction of the project. Construction Staging. The contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between activity and sensitive receptors. This would reduce noise levels associated with most types of idling construction equipment. Mufflers. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and all internal combustion engine driven machinery with intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, as applicable, shall be in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. During construction, all equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. Electrical Power. Electrical power, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used to run compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities. Equipment Staging. All stationary equipment shall be staged as far away from the adjacent multi-family residential development as feasible. Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use. Workers’ Radios. All noise from workers’ radios shall be controlled to a point that they are not audible at sensitive receptors near construction activity. Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 PAGE 8 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction. Disturbance Coordinator. The applicant shall designate a disturbance coordinator who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The noise disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site. Construction Notice. Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction and grading at the project site, the applicant shall install a 3-foot by 3-foot sign at the project entry that discloses the allowable construction work days and hours, the planned construction schedule, and the contact name and phone number for residents to call for construction noise related complaints. All reasonable concerns shall be rectified within 24 hours of receipt. * 11. The applicant shall provide security fencing, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and/or the Chief Building Official, around the site during construction of the project. * 12. A watering program which incorporates the use of a dust suppressant, and which complies with Regulation 2 of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District shall be established and implemented for all on and off-site construction activities. Equipment and human resources for watering all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces shall be supplied on weekends and holidays as well as workdays. Dust-producing activities shall be discontinued during high wind periods. 13. All physical improvements other than landscaping shall be in place prior to occupancy of any structure in the project. All landscaping shall be installed prior to occupancy of the final unit. If occupancy within the project is requested to occur in phases, all physical improvements shall be required to be in place prior to occupancy except for items specifically excluded in a construction-phases occupancy plan approved by the Planning Division. No structure shall be occupied until construction activity in the adjoining area is complete and the area is safe, accessible, provided with all reasonably expected services and amenities, and appropriately separated from remaining additional construction activity. A temporary vehicular Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 PAGE 9 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 turnaround shall be provided at the end of the completed section of loop roadway to allow separation of resident traffic and construction traffic. * 14. The applicant shall submit a written Compliance Report detailing how the conditions of approval for this project have been complied with as part of the initial submittal for the final map, plan check, and/or building permit review process (whichever occurs first). This report shall list each condition of approval followed by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. The applicant must sign the report. The report is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and/or Chief of Planning and/or Chief Building Official and may be rejected by the Town if it is not comprehensive with respect to the applicable conditions of approval. 15. If demolition or construction activity (e.g., tree removal, grading, road construction, home construction, etc.) is to occur within the raptor nesting season (i.e., between February 1 and July 31), a pre-construction survey of the property for nesting raptors shall be conducted, with such survey to occur a minimum of 15 days prior to planned commencement of demolition or construction activity. The nesting survey shall include examination of all trees located on the property and within 200 feet of the area proposed for demolition or construction activity. If birds are identified nesting on or within the zone of proposed demolition or construction activity, a qualified biologist shall establish a temporary protective nest buffer around the nest(s). Where protective nest buffering is deemed necessary, the nest buffer(s) shall be staked with orange construction fencing or orange lath staking. The buffer shall be of sufficient size to protect the nesting site from demolition or construction related disturbance and shall be established by a qualified ornithologist or biologist with extensive experience working with nesting birds near construction sites. Typically, adequate nesting buffers are 50 feet from the nest site or nest tree dripline for small birds, and up to 250 feet for sensitive nesting birds that include several raptor species known in the region of the project site. No demolition, construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the established buffer until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones. This typically occurs by July 15th of each year. This date may be earlier or later and shall be determined by the qualified ornithologist or biologist. 16. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall retain a specialist to assess rodent control impacts anticipated to be associated with grading activity and installation of improvements. As deemed necessary, Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 PAGE 10 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 following the Planning Division’s review of the specialist’s assessment, the applicant shall develop and implement a rodent control plan to reduce impacts to surrounding properties to the extent reasonably possible for the time periods of heavy construction activity. The report shall include a schedule for regular rodent inspections and mitigation in conjunction with the developer and the Town based on the development schedule for the project. This report shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division. B. SITE PLANNING * 1. All lighting shall be installed in such a manner that lighting is generally down directed and glare is directed away from surrounding properties and rights-of-way. * 2. Any on-site wells and septic systems shall be destroyed in accordance with Contra Costa County Health Services Department - Environmental Health Division regulations. Environmental Health Division permits and inspections for this work shall be obtained. C. LANDSCAPING * 1. Final landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. The plan shall include common names of all plant materials and shall indicate the size that various plant materials will achieve within a five-year period of time. * 2. All plant material shall be served by an automatic irrigation system and maintained in a healthy growing condition. Landscaping and irrigation shall comply with all MWELO water conservation requirements. * 3. All trees shall be a minimum of 15-gallon container size. All trees shall be properly staked. All remaining shrubs used in the project, which are not used as ground cover, shall be a minimum of five gallons in size. * 4. All landscaped areas not covered by shrubs and trees shall be planted with live ground cover or covered with mulch. All proposed ground cover shall be placed so that it fills in within two years. * 5. If site construction activity occurs in the direct vicinity of the on-site and off-site protected trees, a security deposit in the amount of the assessed value of the tree(s) (calculated pursuant to the Town’s Tree Protection Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 PAGE 11 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 Ordinance) shall be posted with the Town prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit to maximize the probability that the affected trees will be retained in good health. The applicant shall be required to secure an appraisal of the condition and value of all affected trees. The appraisal shall be done in accordance with the current edition of the “Guide for Establishing Values of Trees and Other Plants,” by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers under the auspices of the International Society of Arboriculture. The appraisal shall be performed by a Certified Arborist and shall be subject to review and approval by the Chief of Planning. A tree preservation agreement shall be prepared that outlines the intended and allowed use of funds posted as a tree preservation security deposit. That portion of the security deposit still held by the Town two full growing seasons after project completion shall be returned upon verification that the trees covered by the deposit are as healthy as can be provided for under the terms of the tree preservation agreement. 6. The developer shall be required to mitigate the loss of five (5) Town- protected trees with a cumulative diameter of 98.9 inches. As a result, the applicant shall be responsible for the planting on-site of either forty nine (49) 15-gallon oak trees (which are counted as 2” diameter trees) or twenty five (25) 24-inch box size oak trees (which are counted as 4” diameter trees). If all of the trees cannot be accommodated on-site, the applicant may pay the Town’s trees mitigation fee of $250.00 for each 15-gallon tree or $500.00 for each 24-inch box size tree. 7. The applicant shall work directly with the adjacent property owners to reach a mutually acceptable screening solution, either by providing landscaping or financing to aid in landscaping, to be reviewed by the Town’s Planning Division. D. ARCHITECTURE * 1. All ducts, meters, air conditioning and/or any other mechanical equipment whether on the structure or on the ground shall be effectively screened from view with landscaping or materials architecturally compatible with the main structures. * 2. The street numbers for the project shall be posted so as to be easily seen at all times, day and night by emergency service personnel, per CBC 502.1. * 3. Final architectural elevations, details and revisions shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to issuance of Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 PAGE 12 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 building permits for the project. Samples of final materials and the proposed color palette shall be submitted for review and approval by the DRB prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. F. PARKING * 1. All parking spaces shall be striped and provided with wheel stops unless they are fronted by concrete curbs, in which case sufficient areas shall be provided beyond the ends of all parking spaces to accommodate the overhang of automobiles. * 2. Where authorized, compact car spaces shall be clearly designated with appropriate pavement marking or signage. Self-park compact spaces shall be no less than 8 feet by 16 feet in size, including allowable overhang. * 3. Regulatory signage/curb painting for the non-parking side of the interior loop roadway shall be provided, if deemed necessary, to the satisfaction of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District and the City Engineer. 4. The Applicant shall provide a parking management plan subject to review and approval by the Chief of Planning prior to issuance of building permits. The goal of the plan shall be to maintain operations of the facility in a manner to accommodate all parking demand on site. G. GRADING * 1. Any grading on adjacent properties will require prior written approval of those property owners affected. * 2. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site, and to the Town of Danville Development Services Department, a notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to initiate corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for dust, noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice. 3. The applicant shall conduct a design-level geotechnical investigation. The design-level geotechnical investigation shall include additional field Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 PAGE 13 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 exploration and laboratory testing. Soil borings and/or cone penetration tests (CPT) soundings shall be conducted to evaluate the potential for liquefaction in the area of the preliminary geotechnical investigation boring. The recommendations of the design-level geotechnical investigation shall be incorporated into the proposed project grading and building plans after review and approval by the Town’s Building Services Division. These recommendations may include the removal of expansive soils, replacing expansive soils with non-expansive engineered fill, deepening foundations to develop support below the zone of significant seasonal moisture change, designing foundation/slab systems to resist uplift pressures generated by swelling soils, providing drainage and landscaping to minimize seasonal moisture fluctuations in the near-surface soils, compacting soils to the appropriate relative compaction, and designing foundations to resist the adverse effects of liquefaction and corrosive soils. * 4. Where soils or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are different from that anticipated in the soil report, a revised soils report shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. It shall be accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from settlement and seismic activity. * 5. All development shall comply with Danville Ordinance 2004-06 which added Chapter 20 to the Danville Municipal Code relating to Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. All development shall also comply with the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board on September 2, 2009, and effective on July 1, 2010. These regulations require, among other things, that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer for submission to the State of California via the on-line Storm Water Multi-Application Reporting & Tracking (SMARTS) system. No land-disturbing activity shall occur until a Notice of Intent (NOI) is filed and a Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number is issued by the State of California. A copy of the final NOI, including WDID number and attached SWPPP, shall be kept at the project site at all times, with a copy provided to the Town. The requirements of the SWPPP and all other Permit Registration Documents shall be fully implemented during land-disturbing activities. * 6. All grading activity shall address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) concerns. Specific measures to control sediment runoff, construction pollution and other potential construction contamination shall Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 PAGE 14 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 be addressed through the Erosion Control Plan (ECP) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall supplement the Erosion Control Plan and project improvement plans. These documents shall also be kept on-site while the project is under construction. A NPDES construction permit may be required, as determined by the City Engineer. 7. Prior to ground disturbing activities, the project applicant shall install a silt fence or fabric fence along the perimeter of the site, adjacent to residential development, to provide a barrier to movement by rodents and other wildlife. The fence shall be maintained until all vegetation is removed from the site. During grading and construction activities, the project applicant shall maintain a contact person including a phone number, should issues associated with rodent dispersal occur, and shall monitor these recommended actions to determine their efficacy. 8. Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall submit a detailed Environmental Soils Work Plan, prepared by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (or another qualified environmental consultant). The Work Plan shall address the excavation and remediation of dieldrin-impacted as identified in the Limited Site Investigation (LSI), and any other pollutant that may be encountered, and shall include, at a minimum: a. A delineation of impacted areas and estimated volume of soil to be removed; b. Methods for excavation, handling, and off-haul of impacted soil; c. Health and safety protocols for on-site workers; d. Perimeter air monitoring protocols to protect adjacent properties during excavation; e. Procedures for confirmation sampling and final reporting; f. Transportation and disposal plan for all excavated material. 10. If deemed necessary by California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control, the applicant shall participate in DTSC’s Voluntary Cleanup Program related to oversight of contaminant remediation. If not required to participate in DTSC’s Voluntary Cleanup Program or County monitoring programs, the Town shall procure a third-party consultant with expertise in hazardous materials remediation to peer review and oversee the execution of the Work Plan. The applicant shall reimburse the Town for all third-party consultant fees. H. STREETS * 1. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 PAGE 15 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 Division prior to commencing any construction activities within any public right-of-way or easement. * 2. Street signing shall be installed by the applicant as may be required by the City Engineer. Traffic signs and parking restriction signs, which may be required to be installed, shall be subject to review and approval by the Transportation Division and the Police Department. * 3. All mud or dirt carried off the construction site onto adjacent streets shall be swept each day. Water flushing of site debris or sediment or concrete washing is expressly prohibited. * 4. Any damage to street improvements now existing or done during construction on or adjacent to the subject property shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, at full expense to the applicant. This shall include slurry seal, overlay or street reconstruction of the impacted areas if deemed warranted by the City Engineer. * 5. All improvements within the public right-of-way, including curb, gutter, sidewalks, driveways, paving and utilities, shall be constructed in accordance with approved standards and/or plans and shall comply with the standard plans and specifications of the Development Services Department and Chapters XII and XXXI of the Town Code. At the time project improvement plans are submitted, the applicant shall supply to the City Engineer an up-to-date title report for the subject property. * 6. Handicapped ramps shall be provided and located as required by the City Engineer. * 7. The Project shall be required to stripe curbs and install any necessary parking or circulation signage, as determined by the Transportation Division. 8. The project applicant shall develop and submit for approval to the Town of Danville a Construction Management and Mitigation Plan that includes designated haul routes and staging areas, traffic control procedures, emergency access provisions and construction crew parking, to minimize traffic impacts during construction. The plan shall ensure that haul routes and construction activity timing shall comply with the Town of Danville’s requirements. The plan shall also ensure that construction period employees can either park on-site or at an off-site location. In addition, the plan shall require that temporary signage, alternative pedestrian passage, Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 PAGE 16 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 and/or protected walkways be provided should sidewalks be closed during construction. I. INFRASTRUCTURE * 1. Domestic water supply shall be from an existing public water system. Water supply service shall be from the East Bay Municipal Utility District water system in accordance with the requirements of the District. * 2. All wastewater shall be disposed of into an existing sewer system. Sewer disposal service shall be from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District sewer system in accordance with the requirements of the District. * 3. Drainage facilities and easements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and/or the Chief Engineer of the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. * 4. Roof drainage from structures shall be collected via a closed pipe and conveyed to an approved storm drainage facility in the street curb. No concentrated drainage shall be permitted to surface flow across sidewalks. * 5. Any portion of the drainage system that conveys runoff from public streets shall be installed within a dedicated drainage easement or public street. * 6. If a storm drain must cross a lot, or be in an easement between lots, the easement shall be equal to or at least double the depth of the storm drain. * 7. The applicant shall furnish proof to the City Engineer of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site temporary or permanent road and drainage improvements. * 8. All new utilities required to serve the development shall be installed underground in accordance with the Town policies and existing ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility easements, sited to meet utility company standards or in public streets. * 9. All utility distribution facilities, including but not limited to electric, communication and cable television lines, within a residential or commercial development shall be underground, except as follows: a. Equipment appurtenant to underground facilities, such as surface mounted transformers, pedestal mounted terminal boxes and meter Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 PAGE 17 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 boxes, and concealed ducts; b. Metal poles supporting street lights. * 10. All street, drainage or grading improvement plans shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 11. The applicant shall retain a qualified geotechnical engineer to determine whether the project causes a new adverse condition or exacerbates the existing condition of the Town’s storm drain. If the geotechnical engineer determines that the proposed project directly causes a new adverse condition or exacerbates the existing condition, the applicant shall be responsible for mitigating the project-related impacts. J. MISCELLANEOUS * 1. The project shall be constructed as approved. Minor modifications in the design, but not the use, may be approved by staff. Any other change will require Planning Commission approval through the Development Plan review process. * 2. Pursuant to Government Code section 66474.9, the applicant (including the applicant or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Town of Danville and its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the Town or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Town's approval concerning this application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The Town will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. * 3. The location, design and number of gang mailbox structures serving the project shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board and the local Postmaster. * 4. The proposed project shall conform to the Town’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Ord. No. 2004-06) and all applicable construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the site. For example, construction BMPs may include, but are not limited to: the storage and handling of construction materials, street cleaning, proper disposal of wastes and debris, painting, concrete operations, dewatering operations, pavement operations, vehicle/equipment cleaning, maintenance and fueling and stabilization of construction entrances. Training of contractors Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 PAGE 18 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 on BMPs for construction activities is a requirement of this permit. At the discretion of the City Engineer, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) may be required for projects under five acres. * 5. The project shall conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board post-construction C.3 regulations which shall be designed and engineered to integrate into the project’s overall site, architectural, landscaping and improvement plans. These requirements are contained in the project’s Stormwater Control Plan and are to be implemented as follows: Prior to issuance of permits for building, site improvements, or landscaping, the permit application shall be consistent with the applicant’s approved Stormwater Control Plan and shall include drawings and specifications necessary to implement all measures in the approved plan. The permit application shall include a completed Construction Plan C.3 Checklist as described in the Town’s Stormwater C.3 Guidebook. As may be required by the City Engineer and the Chief of Planning, drawings submitted with the permit application (including structural, mechanical, architectural, grading, drainage, site, landscape, and other drawings) shall show the details and methods of construction for site design features, measures to limit directly connected impervious area, pervious pavements, self-retaining areas, treatment (Best Management Practices) BMPs, permanent source control BMPs, and other features that control stormwater flow and potential stormwater pollutants. Prior to building permit final and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall execute any agreements identified in the Stormwater Control Plan which pertain to the transfer of ownership and/or long- term maintenance of stormwater treatment or hydrograph modification BMPs. Prior to building permit final and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit, for the Town’s review and approval, a Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan in accordance with the Town of Danville guidelines. Guidelines for the preparation of Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plans are in Appendix F of the Town’s Stormwater C.3 Guidebook. * 6. As a part of the issuance of a demolition permit and/or building permit for the project, the developer shall submit a recycling plan for building and construction materials and the disposal of green waste generated from Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 PAGE 19 OF RESOLUTION NO. 52-2025 land clearing on the site. Prior to obtaining framing inspection approval for the project, the applicant/owner shall provide the Planning Division with written documentation (e.g., receipts or records) indicating that waste materials created from the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of new buildings were/are being recycled according to their recycling plan, or in an equivalent manner. 7. The applicant shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers, which are in good condition, and to locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far away from existing residences as feasible. APPROVED by the Danville Town Council at a regular meeting on July 1, 2025, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: ABSENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY _____________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _____________________________ CITY CLERK Docusign Envelope ID: 3E28CDBF-4646-435D-B934-235E77FB45F3 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING Danville Town Council Meeting Tuesday, July 1, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. | Town Meeting Hall, 201 Front Street Project Name: DEV24-0009 – 828 Diablo Road – The Ivy Case File Nos.: DEV24-0009 Location: 828 Diablo Road | APN: 196-270-029 Description: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s action conditionally approving Development Plan request DEV24-0009 allowing the development of the Ivy, a 105- unit assisted living facility , and Tree Removal Permit request TR25-0013 to allow the removal of five Town-protected trees. The property is located at 828 Diablo Road, currently occupied by Sloat Garden Center. The applicant is requesting a density bonus pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Section 65915) and related development standard waivers including building height, second and third story setbacks, and retaining wall height. Environmental Review This project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 153 32, Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects. Property Owner and Applicant: O&I Development LLC, 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1900 Irvine, CA 92614 Staff Contact: Riley Anderson-Barrett, Associate Planner (925) 314-3314 Randersonbarrett@danville.ca.gov All interested persons are encouraged to attend and be heard at the scheduled public hearing at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 1, 2025, at the Town Meeting Hall at 201 Front Street, Danville, CA. NOTE: If you challenge the Town’s decision on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town at, or prior, to the public hearing. ATTACHMENT B In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Town of Danville will provide special assistance for disabled citizens. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk (925) 314-3388. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28CFR 35.102 -35.104 ADA Title II] Vicinity Map and Hearing Notice Boundary 828 Diablo Road To view the documents for the proposed project, please visit this project’s page on Danville Town Talks, which is available here https://danvilletowntalks.org/private-land-development/news_feed/828-diablo-road or by scanning the QR code above. PROJECT SITE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 A B C D E APN NAME ADDRESS CITY-STATE ZIP 202010028 WALKER MATTHEW & LINDSAY TRE 1 TYLER CT DANVILLE CA 94526 202010002 OVALLE ANGELA M & JAIME F 1 WILLOWMERE RD DANVILLE CA 94526 202020010 BETTENCOURT RUSSELL J 10 BUCKEYE LN DANVILLE CA 94526 196261006 BURCHARD GERALD H & SUSAN E 10 TURRINI PL DANVILLE CA 94526 196270028 MIRANDA FELIX & MARY TRE 10 TURRINI PL DANVILLE CA 94526 196452001 BRIDE MATTHEW J & ASHLEY A 100 TURRINI CT DANVILLE CA 94526 202010015 GANZ BRIAN & ERICA 11 BUCKEYE LN DANVILLE CA 94526 196452002 MCELROY DEAN J TRE 110 TURRINI CT DANVILLE CA 94526 202020029 KNESE CHRIS L 12 BUCKEYE LN DANVILLE CA 94526 196452003 BUTA RADU & AMY 120 TURRINI CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196452009 JENSEN LINDA M TRE 121 TURRINI CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196251014 WHITE CHRISTOPHER 1220 JONES ST APT 4B SAN FRANCISCO CA 94109 202010017 TRAIN TERRI 13 BUCKEYE LN DANVILLE CA 94526 196452004 MAEDA RODNEY T & HALDIS L TRE 130 TURRINI CT DANVILLE CA 94526 202010005 DILLON JAMES III & ANGEL TRE 14 BUCKEYE LN DANVILLE CA 94526 196452005 TSE DANNY KAI-WAH 140 TURRINI CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196452008 WANG JENNIFER CHRISTINE TRE 141 TURRINI CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196270020 PHILLIPS JOHN & KRISTEN TRE 15 BETTEN CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196452006 KLEIN AMIT & RINA EDEN 150 TURRINI CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196452007 ROBERTS GARY R & MARY A TRE 151 TURRINI CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196462002 ST TIMOTHYS EPISCOPAL CHURCH 1550 DIABLO RD DANVILLE CA 94526 196451001 NISCO ROBERT 1596 RAMONA WAY ALAMO CA 94507 202010031 PAHWA INDERPREET S 1773 GEARY RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94597 202010023 FERRERO MAEBELLE L TRE 2 TYLER CT DANVILLE CA 94526 202020006 ABRAHAMSON JENNIFER S TRE 2 WILLOWMERE RD A DANVILLE CA 94526 196251013 SETTLE ROBERT & MARGARET TRE 20 BOBBIE CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196270019 GHOST ANUMITA 21 BETTEN CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196461014 BARTLING BRUCE TRE 211 SAN REY PL DANVILLE CA 94526 196270024 NATIONAL RETAIL PROPERTIES LP 21333 HAGGERTY RD STE 200 NOVI MI 48375 196391023 DEITSCH WILLIAM & DARLENE TRE 22 HORNET CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196461015 LOVERRO LEO M & HELEN J TRE 221 SAN REY PL DANVILLE CA 94526 196461016 SWEENEY DAVID P & LESLEY G TRE 231 SAN REY PL DANVILLE CA 94526 196461013 BRIGHT STEVEN & REGINA TRE 231 SANTIAGO LN DANVILLE CA 94526 196462009 COHN SARA LOUISE 234 SAN REY PL DANVILLE CA 94526 196262004 SODERLUND JAMES B TRE 24 TURRINI CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196461017 WHITEHEAD AIDAN 241 SAN REY PL DANVILLE CA 94526 196461018 HOLMQUIST GINA M & WILLIAM E 251 SAN REY PL DANVILLE CA 94526 196462008 MCCOY MICHAEL A & NANCY L TRE 254 SAN REY PL DANVILLE CA 94526 196290017 CCC FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONS 255 GLACIER DR MARTINEZ CA 94553 196251012 BONIN MICHEL P & SUSAN I TRE 26 BOBBIE CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196270017 LENK JASON C & KATHERINE TRE 27 BETTEN CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196251011 YEUNG JANICE K 32 BOBBIE CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196270015 SPITZ RUDOLPH E & TINA M TRE 33 BETTEN CT DANVILLE CA 94526 202010030 WILLOWMERE PARTNERS LLC 3355 HILLSIDE TERR LAFAYETTE CA 94549 196461021 DAWES ROBERT E & KELLY M 351 MATADERA CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196251010 BONIN ANDREW & KELLI 38 BOBBIE CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196270014 ANDRES DONALD S TRE 39 BETTEN CT DANVILLE CA 94526 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 A B C D E 202010024 PONTS STEPHEN 4 TYLER CT DANVILLE CA 94526 202020007 YU KAIYIN 4 WILLOWMERE RD DANVILLE CA 94526 196251017 HALL CONNIE E & TIMOTHY J 41 LA JOLLA CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196461003 BORD JAMES A & SIMONA B TRE 4111 VILLA RAFAEL DR LAS VEGAS NV 89141 196251009 PLACK JAMES A & LINDA M 44 BOBBIE CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196270013 SLATTENGREN MATTHEW & NICOLE 45 BETTEN CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196263009 FAVRO NICHOLAS E & LIANA R 45 TURRINI CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196270021 NNN REIT INC 450 S ORANGE AVE STE 900 ORLANDO FL 32801 196262003 MOUSTIRATS JEAN R TRE 46 TURRINI CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196472009 WONG JUSTIN TRE 484 LAKE PARK AVE #442 OAKLAND CA 94610 202020023 GATTI ANITA TRE 5 BUCKEYE LN DANVILLE CA 94526 202010026 QUAN TONY & REBECCA S TRE 5 TYLER CT DANVILLE CA 94526 202010003 KUMAR PRAMOD 5 WILLOWMERE RD DANVILLE CA 94526 196251006 OLSON GREGORY & CONSTANCE TRE 50 BOBBIE CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196270012 CORBETT JOHN & STACEY 51 BETTEN CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196263008 ALFERNESS MEGAN K 53 TURRINI CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196251005 RUSSELL JOSHUA 56 BOBBIE CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196270025 NAGY ARPAD & ANIKO 57 BETTEN CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196251003 ECKERT MARK & PATRYCJA TRE 582 BOBBIE DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196251004 ANDERSEN MARTIN 596 BOBBIE DR DANVILLE CA 94526 202010025 BANTZ RYAN H & SARAH C TRE 6 TYLER CT DANVILLE CA 94526 202020028 DEZILWA SHANE R 6 WILLOWMERE RD DANVILLE CA 94526 196251016 KERRAN CECILIA J & BENJAMIN J 604 BOBBIE DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196263007 ASHURST WILLIAM T & JOYCE TRE 61 TURRINI CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196270008 BARNETT CHARLES & DIANNE TRE 63 BETTEN CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196262002 KRISHNA AVANEESH 68 TURRINI CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196270007 OCONNELL DANIELLE TRE 69 BETTEN CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196270018 OLIVER LOGAN D JR & ANN E 69 GLEN VALLEY CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196262001 GARECHT THOMAS & PEGGY TRE 72 TURRINI CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196263006 BOEPPLE CINDY A 73 TURRINI CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196270029 PARSONS GARY M TRE 731 CAMINO AMIGO DANVILLE CA 94526 196270006 MANGIN ROSA MARIE TRE 75 BETTEN CT DANVILLE CA 94526 202020033 UBHI HARPREET S & ANUDEEP K G 753 DIABLO RD DANVILLE CA 94526 202020032 HARBERT MICHAEL P TRE 755 DIABLO RD DANVILLE CA 94526 202020027 RITCHIE DAVID CARL TRE 757 DIABLO RD DANVILLE CA 94526 202020031 CUBIBURU JOHN P & QUINCI D TRE 761 DIABLO RD DANVILLE CA 94526 196251018 COOPER ROBERT W JR TRE 764 DIABLO RD DANVILLE CA 94526 196251007 ANDRES CRAIG E TRE 771 TURRINI DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196251019 MONTRAIX ROBERT & MONA K 782 DIABLO RD DANVILLE CA 94526 202020005 PETERSON LOREN A TRE 783 DIABLO RD DANVILLE CA 94526 196251008 HUMPHREY EARL D TRE 785 TURRINI DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196263005 YANG ANDY W TRE 79 TURRINI CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196270027 CLEARY RONALD S TRE 790 DIABLO RD DANVILLE CA 94526 202020011 SCHILLER JONATHAN TRE 8 BUCKEYE LN DANVILLE CA 94526 202020022 DEVLIN RAYMOND A & LAUREEN A 8 WILLOWMERE RD DANVILLE CA 94526 196472012 HILTON MICHELLE & ZACHARY 800 MATADERA CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196472014 SONAWANE SUYASH 802 ACKERMAN DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196270023 SIMONI GENE & MICHELE 802 DIABLO RD DANVILLE CA 94526 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 A B C D E 196262006 BRADY BARBARA JEAN TRE 804 TURRINI DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196471001 WEDDERBURN ANDREW J & JULIE A 805 MATADERA CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196261005 BISHOP GERALD E & JUNE M TRE 805 TURRINI DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196472013 GROVE ERIC S & DIANE M TRE 806 ACKERMAN DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196472011 MONDANI GREGG T & SUSAN L TRE 806 MATADERA CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196461012 ACOSTA JAVIER & TIFFANY TRE 807 ACKERMAN DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196270005 BJORGUM JOYCE D TRE 81 BETTEN CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196472010 MCBURNIE NELLY TRE 812 MATADERA CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196462001 KEARNEY DANIEL & JENNIFER TRE 815 ACKERMAN DR DANVILLE CA 94526 202010001 ELREFAI MOHAMED YASSINE 815 DIABLO RD DANVILLE CA 94526 196262007 CADARET APRIL TRE 816 TURRINI DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196261004 DIGIOVANNI IAN C & KENNA J 817 TURRINI DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196471012 MOORE LARRY A & ANNE M TRE 818 ACKERMAN DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196262008 BISHOP KEVIN R & SVETLANA TRE 822 TURRINI DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196261003 FULLER PETER W TRE 823 TURRINI DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196472008 RAGHAVAN AMIT TRE 824 MATADERA CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196471002 CERRONE ANTHONY W TRE 831 MATADERA CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196261002 RICHMAN ANDREW THOMAS TRE 835 TURRINI DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196471003 REARDON STEVEN L & SARAH P TRE 837 MATADERA CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196472015 CROW BRADLEY & EMILY TRE 846 DIABLO RD DANVILLE CA 94526 196263022 RODRIGUEZ DAVID B & MARGARET A 848 TURRINI DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196261001 RODEAN HOWARD C TRE 849 TURRINI DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196263004 LILLIG MARK A & GIANA M TRE 85 TURRINI CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196472016 MOSALLI ALEX & SHOKOH TRE 850 DIABLO RD DANVILLE CA 94526 196391028 HIRSCH ROSALIND ANN TRE 850 HORNET DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196472017 JOHNSON PHILLIP MARTIN 854 DIABLO RD DANVILLE CA 94526 196452010 LYONS ROBERT J & MARIANNE TRE 856 TURRINI DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196452015 PORZIO ANDREA S 858 EL CERRO BLVD DANVILLE CA 94526 196451004 JOHNSON RANDY P & MELODY H TRE 859 TURRINI DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196452011 CHIANG CASPER W & CHI-FEI TRE 860 TURRINI DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196452014 WONG SHUN H & JULIANA H P 862 EL CERRO BLVD DANVILLE CA 94526 196461002 CHANG CRYSTAL 863 EL CERRO BLVD DANVILLE CA 94526 196452012 AVULAMANDA HITIN SUSHRUTH 864 TURRINI DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196451003 BELMESSIERI LOIS M TRE 865 TURRINI DR DANVILLE CA 94526 196452013 STEFANIK MICHAEL R III TRE 866 EL CERRO BLVD DANVILLE CA 94526 196461004 SHARIFI SHAWN & KAREN A 869 EL CERRO BLVD DANVILLE CA 94526 196270004 MAHONEY MICHAEL & LAURA TRE 87 BETTEN CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196461005 WONG JOE & MEI-NGAN TRE 871 EL CERRO BLVD DANVILLE CA 94526 196461006 FREEMAN BLAKE & ASHLEY TRE 873 EL CERRO BLVD DANVILLE CA 94526 196461007 JAGGER BARBARA TRE 875 EL CERRO BLVD DANVILLE CA 94526 196451002 MASSARI GARY F & LEWEVA C TRE 878 EL CERRO BLVD DANVILLE CA 94526 202010020 APPEL ADRIANE L TRE 879 DIABLO RD DANVILLE CA 94526 196461008 DELONG JASON TRE 879 EL CERRO BLVD DANVILLE CA 94526 196461009 BREITBART STEPHEN & PAULA TRE 885 EL CERRO BLVD DANVILLE CA 94526 196461010 PEKELIS BORIS L & MARINA V TRE 889 EL CERRO BLVD DANVILLE CA 94526 196263003 SEMMENS JOHN BERNARD 89 TURRINI CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 196461011 LOING GEORGE 893 EL CERRO BLVD DANVILLE CA 94526 196270022 KUESTER GERARD & GINA TRE 9 BETTEN CT DANVILLE CA 94526 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 A B C D E 202020017 STEWART WILLIAM E EST OF 912 REGALO WAY SAN RAMON CA 94583 196270003 COX MARK C & KATHRYN K TRE 93 BETTEN CT DANVILLE CA 94526 196263001 GANT NICHOLAS J TRE 97 TURRINI CIR DANVILLE CA 94526 202010019 PERA DONALD L & IDA MARIE TRE PO BOX 406 REDWOOD VALLEY CA 95470 196251015 LOWE CHRISTOPHER B PO BOX 565 DANVILLE CA 94526 196451005 PORTER JEANNE M TRE PO BOX 671 DIABLO CA 94528 202010027 SURIYAKUMAR K & RUSHIKA A TRE PO BOX 825 DIABLO CA 94528 28 ' - 0 " 28 ' - 0 " 26'-0"28'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 45464748495051 52 53 54 55 57 58 PR O P O S E D 3 -ST O R Y B U I L D I N G 1S T F L O O R : 3 8 , 5 8 0 S . F . 2N D F L O O R : 3 6 , 1 8 3 S . F . 3R D F L O O R : 3 7 , 3 6 1 S . F . TO T A L B U I L D I N G A R E A : 1 1 2 , 1 2 4 S . F . 42 SH U T T L E 44 EX I T # 1 GE N E R A T O R R O O M MAIN ENTRY PORTE COCHERE CO U R T Y A R D A L Z H E I M E R E X T E R I O R P A T I O AL Z H E I M E R CO U R T Y A R D ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION, SINGLE PORT SW I T C H G E A R CM U ( C -1) T R A S H E N C L O S U R E EXISTING SIDEWALK EL E C T R I C V E H I C L E CH A R G I N G S T A T I O N , DU A L P O R T BIKE PARKING FI R E C O N T R O L R O O M W/ K N O X B O X SIGHT TRIANGLESPROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN,SEE A200 PROPERTY LINE PR O P O S E D RE T A I N I N G W A L L , SE E C I V I L DR A W I N G S PR O P E R T Y L I N E EX I T # 2 EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY DIABLO RD.E L C E R R O B L V D 38'-8 5/8" TYP.BIORETENTION SWALE,SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS EX I S T I N G S T O R M W A T E R E A S E M E N T T O B E R E -RO U T E D , SE E C I V I L D R A W I N G S 43 56 CL E A R 58 ' - 5 5 / 8 " SE R V I C E E N T R A N C E AS 0 1 1 2 AS 0 1 9'-0" 9 ' - 0 " C O M P A C T 59 60 2 6 ' - 0 " B U I L D I N G T O P R O P E R T Y L I N E 2 4 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 3 6 ' - 7 " B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K 1 2 0 ' - 0 " 1 9 ' - 1 1 2 4 1 / 2 5 6 " PA R K I N G CO N V A L E S C E N T H O M E : 1 P A R K I N G S T A L L P E R 3 L I C E N S E D B E D S 86 L I C E N S E D A S S I S T E D L I V I N G B E D S / 3 = 2 9 35 L I C E N S E D M E M O R Y C A R E B E D S / 3 = 1 2 TO T A L R E Q U I R E D P A R K I N G = 4 1 P A R K I N G S T A L L S TO T A L P R O V I D E D P A R K I N G : = 6 0 ST A N D A R D P A R K I N G S P A C E S = 5 4 CL E A N A I R / E V S P A C E S = 3 ( I N C L . 1 V A N AC C E S S I B L E S P A C E ) AC C E S S I B L E P A R K I N G S P A C E S = 2 VA N A C C E S S I B L E P A R K I N G S P A C E S = 1 RE Q U I R E D E V P A R K I N G : EV R E A D Y S P A C E S (C A L G R E E N T A B L E 5 . 1 0 6 . 5 . 3 . 1 ) = 2 AC C E S S I B L E E V R E A D Y S P A C E (C B C T A B L E 1 1 B -22 8 . 3 . 2 . 1 ) = 1 V A N A C C E S S I B L E EV C A P A B L E S P A C E S (C A L G R E E N T A B L E 5 . 1 0 6 . 5 . 3 . 1 ) = 1 0 BI K E P A R K I N G SH O R T -TE R M B I K E P A R K I N G : RE Q U I R E D : 5% O F M O T O R I Z E D V E H I C L E P A R K I N G S P A C E S TO T A L M O T O R I Z E D V E H I C L E P A R K I N G S P A C E S = 6 0 RE Q U I R E D S H O R T -TE R M B I K E P A R K I N G : 60 x . 0 5 = 3 PR O V I D E D S H O R T -TE R M B I K E P A R K I N G : PA R K I N G S P A C E S = 4 AR C H I T E C T : b. h i l l s a r c h i t e c t u r e , P C 31 5 6 S . B O W N W A Y BO I S E , I D A H O 8 3 7 0 6 20 8 - 2 5 8 - 6 1 5 1 CE L E S T E H A A S E ch a a s e @ b h i l l s a r c h . c o m OW N E R : O& I D E V E L O P M E N T , L L C 3 P A R K P L A Z A , S U I T E 1 9 2 0 IR V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 4 94 9 - 7 4 4 - 5 2 0 0 CA R I S S A S A V A N T cs a v a n t @ o a n d i d e v e l o p m e n t . c o m CI V I L E N G I N E E R : CB G E N G I N E E R S 26 3 3 C A M I N O R A M O N , S U I T E 3 5 0 SA N R A M O N , C A 9 4 5 8 3 92 5 - 8 6 6 - 0 3 2 2 KE V I N L A P P kl a p p @ c b a n d g . c o m LA N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T : BL O C S D E S I G N G R O U P , P C 36 0 0 M A Y B E L L E A V E , S U I T E 6 OA K L A N D , C A 9 4 6 1 9 91 6 - 7 1 6 - 9 3 3 1 BL A K E T O M I L L O S O - R I N E H A R T bl a k e @ b l o c s d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m CO N T A C T S PR O J E C T I N F O R M A T I O N A. P . N . 19 6 -27 0 -02 9 PR O P E R T Y S I Z E : 2. 7 2 A C R E S ( 1 1 8 , 4 4 9 S . F . ) ZO N I N G D E S I G N A T I O N : M -35 CO N S T R U C T I O N T Y P E : V -A SP R I N K L E R S : FU L L Y S P R I N K L E R E D NU M B E R O F S T O R I E S : 3 S T O R I E S BU I L D I N G G R O S S A R E A : 11 2 , 1 2 4 S . F . LO T A R E A C O V E R E D : 32 . 9 % F. A . R . .9 4 MA X . B U I L D I N G H E I G H T : 35 ' -0" OC C U P A N C Y G R O U P S : R2 . 1 , A 2 , B , S 1 VI C I N I T Y M A P SITE LEGEND ACCESSIBLE ROUTE LA N D S C A P I N G & O P E N A R E A PA R K I N G L O T A R E A : 4 2 , 2 5 7 S . F . 5% M I N . L A N D S C A P I N G R E Q U I R E D : 2 , 1 1 2 S . F . 25 % O P E N A R E A R E Q U I R E D : 2 9 , 6 1 2 S . F . PR O V I D E D O P E N A R E A & L A N D S C A P I N G : 3 1 , 1 7 5 S . F . EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED SI T E E L C E R R O B L V D D I A B L O R D . D O N A L D D . D O Y L E H WY 3 Y R D . B I N O R G .2 AS01CMU WALL C-1 PER MATERIAL SCHEDULE, SEE A200 SO L I D M E T A L G A T E PA I N T E D " B L A C K " F I N I S H ST E E L C O L U M N F I L L E D W/ CONCRETE3 Y R D . B I N O R G .O R G .SOLID METAL GATE PAINTED "BLACK" FINISHSTEEL COLUMN FILLED W/ CONCRETE 6'-6"PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:OTB DATE:CHECKED BY:SUBMITTAL DATE:REVISIONS:THESE DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF b.hills architecture, PC AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PERMISSION. COPYRIGHT © 2024 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.b.hills architecture, PC 3156 south bown way boise | idaho |83706 p.208.258 .6150 ww com bhillsarch w..b h i l l s .a r c h i t e c t u r e 3 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 0 : 2 0 P M The Ivy Danville 828 DIABLO RD.DANVILLE, CA. 94528 23060 KS CH 03/26/25-4TH ENT. SUBMITTAL ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN AS01PARK IV GROUP LLC.C/O O&I DEVELOPMENT 3 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1920 IRVINE, CA 92614 SC A L E : 1" = 2 0 ' - 0 " SI T E P L A N NO R T H SC A L E : 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 ENLARGED TRASH ENCLOSURE SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"2 TRASH ENCLOSURE1 P L A N N I N G COMMENTS02/14/2025 ATTACHMENT C 28'-0" 28'-0" 26 ' - 0 " 28'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 57 58 59 42 SHUTTLE 44 EXIT#1 MAIN ENTRY PORTE COCHERE COURTYARD AL Z H E I M E R EX T E R I O R P A T I O ALZHEIMER COURTYARD EXISTING SIDEWALK SIGHT TRIANGLE PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXIT#2 E V C H A R G I N G O N L Y 37'-10 37/64" TYP. BIORETENTION SWALE, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS EXISTING STORMWATER EASEMENT TO BE RE-ROUTED, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS 43 56 60 E V C H A R G I N G O N L Y FR O M P R O P E R T Y L I N E 36 ' - 7 " B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K EV C H A R G I N G ON L Y EV C H A R G I N G ON L Y AD J A C E N T D R I V W E W A Y E N T R Y 24 ' - 1 0 5 / 8 " AD J A C E N T D R I V E W A Y E N T R Y 14 1 ' - 6 1 / 4 " AD J A C E N T D R I V E W A Y E N T R Y 39 ' - 1 0 1 / 8 " AD J A C E N T D R I V E W A Y E N T R Y 17 9 ' - 4 1 / 8 " PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: OTB DATE: CHECKED BY: SUBMITTAL DATE: REVISIONS: TH E S E D E S I G N S A N D D R A W I N G S A R E T H E E X C L U S I V E P R O P E R T Y O F b. h i l l s a r c h i t e c t u r e , P C A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D O R D U P L I C A T E D WI T H O U T P E R M I S S I O N . CO P Y R I G H T © 2 0 2 4 A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D . b.hills architecture, PC 3156 south bown way boise | idaho |83706 p.208.258.6150 ww combhillsarchw.. b h i l l s . a r c h i t e c t u r e 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 1 3 : 5 8 P M Th e I v y D a n v i l l e 82 8 D I A B L O R D . DA N V I L L E , C A . 9 4 5 2 8 23060 CH CH 03/26/25-4TH ENT. SUBMITTAL AERIAL SITE PLAN OVERLAY AS02 PA R K I V G R O U P L L C . C/ O O & I D E V E L O P M E N T 3 P A R K P L A Z A , S U I T E 1 9 2 0 IR V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 4 AERIAL SITE PLAN OVERLAY NORTH 1 1 PLANNING COMMENTS 02/14/2025 1118 SENSORY WELLNESS 1125 ALZ. LAUNDRY STAFF BATH 1113 1117 GENERATOR ROOM 1116 FIRE RISER SWITCHGEAR 1126 ELEC. 1121 ALCOVE 1143 ALZHEIMER COURTYARD 1120 ALZHEIMER DINING 1124 SITTING ROOM INTERIOR EXIT STAIR #1 1127 1128 STOR. 1109 SERVICE ENTRANCE 1110 SERVICE ELEV. 1106 READING ROOM 1100 EXEC. DIRECTOR 1103 CAFE 1105 REAR LOBBY 1102 LOBBY 1130 HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR 1129 BUSINESS DIRECTOR 1132 STAFF ROOM 1134 ELEV. ELEC. 1133 MPOE 1139 STOR. 1136 ELEC. 1135 ELEV. #1 1104 GRAND STAIR 1142 ALZHEIMER COURTYARD 1141 ASSISTED COURTYARD 1122 CORRIDOR 1137 CORRIDOR 1123 MUSIC AREA 1119 ALZ. OFFICE 1115 ELEC. 1114 ALZ. STAFF REPORTS 1131 ASSISTED MED. ROOM 1101 Room 1107 ELEV. ELEC. 1108 ELEV. #2 1111 ELEV. ELEC. INTERIOR EXIT STAIR #2 1138 1112 ALZ. MED. ROOM 121 SHASTA AZ-38 122 MENDOCINO AAZ-33 123 MENDOCINO AAZ-34 124 MENDOCINO AAZ-34 125 MENDOCINO AAZ-34 127 MENDOCINO AAZ-33 128 MENDOCINO AAZ-33 130 MENDOCINO AAZ-34 131 MENDOCINO AAZ-34 133 MENDOCINO AAZ-33 134 MENDOCINO AAZ-33 135 MENDOCINO AAZ-33 137 LARKSPUR A-32 138 ELM C-30 139 PALISADE A-35 140 SANTIAGO AA-33 126 SHASTA AZ-26 129 SHASTA AZ-26 132 SHASTA AZ-26 537 MENDOCINO AAZ-30 120 MENDOCINO AAZ-35 119 MENDOCINO AAZ-33 118 MENDOCINO AAZ-33 117 MENDOCINO AAZ-33 116 MENDOCINO AAZ-33 115 MENDOCINO AAZ-34 114 MENDOCINO AAZ-34 113 SHASTA AZ-38 112 MENDOCINO AAZ-35 111 MENDOCINO AAZ-35 111 MENDOCINO AAZ-35 110 MENDOCINO AAZ-33 109 MENDOCINO AAZ-33 108 MENDOCINO AAZ-33 107 MENDOCINO AAZ-33 106 SANTIAGO AA-33 105 SANTIAGO AA-33 104 SANTIAGO AA-33 103 SIERRA D-33D 102 WHITNEY C-CORNER 101 CASCADE C-33 142 CASCADE C-33 1140 M/W TOILET 141 WHITNEY C-CORNER 136 CASCADE C-33 UNIT SUMMARY TYPE DESCRIPTION SQ FT 1ST FLR 2ND FLR TOTAL UNITS ASSISTED LIVING 457A-32 STUDIO 501A-35 ONE BEDROOM 802C-35D ONE BEDROOM 1145D-33D ASSISTED TOTAL UNITS ASSSITED TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 13 35 75 8,659 25,614 1 1 5 2 2 1ST FLR 2ND FLR TOTAL 1 2 397AA-33 STUDIO 125 TYPE DESCRIPTION SQ FT 1ST FLR 2ND FLR TOTAL UNITS MEMORY CARE 396AAZ-33 PRIVATE STUDIO 14 7 33 1ST FLR 2ND FLR TOTAL MEMORY TOTAL UNITS MEMORY TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 30 30 13,115 13,115 1 800C-33 ONE BEDROOM 7 14 TWO BEDROOM 4 1 3 0 0 0 8 16 TOTAL UNITS TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 43 105 21,774 67,205 35 0 0 25,614 409AAZ-34 PRIVATE STUDIO 14 0 7 3 0421AAZ-35 PRIVATE STUDIO 3 632AZ-26 SHARED UNIT 957C-CORNER TWO BEDROOM 2 4 9 220564AZ-38 SHARED STUDIO 3RD FLR 3RD FLR 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 3RD FLR 0 0 2 3 4 8 3 27 19,817 3RD FLR 727C-30 ONE BEDROOM 5 1115 54,090 NAME LARKSPUR PALISADE CASCADE SIERRA SANTIAGO NAME MENDOCINO CASCADE MENDOCINO MENDOCINO SHASTA WHITNEY SHASTA ELM 795C-32 CORNER ONE BEDROOM 2 402CASCADE 19,817 360AAZ-30 PRIVATE STUDIO 1100MENDOCINO PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: OTB DATE: CHECKED BY: SUBMITTAL DATE: REVISIONS: TH E S E D E S I G N S A N D D R A W I N G S A R E T H E E X C L U S I V E P R O P E R TY O F b. h i l l s a r c h i t e c t u r e , P C A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D O R DU P L I C A T E D WI T H O U T P E R M I S S I O N . CO P Y R I G H T © 2 0 2 4 A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D . b.hills architecture, PC 3156 south bown way boise | idaho |83706 p.208.258.6150 ww combhillsarchw. . b h i l l s . a r c h i t e c t u r e 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 3 8 : 3 8 P M Th e I v y D a n v i l l e 82 8 D I A B L O R D . DA N V I L L E , C A . 9 4 5 2 8 23060 CH Checker 03/26/25-4TH ENT. SUBMITTAL FIRST FLOOR PLAN A101 PA R K I V G R O U P L L C . C/ O O & I D E V E L O P M E N T 3 P A R K P L A Z A , S U I T E 1 9 2 0 IR V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 4 SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0" FIRST FLOOR PLAN NORTH INTERIOR EXIT STAIR #1 2127 21 1 9 AS S I S T E D LA U N D R Y 21 1 4 EL E C . 21 2 0 EL E C 21 1 5 ST O R A G E 21 1 8 RE S I D E N T LA U N D R Y 21 1 3 ST A F F LO U N G E 21 2 4 EL E C . 21 1 2 ST A F F BA T H 21 7 WH I T N E Y C -CO R N E R 21 8 CA S C A D E C -33 21 9 SA N T I A G O AA -33 22 0 EL M C -30 22 5 EL M C -30 22 7 EL M C -30 22 9 LA R K S P U R A -32 23 0 EL M C -30 231PALISADEA-35232SANTIAGOAA-33 233WHITNEYC-CORNER 234CASCADEC-33 235SANTIAGOAA-33 201LARKSPURA-32 202CASCADEC-33 203WHITNEYC-CORNER 20 4 SI E R R A D -33 D 2101BRIDGE 2105ELEVATOR 20 5 SA N T I A G O AA -33 20 6 CA S C A D E C -33 20 7 CA S C A D E C -33 20 8 CA S C A D E C -33 20 9 CA S C A D E C -32 CO R N E R 21 2 CA S C A D E C -32 CO R N E R 21 1 1 CO R R I D O R 21 0 WH I T N E Y C -CO R N E R 21 1 CA S C A D E C -35 D 21 3 CA S C A D E C -35 D 21 5 CA S C A D E C -35 D 21 6 CA S C A D E C -35 D IN T E R I O R E X I T S T A I R # 1 21 2 1 21 1 6 HO U S E K E E P I N G 21 1 7 ST O R . 22 1 SA N T I A G O AA -33 22 3 CA S C A D E C -35 D 22 4 CA S C A D E C -35 D 22 6 CA S C A D E C -35 D 21 4 CA S C A D E C -35 D 21 2 2 TE C H CE N T E R 21 2 3 MA I N T E N A N C E DI R E C T O R 21 2 5 RE S I D E N T CA R E CO O R D I N A T O R 21 0 4 ME C H I C A L RO O M 21 0 2 EL E C . 21 0 3 HO U S E K E E P I N G 21 0 8 EL E C . 21 0 7 SE R V I C E EL E V . 2126ELEV. 21 1 0 SE R V I C E CO R R I D O R 22 2 EL M C -30 21 0 9 M/ W TO I L E T 22 8 CA S C A D E C -33 UNIT SUMMARY TYPE DESCRIPTION SQ FT1ST FLR2ND FLRTOTAL UNITSASSISTED LIVING 457 A -32 STUDIO 501 A -35 ONE BEDROOM 802 C -35D ONE BEDROOM 1145 D -33D ASSISTED TOTAL UNITS ASSSITED TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE133575 8,659 25,614115221STFLR2NDFLRTOTAL12397AA-33 STUDIO 12 5 TYPE DESCRIPTION SQ FT1ST FLR2ND FLRTOTAL UNITSMEMORY CARE 396 AAZ -33 PRIVATE STUDIO 14 7 3 3 1ST FLR2ND FLRTOTAL MEMORY TOTAL UNITS MEMORY TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE3030 13,115 13,1151800C-33 ONE BEDROOM 7 14 TWO BEDROOM413 0 00816 TOTAL UNITS TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE43105 21,774 67,2053500 25,614409AAZ-34 PRIVATE STUDIO140 7 3 0 421 AAZ -35 PRIVATE STUDIO 3 632 AZ -26 SHARED UNIT957C-CORNER TWO BEDROOM 2 4 9 2 2 0 564 AZ -38 SHARED STUDIO3RDFLR 3RD FLR00 25000003RDFLR00234832719,8173RDFLR727C-30 ONE BEDROOM 5 11 1 5 54,090NAMELARKSPURPALISADECASCADESIERRASANTIAGO NAME MENDOCINOCASCADE MENDOCINO MENDOCINO SHASTAWHITNEY SHASTAELM795C-32 CORNER ONE BEDROOM 2 4 0 2 CASCADE 19,817360AAZ-30 PRIVATE STUDIO 1 1 0 0 MENDOCINOPROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:OTB DATE:CHECKED BY:SUBMITTAL DATE:REVISIONS:THESE DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF b.hills architecture, PC AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PERMISSION. COPYRIGHT © 2024 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.b.hills architecture, PC 3156 south bown way boise | idaho |83706 p.208.258 .6150 ww com bhillsarch w. .b h i l l s .a r c h i t e c t u r e 3 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 3 8 : 3 8 P M The Ivy Danville 828 DIABLO RD.DANVILLE, CA. 94528 23060 CH Checker 03/26/25-4TH ENT. SUBMITTAL SECOND FLOOR PLAN A102PARK IV GROUP LLC.C/O O&I DEVELOPMENT 3 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1920 IRVINE, CA 92614 SC A L E : 3/ 3 2 " = 1 ' -0" SE C O N D F L O O R P L A N NO R T H 31 2 0 MI X I N G RO O M IN T E R I O R E X I T S T A I R # 1 31 3 1 31 2 5 HO U S E K E E P I N G 31 2 3 EL E C . 31 2 4 EL E C . 31 2 2 M/ W TO I L E T 31 1 7 KI T C H E N 31 1 6 EX H I B I T I O N KI T C H E N DINING & LOUNGE PATIO 3115 31 0 7 AC T I V I T Y RO O M 3109ACTIVITYSTORAGE3102M/W TOILET 3108ACTIVITYDIRECTOR 31 0 1 ME D I A RO O M 3111M/W TOILET3105STOR.INTERIOR EXIT STAIR #2 3106STEP UP R A M P U P 31 2 7 PH Y S I C A L TH E R A P Y 31 2 8 FI T N E S S ST O R . 31 2 6 M/ W TO I L E T 30 9 WH I T N E Y C -CO R N E R 31 0 CA S C A D E C -33 31 1 SA N T I A G O AA -33 31 2 EL M C -30 31 4 EL M C -30 31 6 EL M C -30 31 8 EL M C -30 32 0 LA R K S P U R A -32 32 2 EL M C -30 323LARKSPURA-32 324SANTIAGOAA-33 325WHITNEYC-CORNER 326CASCADEC-33 31 1 9 ST A F F BA T H 30 8 CA S C A D E C -35 D 30 7 CA S C A D E C -35 D 31 3 SA N T I A G O AA -33 31 5 CA S C A D E C -35 D 31 7 CA S C A D E C -35 D 31 9 CA S C A D E C -35 D 46 5 CA S C A D E C -35 D 30 3 WH I T N E Y C -CO R N E R 30 4 CA S C A D E C -35 D 31 2 1 SA L O N 31 2 9 FI T N E S S 3104MEDIACLOSET 30 5 CA S C A D E C -32 CO R N E R 30 2 CA S C A D E C -32 CO R N E R 30 1 CA S C A D E C -33 30 6 CA S C A D E C -35 D 3112DINING 31 1 8 SE R V I C E EL E V . 31 1 4 SE R V E R AR E A 31 3 0 ST O R . 3103ELEV.#2 3113ELEV.#13110BAR\LOUNGE 3133LOUNGEUTILITY 32 1 CA S C A D E C -33 UNIT SUMMARY TYPE DESCRIPTION SQ FT1ST FLR2ND FLRTOTAL UNITSASSISTED LIVING 457 A -32 STUDIO 501 A -35 ONE BEDROOM 802 C -35D ONE BEDROOM 1145 D -33D ASSISTED TOTAL UNITS ASSSITED TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE133575 8,659 25,614115221STFLR2NDFLRTOTAL12397AA-33 STUDIO 12 5 TYPE DESCRIPTION SQ FT1ST FLR2ND FLRTOTAL UNITSMEMORY CARE 396 AAZ -33 PRIVATE STUDIO 14 7 3 3 1ST FLR2ND FLRTOTAL MEMORY TOTAL UNITS MEMORY TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE3030 13,115 13,1151800C-33 ONE BEDROOM 7 14 TWO BEDROOM413 0 00816 TOTAL UNITS TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE43105 21,774 67,2053500 25,614409AAZ-34 PRIVATE STUDIO140 7 3 0 421 AAZ -35 PRIVATE STUDIO 3 632 AZ -26 SHARED UNIT957C-CORNER TWO BEDROOM 2 4 9 2 2 0 564 AZ -38 SHARED STUDIO3RDFLR 3RD FLR00 25000003RDFLR00234832719,8173RDFLR727C-30 ONE BEDROOM 5 11 1 5 54,090NAMELARKSPURPALISADECASCADESIERRASANTIAGO NAME MENDOCINOCASCADE MENDOCINO MENDOCINO SHASTAWHITNEY SHASTAELM795C-32 CORNER ONE BEDROOM 2 4 0 2 CASCADE 19,817360AAZ-30 PRIVATE STUDIO 1 1 0 0 MENDOCINOPROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:OTB DATE:CHECKED BY:SUBMITTAL DATE:REVISIONS:THESE DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF b.hills architecture, PC AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PERMISSION. COPYRIGHT © 2024 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.b.hills architecture, PC 3156 south bown way boise | idaho |83706 p.208.258 .6150 ww com bhillsarch w. .b h i l l s .a r c h i t e c t u r e 3 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 3 8 : 3 9 P M The Ivy Danville 828 DIABLO RD.DANVILLE, CA. 94528 23060 CH Checker 03/26/25-4TH ENT. SUBMITTAL THIRD FLOOR PLAN A103PARK IV GROUP LLC.C/O O&I DEVELOPMENT 3 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1920 IRVINE, CA 92614 SC A L E : 3/ 3 2 " = 1 ' -0" TH I R D F L O O R P L A N NO R T H LEGEND FLAT ROOF AREA SLOPED ROOF DIRECTION TYP. U.N.O.ELEVATOR SHAFT LI N E O F R O O F B E L O W 3" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"TYP. U.N.O.TYP. U.N.O.3" / 1'-0"3" / 1'-0"3" / 1'-0"3" / 1'-0"3" / 1'-0"3" / 1'-0" 3" / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3" / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3" / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3" / 1 ' - 0 " 3" / 1 ' - 0 " 3" / 1 ' - 0 " 3" / 1 ' - 0 " 3" / 1 ' - 0 " 3" / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3" / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"[No Slope]6" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 6 " / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 6 " / 1 ' - 0 " 6 " / 1 ' - 0 " 6 " / 1 ' - 0 " 6 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 6 " / 1 ' - 0 " 6 " / 1 ' - 0 " 6 " / 1 ' - 0 " 6 " / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3" / 1 ' - 0 " 3" / 1 ' - 0 " 6 " / 1 ' - 0 " 6 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 6" / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3" / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " 3" / 1 ' - 0 " 3" / 1 ' - 0 " 3 " / 1 ' - 0 " PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:OTB DATE:CHECKED BY:SUBMITTAL DATE:REVISIONS:THESE DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF b.hills architecture, PC AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PERMISSION. COPYRIGHT © 2024 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.b.hills architecture, PC 3156 south bown way boise | idaho |83706 p.208.258 .6150 ww com bhillsarch w. .b h i l l s .a r c h i t e c t u r e 3 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 3 8 : 3 9 P M The Ivy Danville 828 DIABLO RD.DANVILLE, CA. 94528 23060 CH CH 03/26/25-4TH ENT. SUBMITTAL ROOF PLAN A110PARK IV GROUP LLC.C/O O&I DEVELOPMENT 3 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1920 IRVINE, CA 92614 SC A L E : 3/ 3 2 " = 1 ' -0" RO O F P L A N NO R T H R-1 B-2 TR-1 TR-3 TR-4 ST-1 ST-2 W-1 ST-2 ST-1 B-1 TR-5 TR-2 TR-1MTL-1 1 1 1 COLOR AND MATERIAL SCHEDULE FINISH TAG SUBJECT MFR./MATERIAL COLOR R-1 B-1 ST-1 ST-2 W-1 ROOF STONE VENEER COLUMN/WALL CAP/ WAINSCOT SILLS WINDOWS CERTAINTEED ASPHALT SHINGLE PRESIDENTIAL SHINGLE JAMES HARDIE LAP SIDING CULTURED STONE, COUNTRY LEDGESTONE CULTURED STONE VINYL FRAMES CHARCOAL BLACK BENJAMIN MOORE #AF-5 FROSTINE WHEATON CHAMPAGNE BLACK TR-4 DOORS (EXCLUDES ENTRY) MTL-1 WROUGHT IRON MANUFACTURER VARIES ALL WROUGHT IRON TO BE POWDER COATED COLOR: FLAT BLACK TRIM BENJAMIN MOORE #2134-30 IRON MOUNTAIN TR-2 FASCIA BENJAMIN MOORE OR #2134-30 IRON MOUNTAIN TR-1 TIMBER ELEMENTS BENJAMIN MOORE SOLID STAIN, #ES-60 MAHOGANY TRIM TRIM BODY C-1 CMU BASALITE, SPLIT FACE NATURAL (P) -LIGHTWEIGHT B-2 JAMES HARDIE VERTICAL BOARD AND BATTEN BENJAMIN MOORE #CC-548 ASPHALTBODY TR-3 WINDOW TRIMTRIM BENJAMIN MOORE #AF-5 FROSTINE OR #2134-30 IRON MOUNTAIN TR-5 TRIM TRIM BENJAMIN MOORE #AF-5 FROSTINE OR #CC-548 ASPHALT STONE VENEER (ST-1) COUNTRY LEDGESTONE-'WHEATON' VERTICAL BOARD & BATTEN (B-2) TRIM (TR-5) #CC-548 ASPHALT LAP SIDING (B-1) TRIM (TR-3, TR-5) #AF-5 FROSTINE TRIM (TR-2, TR-3) #2134-30 IRON MOUNTAIN ASPHALT SHINGLE (R-1) CHARCOAL BLACK 7' - 6 " 8'-0" PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: OTB DATE: CHECKED BY: SUBMITTAL DATE: REVISIONS: TH E S E D E S I G N S A N D D R A W I N G S A R E T H E E X C L U S I V E P R O P E R TY O F b. h i l l s a r c h i t e c t u r e , P C A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D O R DU P L I C A T E D WI T H O U T P E R M I S S I O N . CO P Y R I G H T © 2 0 2 4 A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D . b.hills architecture, PC 3156 south bown way boise | idaho |83706 p.208.258.6150 ww combhillsarchw. . b h i l l s . a r c h i t e c t u r e 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 5 8 : 0 5 P M Th e I v y D a n v i l l e 82 8 D I A B L O R D . DA N V I L L E , C A . 9 4 5 2 8 23060 CH Checker 03/26/25-4TH ENT. SUBMITTAL ELEVATIONS A200 PA R K I V G R O U P L L C . C/ O O & I D E V E L O P M E N T 3 P A R K P L A Z A , S U I T E 1 9 2 0 IR V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 4 SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION 390.75' AVERAGE GRADE 391.0' FINISHED FLOOR 425.75' (35' BUILDING HEIGHT) 427.75' (37' BUILDING HEIGHT) 430.75' (40' BUILDING HEIGHT) SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" MONUMENT SIGN 390.75' AVERAGE GRADE 391.0' FINISHED FLOOR 425.75' (35' BUILDING HEIGHT) 427.75' (37' BUILDING HEIGHT) 430.75' (40' BUILDING HEIGHT) 390.75' AVERAGE GRADE 391.0' FINISHED FLOOR 425.75' (35' BUILDING HEIGHT) 427.75' (37' BUILDING HEIGHT) 430.75' (40' BUILDING HEIGHT) 390.75' AVERAGE GRADE 391.0' FINISHED FLOOR 425.75' (35' BUILDING HEIGHT) 427.75' (37' BUILDING HEIGHT) 430.75' (40' BUILDING HEIGHT) 1 PLANNING COMMENTS 02/14/2025 DI A B L O R D . V I E W SO U T H W E S T C O R N E R V I E W NO R T H W E S T C O R N E R V I E W SO U T H E A S T C O R N E R V I E W PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:OTB DATE:CHECKED BY:SUBMITTAL DATE:REVISIONS:THESE DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF b.hills architecture, PC AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PERMISSION. COPYRIGHT © 2024 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.b.hills architecture, PC 3156 south bown way boise | idaho |83706 p.208.258 .6150 ww com bhillsarch w. .b h i l l s .a r c h i t e c t u r e 3 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 1 3 : 1 8 P M The Ivy Danville 828 DIABLO RD.DANVILLE, CA. 94528 23060 CH CH 03/26/25-4TH ENT. SUBMITTAL RENDERINGS A900PARK IV GROUP LLC.C/O O&I DEVELOPMENT 3 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1920 IRVINE, CA 92614 NORTH VIEW SOUTH VIEW PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: OTB DATE: CHECKED BY: SUBMITTAL DATE: REVISIONS: TH E S E D E S I G N S A N D D R A W I N G S A R E T H E E X C L U S I V E P R O P E R TY O F b. h i l l s a r c h i t e c t u r e , P C A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D O R DU P L I C A T E D WI T H O U T P E R M I S S I O N . CO P Y R I G H T © 2 0 2 4 A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D . b.hills architecture, PC 3156 south bown way boise | idaho |83706 p.208.258.6150 ww combhillsarchw. . b h i l l s . a r c h i t e c t u r e 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 1 3 : 4 1 P M Th e I v y D a n v i l l e 82 8 D I A B L O R D . DA N V I L L E , C A . 9 4 5 2 8 23060 CH CH 03/26/25-4TH ENT. SUBMITTAL RENDERINGS A901 PA R K I V G R O U P L L C . C/ O O & I D E V E L O P M E N T 3 P A R K P L A Z A , S U I T E 1 9 2 0 IR V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 4 1 1 PLANNING COMMENTS 02/14/2025 SOUTH VIEW WITH 18' TREES PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: OTB DATE: CHECKED BY: SUBMITTAL DATE: REVISIONS: TH E S E D E S I G N S A N D D R A W I N G S A R E T H E E X C L U S I V E P R O P E R TY O F b. h i l l s a r c h i t e c t u r e , P C A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D O R DU P L I C A T E D WI T H O U T P E R M I S S I O N . CO P Y R I G H T © 2 0 2 4 A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D . b.hills architecture, PC 3156 south bown way boise | idaho |83706 p.208.258.6150 ww combhillsarchw. . b h i l l s . a r c h i t e c t u r e 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 1 3 : 5 5 P M Th e I v y D a n v i l l e 82 8 D I A B L O R D . DA N V I L L E , C A . 9 4 5 2 8 23060 CH CH 03/26/25-4TH ENT. SUBMITTAL RENDERINGS A902 PA R K I V G R O U P L L C . C/ O O & I D E V E L O P M E N T 3 P A R K P L A Z A , S U I T E 1 9 2 0 IR V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 4 1 1 PLANNING COMMENTS 02/14/2025 DIABLO RD. ISOMETRIC VIEW DIABLO RD E L C E R R O B L V D D I A B L O R D EL CERRO BLVD. ISOMETRIC VIEW PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: OTB DATE: CHECKED BY: SUBMITTAL DATE: REVISIONS: TH E S E D E S I G N S A N D D R A W I N G S A R E T H E E X C L U S I V E P R O P E R TY O F b. h i l l s a r c h i t e c t u r e , P C A N D A R E N O T T O B E U S E D O R DU P L I C A T E D WI T H O U T P E R M I S S I O N . CO P Y R I G H T © 2 0 2 4 A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D . b.hills architecture, PC 3156 south bown way boise | idaho |83706 p.208.258.6150 ww combhillsarchw. . b h i l l s . a r c h i t e c t u r e 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 1 : 5 8 P M Th e I v y D a n v i l l e 82 8 D I A B L O R D . DA N V I L L E , C A . 9 4 5 2 8 23060 CH CH 03/26/25-4TH ENT. SUBMITTAL ISOMETRIC A903 PA R K I V G R O U P L L C . C/ O O & I D E V E L O P M E N T 3 P A R K P L A Z A , S U I T E 1 9 2 0 IR V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 4 124" MIN.24" MIN.FINISHED GRADE24" MIN.BASE PLATEBASE COVER12'#4 REINFORCING AT HORIZONTALTIES AT 18" O.C.4#5 VERTICAL REINFORCINGBAR EVENLY SPACEDAROUND PERIMETER231" NONSHRINK GROUTBASE OF 4500 PSICONCRETE. EXPOSEDPORTIONS TO HAVESACK FINISH.#4 BARE COPPER BOND FROM BOLT TOREBAR WITH EXOTHERMIC WELD ORCOMPRESSION FITTING1. PROVIDE GALVANIZED LOCKNUTS AND LOCKWASHERS.2. PROVIDE ANCHOR BOLTS TO MATCH PATTERN AS PROVIDED BY MANUFACTURER.3. STUB 3/4"C-6" ABOVE POLE BASE.POLE BASE DETAIL KEYED NOTES:1" CHAMFER AROUND EDGEFLUSH HANDHOLE AND COVER3" MIN.EXPOSED CONCRETE TO HAVESACK FINISH.72" MIN.THE IVY AT DANVILLE (OUTDOOR)LUMINAIRE DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER CATALOG NUMBER LAMPSINPUT WATTS VOLTAGE MOUNTINGBBACKLIGHTRATINGUUPLIGHTRATINGGGLARERATINGCOMMENTSE1SCONCE (LARGE)PROGRESS LIGHTINGBIRKDALEP560317-031(1) 100W A19 E26 LEDEQUIVALENT15 120VWALLN/A N/A N/AENTRYE2SCONCE (SMALL)PROGRESS LIGHTINGBIRKDALEP560316-031(1) 100WA19 E26 LEDEQUIVALENT15 120VWALLN/A N/A N/A COMMON ENTRYE3 PORCH PENDANT PROGRESS LIGHTINGGRANDBURY P550064-031(1) 75W E26 LEDEQUIVALENT11120V SUSPENDED N/A N/A N/A DINING PATIOE4PORCH HANGING VISUAL COMFORT F3194/8WOW/AF(8) 60W E12 LEDEQUIVALENT72120V SUSPENDED N/A N/A N/A PORTE COCHEREE5 OUTDOOR SOFFIT LENSED NORA LIGHTING NOXTW-5631WW / NOX-56REFLHZ / NHIC-6LMRATLED15.5 MVOLT RECESSED N/A N/A N/A PORCH ENTRYE6 OUTDOOR SOFFIT LENSED GOTHAM EVO6-30/05-AR-MD-LS-MVOLT-EX10LED6.2 MVOLT RECESSED N/A N/A N/A COVERED PATIOS1APARKING LIGHT POLE W/HOUSE SHIELDAMERICAN ELECTRICAVPCL2-P151-MVOLT-ZT-30K-R3-BK-SCC-NR-HSSPOLE: DAS-12-FTB-15D-C03-BK-AB-31-4MOTION SENSOR: SBOR-10-OEX-D-BKLED50 MVOLTDECORATIVEPOLEB1U0 G1 SITES1BPARKING LIGHT POLE W/HOUSE SHIELDAMERICAN ELECTRICAVPCL2-P304-MVOLT-ZT-30K-R3-BK-SCC-NR-HSSPOLE: DAS-12-FTB-15D-C03-BK-AB-31-4MOTION SENSOR: SBOR-10-OEX-D-BKLED100 MVOLTDECORATIVEPOLEB2U0 G2 SITES1C PARKING LIGHT POLE AMERICAN ELECTRICAVPCL2-P302-MVOLT-ZT-30K-R4-BK-SCC-NRPOLE: DAS-12-FTB-15D-C03-BK-AB-31-4MOTION SENSOR: SBOR-10-OEX-D-BKLED80 MVOLTDECORATIVEPOLEB2U0 G3 SITES1D PARKING LIGHT POLE AMERICAN ELECTRICAVPCL2-P202-MVOLT-ZT-30K-R5-BK-SCC-NRPOLE: DAS-12-FTB-15D-C03-BK-AB-31-4MOTION SENSOR: SBOR-10-OEX-D-BKLED80 MVOLTDECORATIVEPOLEB3 U0 G2 SITES1E PARKING LIGHT POLE AMERICAN ELECTRICAVPCL2-P304-MVOLT-ZT-30K-R5-BK-SCC-NRPOLE: DAS-12-FTB-15D-C03-BK-AB-31-4MOTION SENSOR: SBOR-10-OEX-D-BKLED100 MVOLTDECORATIVEPOLEB4U0 G2 SITES2 LOW LEVEL PATH LIGHT JOHN TIMBERLANDBASSET TEXTURED BLACK#67M28LED35 120VLOW LEVELPATH LIGHTN/A N/A N/A SITEE41S1D1S1A1S1AE1E1E1+7'-6"E1+7'-6"TYP.E5TYP. 10E2+7'-6"E2+7'-6"E2+7'-6"1S1A1S1D1S1A1S1A1S1A1S1A1S1A2E6E61S1C1S1AS2+7'-6"E2+7'-6"E24+7'-6"E2+7'-6"E21S1D1S1E1S1D+7'-6"E2S2S2TYP.TYP.E3E5TYP. 431. REFER TO DETAIL 2 THIS SHEET FOR SITE LIGHTING POLES.2. APPROXIMATE BUILDING ELECTRICAL GEAR LOCATION.3. APPROXIMATE UTILITY SERVICE TRANSFORMER LOCATION.4. APPROXIMATE TELEPHONE/MPOE LOCATION.KEY NOTES:#NORTHEE 24533RNICHOLAS WILLIAMFLYNNEGISTEREDPROFESSIONALENGINEERSTATEOFCALIFORNIALECTRICALPROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:OTB DATE:CHECKED BY:SUBMITTAL DATE:REVISIONS:b.hills architecture, PC3156 southbown wayboise | idaho |83706p.208.258.6150wwcombhillsarchw. .bhills.architecturePhone:208.288.2181Project:24BHA0403/24/253/24/2025 3:58:00 PMThe Ivy Danville828 DIABLO RD.DANVILLE, CA. 9452823060JJFGSSITE LIGHTINGPLANES01PARK IV GROUP LLC.C/O O&I DEVELOPMENT3 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1920IRVINE, CA 92614NTS2LIGHT POLE BASE-ABOVE GROUNDSCALE: 1" = 20'-0"1SITE LIGHTING PLAN11111112222221 PLANNINGCOMMENTS02/14/252 4th ENTITLEMENTSUBMITTAL03/26/25 7.81.31.313.911.76.26.56.45.87.26.77.66.60.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.10.20.20.10.20.30.10.30.40.10.30.50.10.30.60.10.40.60.10.40.70.10.40.70.10.40.70.10.40.60.10.30.50.10.10.30.50.10.10.30.50.20.10.30.50.20.10.20.40.20.10.20.30.10.10.10.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.10.20.10.10.10.20.10.20.10.20.10.10.10.20.10.20.10.20.10.20.10.20.10.20.10.20.10.20.10.20.10.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.10.10.10.20.10.10.20.30.10.10.20.40.10.10.20.40.20.10.20.40.20.10.20.30.30.10.10.30.30.10.10.30.30.10.10.30.30.10.10.30.20.10.10.30.50.20.10.10.30.50.20.10.10.30.40.20.10.10.20.40.20.10.10.20.40.60.20.10.10.20.30.40.60.70.91.11.21.10.90.70.60.50.40.30.30.30.30.30.30.40.50.60.71.01.11.21.00.80.60.40.30.20.10.10.20.30.30.40.50.60.60.70.60.60.50.40.40.30.30.20.20.20.20.30.30.40.40.50.60.70.80.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10.10.40.40.40.40.40.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.40.40.60.60.70.70.60.60.70.70.70.70.70.80.90.90.90.80.80.80.80.80.70.70.70.70.60.50.80.91.11.21.11.00.90.80.90.90.91.01.21.41.51.41.21.11.01.01.01.11.11.21.21.00.90.70.91.41.71.81.71.51.11.01.01.11.21.31.72.22.42.11.61.41.41.31.21.41.71.81.81.61.10.80.91.11.22.02.12.01.31.21.21.21.31.61.61.72.62.82.31.61.81.71.51.51.31.92.12.11.71.11.00.81.21.61.51.32.01.51.51.81.61.41.52.02.41.92.02.51.72.42.52.01.82.01.91.42.01.91.31.71.40.91.32.02.01.91.62.02.21.71.51.62.22.72.51.72.62.82.82.22.02.22.42.11.11.31.92.11.61.01.31.91.91.51.01.31.92.11.71.51.62.12.72.51.51.82.42.82.72.22.02.22.31.81.00.91.82.01.61.01.11.51.31.81.91.81.31.61.51.31.51.92.31.72.22.51.82.12.42.01.81.81.61.52.01.91.31.41.30.90.91.11.42.02.22.01.51.21.21.11.31.61.51.72.62.92.41.71.71.71.51.41.41.92.12.11.71.10.90.70.81.11.41.71.71.61.41.11.01.01.11.21.31.72.12.22.01.61.41.31.31.21.41.61.71.61.41.10.80.81.11.21.41.31.21.11.01.01.01.01.01.11.31.41.51.41.21.11.11.11.11.11.11.11.11.00.80.70.81.21.51.61.61.61.51.51.51.31.21.11.11.11.11.11.01.00.91.01.01.01.01.01.00.90.80.70.91.62.12.42.32.32.72.72.41.81.71.51.31.11.01.01.11.21.31.41.62.02.12.12.01.61.31.10.91.72.73.53.72.62.62.41.71.31.00.90.91.21.72.12.42.73.54.64.74.43.02.52.10.81.72.94.23.13.22.21.61.21.00.91.11.41.92.63.74.64.56.57.25.44.80.71.62.54.20.61.82.62.60.61.83.12.80.61.82.92.40.61.42.03.10.41.11.92.80.41.01.71.90.50.91.41.50.50.91.21.30.51.01.21.40.51.01.51.80.51.11.92.30.51.22.22.90.71.42.23.50.72.02.72.40.82.13.31.70.82.02.92.20.71.52.23.50.61.32.33.10.51.22.23.40.61.21.93.70.61.11.73.50.51.11.52.40.51.11.51.70.51.11.81.90.51.22.12.60.61.42.13.40.72.02.72.20.72.03.21.60.71.92.82.20.61.42.13.40.51.12.02.50.51.01.71.70.50.91.21.20.50.91.01.00.50.91.01.00.50.91.21.20.51.01.71.70.51.12.02.50.61.42.13.30.72.02.82.30.82.23.41.91.02.43.63.53.05.811.112.57.13.51.02.13.25.22.32.72.53.15.610.413.812.27.64.83.60.91.93.24.23.42.72.42.84.78.310.69.86.95.14.32.42.93.42.41.71.41.61.72.52.72.32.22.21.61.82.22.95.76.95.54.83.83.13.72.72.42.21.71.61.91.21.61.71.51.11.11.21.21.11.11.31.93.46.34.86.64.82.92.62.82.62.41.71.51.41.72.42.61.11.21.10.90.90.90.90.91.01.11.41.92.93.03.12.41.91.81.71.61.41.21.11.11.62.73.71.01.11.11.21.21.11.11.01.11.21.31.62.02.12.11.91.61.51.31.21.21.11.11.21.82.94.01.01.11.41.71.81.61.31.21.31.31.51.92.12.42.42.32.01.81.51.41.31.51.61.82.23.23.41.21.21.42.12.21.91.51.41.82.73.34.14.54.03.21.91.61.51.52.02.32.62.91.41.81.41.72.01.71.62.23.34.04.55.54.43.92.21.91.91.61.72.12.42.31.52.11.91.21.81.82.43.64.13.52.83.84.22.52.12.32.31.71.41.52.61.52.11.91.21.41.81.41.61.11.11.32.00.80.91.31.61.2 1.3 1.43.22.23.99.23.11.91.31.23.42.72.03.01.42.33.61.71.71.41.71.41.82.63.61.71.52.22.02.84.83.42.91.63.23.32.8 1.5 1.41.02.81.83.11.03.12.05.51.65.91.06.21.73.31.11.71.02.67.12.23.07.21.23.77.21.22.72.21.21.11.71.42.72.12.81.01.91.61.32.01.01.00.81.90.81.91.01.41.42.84.21.6 1.61.92.21.41.76.710.511.611.07.92.53.31.81.72.12.41.81.81.94.94.13.21.60.31.93.13.22.72.41.40.91.11.11.00.80.70.92.51.71.52.31.55.23.91.4 2.1 3.0 3.0 1.2 0.6 3.2 3.6 3.11.40.6E1E1E2E2E2E2E2E2S2E2E2E5E5E5 E5 E5E5E5E5 E5 E5E5E5S1DS1BS1AS1AS1AS1AS1AS2S2S1DS1AS1DS1AS2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S1ES1CS1AE1E3E5E5E6 E6S1DE1E45.70.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.32.01.2 1.52EE 24533RNICHOLAS WILLIAMFLYNNEGISTEREDPROFESSIONALENGINEERSTATEOFCALIFORNIALECTRICALPROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:OTB DATE:CHECKED BY:SUBMITTAL DATE:REVISIONS:b.hills architecture, PC3156 south bown wayboise | idaho | 83706p.208.258.6150wwcombhillsarchw. .bhills.architecturePhone:208.288.2181Project:24BHA0403/24/253/24/2025 3:58:00 PMThe Ivy Danville828 DIABLO RD.DANVILLE, CA. 9452823060JJFGSSITE PHOTOMETRICPLANES02PARK IV GROUP LLC.C/O O&I DEVELOPMENT3 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1920IRVINE, CA 92614NORTHGENERAL PHOTOMETRIC NOTES1. VALUES SHOWN INDICATE ESTIMATED ILLUMINATION LEVEL ATGRADE IN FOOT-CANDLES.SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"1SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN111 PLANNINGCOMMENTS02/14/252 4th ENTITLEMENTSUBMITTAL03/26/25 EE 24533RNICHOLAS WILLIAMFLYNNEGISTEREDPROFESSIONALENGINEERSTATEOFCALIFORNIALECTRICALPROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:OTB DATE:CHECKED BY:SUBMITTAL DATE:REVISIONS:b.hills architecture, PC3156 south bown wayboise | idaho | 83706p.208.258.6150wwcombhillsarchw. .bhills.architecturePhone:208.288.2181Project:24BHA0403/24/253/24/2025 3:58:01 PMThe Ivy Danville828 DIABLO RD.DANVILLE, CA. 9452823060JJFGSLIGHTINGCUTSHEETSES03PARK IV GROUP LLC.C/O O&I DEVELOPMENT3 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1920IRVINE, CA 9261422 4th ENTITLEMENTSUBMITTAL03/26/25 EE 24533RNICHOLAS WILLIAMFLYNNEGISTEREDPROFESSIONALENGINEERSTATEOFCALIFORNIALECTRICALPROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:OTB DATE:CHECKED BY:SUBMITTAL DATE:REVISIONS:b.hills architecture, PC3156 south bown wayboise | idaho | 83706p.208.258.6150wwcombhillsarchw. .bhills.architecturePhone:208.288.2181Project:24BHA0403/24/253/24/2025 3:58:01 PMThe Ivy Danville828 DIABLO RD.DANVILLE, CA. 9452823060JJFGSLIGHTINGCUTSHEETSES04PARK IV GROUP LLC.C/O O&I DEVELOPMENT3 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1920IRVINE, CA 926142 4th ENTITLEMENTSUBMITTAL03/26/252 May 21, 2025 Project Name: The Ivy at Danville Project Applicant: Park IV Group, LLC c/o O&I Development, LLC Location: 828 Diablo Road, Danville, CA 94526 APN: 196-270-029-8 Property Size: 2.68 acres Project Overview The Ivy at Danville is a thoughtfully planned three-story assisted living and memory care community designed to provide 105 residential units, including 70 assisted living and 35 memory care units. The project will feature modern amenities tailored to enhance the daily lives of residents while offering comprehensive support services. The 112,000-square-foot building incorporates a contemporary craftsman architectural style that blends seamlessly with the surrounding Danville neighborhood. The site, currently occupied by Sloat Garden Center, will be redeveloped following demolition and relocation efforts. Extensive landscaping will surround the building, contributing to its aesthetic appeal and promoting connectivity with nearby areas. Right-in, right-out access from Diablo Road will streamline site entry and traffic flow, while additional site improvements will include storm drain easement adjustments in collaboration with the Town of Danville. Building and Site Design Size and Layout: A single three-story, 112,000-square-foot structure offering 105 units for assisted living and memory care. Construction Type: Type V, wood-frame construction. Parking: 60 on-site spaces, exceeding the required 41 spaces. The parking plan includes 54 standard spaces, 3 electric vehicle (EV) spaces, 2 accessible spaces, and 1 van-accessible space. Architectural Style: Contemporary craftsman design featuring natural materials, large windows, covered porches, gabled roofs, and mixed textures such as wood and stone accents. ATTACHMENT D P AGE 2 Landscape and Tree Management The landscaping plan emphasizes integrating the project with its surroundings while enhancing visual appeal. Natural materials and eco-friendly options will be utilized to create a sustainable design. Existing trees and vegetation will be assessed and preserved where feasible, while new plantings will further enrich the site’s appearance. Site Connectivity and Access The project ensures seamless integration with the surrounding area through: Access: A right-in, right-out driveway from Diablo Road. Connectivity: Designed to support pedestrian and vehicular movement within and around the site. Storm Drainage: Coordination with civil engineers and the Town of Danville to relocate the storm drain easement, optimizing site functionality. Entitlements and Approvals The property is designated as Multi-Family High Density (MF-HD) in the 2030 General Plan and zoned MF-35, which permits 30-35 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, the land use category includes permitted uses such as group homes, community care facilities, and residential care facilities. The Ivy at Danville requires the following entitlements: Preapplication Review with City Staff Development Plan Review P AGE 3 Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review Applicant is applying the California Density Bonus Law (“DBL”) for waivers and/or reductions of the development standards as further described below During the Entitlement process, the project may require additional technical studies for the exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act Assisted Living units count towards the Town of Danville RHNA numbers Density Bonus Law Waiver Request This project was submitted under the California Density Bonus Law (“DBL”) The DBL expressly applies to “senior citizen housing development” projects, which include ALMC projects. (Govt. Code § 65915(b)(1)(C) [if requested by the applicant, a city shall grant a density bonus, incentives and concessions, waivers, and DBL parking ratios “if an applicant … seeks and agrees to construct a housing development … that will at least include any one of the following … [a] senior citizen housing development”].) The DBL defines a “senior citizen housing development” broadly as “a residential development developed … for, senior citizens that has at least 35 dwelling units.” (Govt. Code 65915(b)(1)(C); Civ. Code § 51.3.) A “dwelling unit” or “housing” is defined to mean “any residential accommodation other than a mobilehome.” (Civ. Code § 51.3 [emphasis added].) An ALMC that is restricted to senior citizens (55 years of age or older) qualifies as a senior citizen housing project under the DBL and Civil Code because it is a senior residential development that provides age-restricted residential accommodations/housing. (Civ. Code § 51.3(b)(1) [a “senior citizen” means a “person 62 years of age or older, or 55 years of age or older in a senior citizen housing development].) Like other “senior citizen housing development” projects, an ALMC is not required to provide any affordable units to be entitled to the benefits of the DBL. (Govt. Code § 65915(b)(1)(C) [an applicant proposing to construct a senior citizen housing development is entitled to the benefits of the DBL, even without incorporation of affordable units].) That includes, among other things, waiver of development standards that would preclude “construction of a development meeting the criteria of” Government Code Section 65915(b)(1). The Ivy at Danville project is requesting a density bonus along with waivers of development standards. The project’s entitlement to a waiver is not contingent upon the request for an increase in density because a density bonus and waiver of development standards are independent benefits of the DBL. (Govt. Code § 65915(b)(1)(C) [city shall grant a density bonus, incentives and concessions, waivers, and DBL parking ratios “if an applicant … seeks and agrees to construct a housing development … that will at least include any one of the following … [a] senior citizen housing development”]; § 65915(b)(2) [explaining the entitlement to a bonus]; § P AGE 4 65915(e)(1) [a development meeting the “criteria of subdivision (b)(1)” (here, a “senior citizen housing development”) is entitled to waiver of development standards].)1 Key waivers requested include: Requested Waiver: Density bonus increasing the total number of units to 105 o Rationale: Absent the wavier, the Project, as designed, would not be able to be constructed Requested Waiver: Waiver of the reduction of the 50-foot setbacks for the 2nd and 3rd stories to 30 feet. o Rationale: Absent the wavier, the Project, as designed, would not be able to be constructed Requested Waiver: Waiver of the Fencing and Retaining Wall height requirement to exceed 6’ o Rationale: Absent the waiver, the Project, as designed would not be able to be constructed. Requested Waiver: Waiver of the height requirement, increasing the maximum heights to a mix of 35’, 37’ and 40’ building heights with the majority of the main building height at 35’ and the 7.5% requirement on the 3rd floor to allow a full three-story structure. o Rationale: Absent the waiver, the Project, as designed would not be able to be constructed. The project is entitled to waiver or reduction of the above specified standards because, without waiver, the standards have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the project. (Govt. Code § 65915(e)(1) [a city may not “apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a [qualifying development] at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted” by the DBL].) There are no financial criteria for granting a waiver and the number of waivers is unlimited. (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 770.) An agency is not permitted to second-guess the design of a project, even if it requires waivers.2 If a developer proposes a project that qualifies under the DBL, “the law provides a developer with broad discretion to design projects with additional amenities even if doing so would conflict with local development standards.” (Id. at 774.) “The statute does not say that what must be precluded is a project with no amenities, or that amenities may not be 1 See also Housing and Community Development Letter of Technical Assistance to the City of Millbrae (February 28, 2020), which explains that “When development standards restrict the ability of a development to achieve the maximum allowable residential densities or a less dense development, a developer can submit a proposal for, for instance, a waiver from, or reduction of, development standards that have the effect of physically precluding those densities” pursuant to Government Code § 65915(e)(1). 2 See Housing and Community Development Letter of Technical Assistance to City of Encinitas (2022) [reaf�irming the right of applicants to design projects under the DBL and con�irming that “applicants need not consider various alternatives that might be plausible on the site without concessions, incentives, or waivers”]. P AGE 5 the reason a waiver is needed.” (Id.) If the project is a DBL project, “a city may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed….” (Id.) The City’s decision to deny any of the requested waivers will force a reduction in the number of units of the project and jeopardize its functionality/viability. For those reasons, the City cannot deny the requested waivers. The DBL supports the development of senior housing projects by offering density bonuses, waivers, and concessions independent of affordable unit requirements. These provisions ensure that the project can meet its design and operational goals while adhering to state guidelines for senior housing. Housing Accountability Act The proposed project is a housing development project subject to the HAA, which was enacted to facilitate housing projects and limit arbitrary denial of such projects. For the HAA, a “housing development project” is a use consisting of any of the following: (1) residential units only, (2) mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least 2/3rds of the square footage designated for residential uses, and (3) transitional housing or supportive housing. (Govt. Code § 65895.5(h)(2).) An assisted living/memory care (“ALMC”) facility is a housing development project because it consists of residential uses and ancillary supportive/service uses that, even construed as nonresidential uses, do not take the project out of the HAA (because more than 2/3rds of the square footage is for residential uses/units). The Civil Code defines a “senior citizen housing development” as “a residential development developed … for, senior citizens that has at least 35 dwelling units.” (Civil Code § 51.3 [emphasis added].) A “dwelling unit” or “housing” is defined to mean “any residential accommodation other than a mobile home.” (Id. [emphasis added].) The project is a “housing development project” under the HAA.3 If a housing development project complies with applicable objective standards, an agency may only deny or reduce the density of the proposed project if it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that (1) the project would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety, and (2) that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified other than denial or approval of the project at a lower density. (Govt. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A).) However, specific, adverse impacts are a rarity, a fact the HAA recognizes. (Govt. Code § 65589.5(a)(3) [“the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety … arise infrequently”].) 3 The trial court in Yes In My Back Yard v. City of Simi Valley reached this exact conclusion, holding that ALMC facility is a housing development project under the HAA. (Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 56-2020-00539590-CU-WM-VTA.) P AGE 6 A city may not deny or condition a proposed project to reduce its density because of an alleged inconsistency with a subjective development standard. A standard is subjective, as opposed to objective, if it cannot be applied without personal interpretation or subjective judgment. Also, a project’s deviation from a development standard pursuant to the DBL is not grounds to conclude that the project is not consistent with all applicable objective standards. The HAA expressly states that the HAA and DBL function together, and that the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, or waiver, or reduction of development standard under the DBL “shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity” with an applicable standard. (Govt. Code § 65589.5(j)(3).) Statement of Operations and Services The Ivy at Danville will be licensed by the California Department of Social Services to ensure compliance with all regulations. Services include: Three daily meals in various dining areas Assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) Housekeeping, laundry, and transportation services Emergency call systems and medication management Wellness programs, social activities, and recreational opportunities On-site staff to support residents 24/7 Deliveries and Staffing Deliveries: Anticipated 2-3 food deliveries weekly, with additional mail and supply deliveries during off-peak hours. Staffing: Approximately 45-60 part- and full-time employees, with peak shifts requiring 15-20 staff members. H:\4002-000\ACAD\DR\DR01.DWG GENERAL NOTES, LEGEND & SHEET INDEX GENERAL NOTES: 1 LEGEND DESCRIPTIONPROPOSEDEXISTING ABBREVIATIONS H:\4002-000\ACAD\DR\DR01.DWG CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS SAN RAMON WWW.CBANDG.COM SACRAMENTO (925) 866-0322 (916) 375-1877 SHEET NO. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW THE IVY DANVILLE TOWN OF DANVILLE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 20'DATE: MARCH 26, 2025 6040200 OF 8 SHEETS VICINITY MAP SITE Sheet List Table Sheet Number Sheet Title ATTACHMENT E EL CERRO B O U L E V A R D DI A B L O R O A D COURTYARD WA T E R Q U A L I T Y H:\4002-000\ACAD\DR\DR02.DWG CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS SAN RAMON WWW.CBANDG.COM SACRAMENTO (925) 866-0322 (916) 375-1877 SHEET NO. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW THE IVY DANVILLE TOWN OF DANVILLE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 20'DATE: MARCH 26, 2025 6040200 OF 8 SHEETS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 2 EL CERRO B O U L E V A R D OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OHW OHW OHW OHW OH W OH W OH W OH W OHW OHW OHW OHW OH W OH W OH W OH W OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW DI A B L O R O A D H:\4002-000\ACAD\DR\DR03.DWG CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS SAN RAMON WWW.CBANDG.COM SACRAMENTO (925) 866-0322 (916) 375-1877 SHEET NO. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW THE IVY DANVILLE TOWN OF DANVILLE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 20'DATE: MARCH 26, 2025 6040200 OF 8 SHEETS EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 LEGEND EL CERRO B O U L E V A R D OH W OH W OH W OH W OH W OHW OHW OHW OHW OH W OH W OH W OH W OHW OHW OHW OHW OH W OH W OH W OH W DI A B L O R O A D COURTYARD WA T E R Q U A L I T Y H:\4002-000\ACAD\DR\DR04.DWG CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS SAN RAMON WWW.CBANDG.COM SACRAMENTO (925) 866-0322 (916) 375-1877 SHEET NO. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW THE IVY DANVILLE TOWN OF DANVILLE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 20'DATE: MARCH 26, 2025 6040200 OF 8 SHEETS PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 4 LEGEND PROPOSEDEXISTING EL CERRO B O U L E V A R D DI A B L O R O A D COURTYARD FF 391.0 TS M 3 8 5 . 0 C C A A D D B B SECTION A-A SECTION C-C TSM 385.0 DIABLO ROAD SECTION D-D BUILDING FF 391.0 SECTION A-A SECTION B-B H:\4002-000\ACAD\DR\DR05.DWG CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS SAN RAMON WWW.CBANDG.COM SACRAMENTO (925) 866-0322 (916) 375-1877 SHEET NO. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW THE IVY DANVILLE TOWN OF DANVILLE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 20'DATE: MARCH 26, 2025 6040200 OF 8 SHEETS PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 5 LEGEND EL CERRO B O U L E V A R D DI A B L O R O A D COURTYARD WA T E R Q U A L I T Y SA N R A M O N F I R E T R U C K SA N R A M O N F I R E T R U C K Lock to Lock Time Track Width : : : feet SAN RAMON FIRE TRUCK 6.0 6.92 10.00 15.386.50 28.38 Steering Angle 39.2: H:\4002-000\ACAD\DR\DR06.DWG CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS SAN RAMON WWW.CBANDG.COM SACRAMENTO (925) 866-0322 (916) 375-1877 SHEET NO. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW THE IVY DANVILLE TOWN OF DANVILLE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 20'DATE: MARCH 26, 2025 6040200 OF 8 SHEETS PRELIMINARY FIRE ACCESS PLAN 6 FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES: LEGEND EL CERRO B O U L E V A R D DI A B L O R O A D COURTYARD WA T E R Q U A L I T Y H:\4002-000\ACAD\DR\DR07.DWG CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS SAN RAMON WWW.CBANDG.COM SACRAMENTO (925) 866-0322 (916) 375-1877 SHEET NO. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW THE IVY DANVILLE TOWN OF DANVILLE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 20'DATE: MARCH 26, 2025 6040200 OF 8 SHEETS PRELIMINARY PARKING PLAN 7 LEGENDPARKING REQUIREMENTS PARKING TYPE PARKING PROVIDED % OF TOTAL EL CERRO B O U L E V A R D DI A B L O R O A D COURTYARD PROPOSED BUILDING DMA 2 DMA 3 (I M P 3 ) DMA 1 WA T E R Q U A L I T Y H:\4002-000\ACAD\DR\DR08.DWG CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS SAN RAMON WWW.CBANDG.COM SACRAMENTO (925) 866-0322 (916) 375-1877 SHEET NO. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW THE IVY DANVILLE TOWN OF DANVILLE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 20'DATE: MARCH 26, 2025 6040200 OF 8 SHEETS PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN 8BIORETENTION AREA LEGEND DMA 1 BIORETENTION AREA SUMMARY DMA DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA (SF) IMPERVIOUS AREA (SF) PERVIOUS AREA (SF) REQUIRED TREATMENT AREA (SF) PROVIDED TREATMENT AREA (SF) PONDING DEPTH (IN) PERMEABLE PAVEMENT DETAIL PROJECT: DATE: : 24-02 The Ivy at Danville 828 Diablo Road Danville, CA 94528 SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE CLIENT PROJECT TH E U S E A N D P U B L I C A T I O N O F T H E S E P L A N S , S P E C I F I C A T I O N S , A N D D E S I G N S S H A L L B E R E S T R I C T E D T O T H E O R I G I N A L S I T E A N D P H A S E F O R W H I C H T H E Y W E R E P R E P A R E D A N D T I T L E T H E R E T O R E M A I N S W I T H B L O C S D E S I G N G R O U P , P C . U S E W I T H O U T W R I T T E N C O N S E N T O F B L O C S D E S I G N G R O U P , P C I S P R O H I B I T E D . V I S U A L C O N T A C T C O N S T I T U T E S A C C E P T A N C E O F T H E S E R E S T R I C T I O N S . FILE NAME: G:\Shared drives\BLOCS design\Projects\2024\24-04 Danville - Park IV Group\Landscape\24-04_Construction.dwgDATE / TIME OF PLOT (PST): 3/19/2025 11:29 AM BLOCS Design www.blocs.design hello@blocs.design 916 716 9331 3.19.2025 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3.19.2025 O&I DEVELOPMENT Park IV Group LLC, C/O O&I Development 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1920 Irvine CA, 92614 The Ivy at Danville 828 Diablo Road Danville, CA 94528 PROJECT TEAMGENERAL NOTES 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE THAT PLANS ARE CURRENT AND APPROVED. 2. WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE / COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA. 3. THESE PLANS ARE BASED ON IMPROVEMENT PLANS BY (CBG ENGINEERS) DATED 10-18-2024. 4. THE GEOTECHNICAL SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT BY (CO. NAME) DATED (DATE) IS A PART OF THESE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS AS THEY RELATE TO HIS WORK. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY AND/OR REQUIRED PERMITS AND PAY ALL RELATED FEES AND/OR TAXES REQUIRED TO INSTALL THE WORK ON THESE PLANS. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE APPROPRIATELY LICENSED AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE IN WHICH THE WORK TAKES PLACE. 7. A SEPARATE PLUMBING PERMIT AND INSPECTION WILL BE REQUIRED FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO BEGINNING THE WORK AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING WITH THE OWNER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, GOVERNING AGENCIES AND OTHER TRADES. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR DISCREPANCIES IN EXISTING CONDITIONS OR WITHIN THE PLANS PRIOR TO BEGINNING THE WORK. 10. UNIT PRICES FOR ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AS A PART OF THE CONTRACT WITH THE PROJECT OWNER AND PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK, TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS OF MATERIAL AND/OR LABOR. 11. DETERMINATION OF "EQUAL" SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE MADE ONLY BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 12. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED NO LESS THAN 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ANY SITE OBSERVATIONS OR MEETINGS. 13. SITE OBSERVATIONS AND MEETINGS SHALL INCLUDE: A. PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE B. SELECTION AND TAGGING OF SPECIMEN TREES AT NURSERIES C. LANDSCAPE GRADING PRIOR TO PLANTING D. LAYOUT AND INSTALLATION OF HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES IN RELATION TO DESIGN INTENT E. PLANT MATERIAL QUALITY AND INSTALLATION AT THE PROJECT SITE F. OBSERVATION TO ESTABLISH 90-DAY MAINTENANCE PERIOD (PRE-MAINTENANCE) G. FINAL OBSERVATION AT THE END OF THE 90-DAY MAINTENANCE PERIOD (FINAL) NOTE: "LANDSCAPE" SHALL REFER TO ALL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THIS SET OF DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNED BY THIS OFFICE. Danville, California MULCHES ROOT BARRIERS AFTER ALL PLANTING IS COMPLETE, CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL 3" THICK LAYER OF 1-1/2" SHREDDED WOOD MULCH, RECYCLED, NATURAL (UNDYED), OVER LANDSCAPE FABRIC IN ALL PLANTING AREAS (EXCEPT FOR TURF AND SEEDED AREAS). CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SAMPLES OF ALL MULCHES TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND OWNER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ABSOLUTELY NO EXPOSED GROUND SHALL BE LEFT SHOWING ANYWHERE ON THE PROJECT AFTER MULCH HAS BEEN INSTALLED (SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE "GENERAL GRADING AND PLANTING NOTES" AND SPECIFICATIONS). THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF MULCH SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED INCLUDING: BARK MULCH, GORILLA HAIR, SHREDDED CEDAR, OR VIRGIN MATERIALS. ORGANIC MULCH MATERIALS MADE FROM RECYCLED OR POST-CONSUMER SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER INORGANIC MATERIALS OR VIRGIN FOREST PRODUCTS UNLESS THE RECYCLED POST-CONSUMER ORGANIC PRODUCTS ARE NOT LOCALLY AVAILABLE. ORGANIC MULCHES ARE NOT REQUIRED WHERE PROHIBITED BY LOCAL FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN GUIDELINES OR OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL ORDINANCES. A MINIMUM THREE-INCH LAYER OF MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED ON ALL EXPOSED SOIL SURFACES OF PLANTING AREAS EXCEPT IN TURF AREAS, CREEPING OR ROOTING GROUNDCOVERS, OR DIRECT SEEDING APPLICATIONS WHERE MULCH IS CONTRAINDICATED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ROOT BARRIERS NEAR ALL NEWLY-PLANTED TREES THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN FIVE (5) FEET OF PAVING OR CURBS. ROOT BARRIERS SHALL BE "CENTURY" OR "DEEP-ROOT" 24" DEEP PANELS (OR EQUAL). BARRIERS SHALL BE LOCATED IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO HARDSCAPE. INSTALL PANELS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL THE CONTRACTOR USE ROOT BARRIERS OF A TYPE THAT COMPLETELY ENCIRCLE THE ROOTBALL. MWELO STATEMENT COMPOST THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL COMPOST APPLICATION TO ACHIEVE A MINIMUM 6% ORGANIC MATTER IN SOIL COMPOSITION BASED ON A MWELO SPECIFIED SOIL ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE SITE SOIL. REFER TO PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS TO BE LOCATED IN THE LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. FOR LANDSCAPE INSTALLATIONS, COMPOST AT A RATE OF A MINIMUM OF FOUR CUBIC YARDS PER ONE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF PERMEABLE AREA SHALL BE INCORPORATED TO A DEPTH OF SIX INCHES INTO THE SOIL. SOILS WITH GREATER THAN SIX PERCENT ORGANIC MATTER IN THE TOP SIX INCHES OF SOIL ARE EXEMPT FROM ADDING COMPOST AND TILLING. I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND APPLIED SUCH CRITERIA FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLAN. 3.19.2025 _______________________________________________________________ BLAKE TOMILLOSO-RHINEHART, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DATE CA LICENSE #6255 08.31.26 __________ __________________________________ ______________ REGISTRATION EXP. DATE BLOCS DESIGN GROUP 3800 MAYBELLE AVE. UNIT 6 OAKLAND, CA 94619 CLIENT O&I DEVELOPMENT 3 PARK PLACE, SUITE 1920 IRVINE, CA 92614 949 744 5220 CONTACT: CARISSA SAVANT CSAVANT@OANDIDEVELOPMENT.COM STRUCTURAL ENGINEER COMPANY NAME 01 STREET | SUITE 001 CITY, CA 92000 000.000.0000 CONTACT: FIRST LAST XXXX@XXXX.COM GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER COMPANY NAME 01 STREET | SUITE 001 CITY, CA 92000 000.000.0000 CONTACT: FIRST LAST XXXX@XXXX.COM DISCIPLINE COMPANY NAME 01 STREET | SUITE 001 CITY, CA 92000 000.000.0000 CONTACT: FIRST LAST XXXX@XXXX.COM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BLOCS DESIGN GROUP 3800 MAYBELLE AVE. UNIT 6 OAKLAND, CA 94619 916 716 9331 CONTACT: BLAKE@BLOCS.DESIGN ARCHITECT B.HILLS ARCHITECTURE, PC 3156 S. BOWN WAY BOISE, ID 837061 208 258 6151 CONTACT: BYRON HILLS BHILLS@BHILLSARCH.COM CIVIL ENGINEER CBG ENGINEERS 2633 Camino Ramon #350 San Ramon, CA 94583 925 866 0322 CONTACT: KEVIN LAPP KLAPP@CBANDG.COM MEP ENGINEER COMPANY NAME 01 STREET | SUITE 001 CITY, CA 92000 000.000.0000 CONTACT: FIRST LAST XXXX@XXXX.COM MWELO NOTES 1. THIS PROJECT SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. 2. A DIAGRAM OF THE IRRIGATION PLAN SHOWING HYDROZONES SHALL BE KEPT WITH THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER FOR SUBSEQUENT MANAGEMENT PURPOSES. 3. A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION SHALL BE FILLED OUT AND CERTIFIED BY EITHER THE DESIGNER OF THE LANDSCAPE PLANS, IRRIGATION PLANS, OR THE LICENSED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR FOR THE PROJECT. 4. AN IRRIGATION AUDIT REPORT BY A DISINTERESTED THIRD PARTY SHALL BE COMPLETED AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE A SOILS MANAGEMENT REPORT. THE SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT SHALL BE BOTH INTEGRATED INTO THE PLANS AND SUBMITTED AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. 6. PRESSURE REGULATING DEVICES ARE REQUIRED IF WATER PRESSURE IS BELOW OR EXCEEDS THE RECOMMENDED PRESSURE OF THE SPECIFIED IRRIGATION DEVICES. 7. CHECK VALVES OR ANTI-DRAIN VALVES ARE REQUIRED ON ALL SPRINKLER HEADS WHERE LOW POINT DRAINAGE COULD OCCUR. Sheet List Table Sheet Number Sheet Title L0.00 TITLE SHEET L0.01 TREE DISPOSITION PLAN L0.02 TREE DISPOSTION NOTES & TABLES L0.03 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L0.04 CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN L0.05 CONCEPTUAL SOUTHERN PLANTING SECTIONS L0.06 OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT L0.00 TITLE SHEET The Ivy at DanvillePRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR: ATTACHMENT F EL CER R O B L V D DI A B L O R O A D 411 459 490 410 415 401 416 414 402 404 403 405 406 406 406406 417 433 434 412 435 436 452 453 413 456 455 460 460 457 458 462 480 489 491 470 554 TREE DISPOSITION LEGEND EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED DUE TO INCOMPATIBILITY WITH PROPOSED SITE 2 3 DESCRIPTION QTY EXISTING PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED DUE TO HEALTH CONCERNS SYMBOL EXISTING NON-PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED DUE TO INCOMPATIBILITY WITH PROPOSED SITE EXISTING NON-PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED DUE TO HEALTH CONCERNS 46 40 DESCRIPTION QTYSYMBOL L0.01 TREE DISPOSITION PLAN PROJECT: DATE: : 24-02 The Ivy at Danville 828 Diablo Road Danville, CA 94528 SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE CLIENT PROJECT TH E U S E A N D P U B L I C A T I O N O F T H E S E P L A N S , S P E C I F I C A T I O N S , A N D D E S I G N S S H A L L B E R E S T R I C T E D T O T H E O R I G I N A L S I T E A N D P H A S E F O R W H I C H T H E Y W E R E P R E P A R E D A N D T I T L E T H E R E T O R E M A I N S W I T H B L O C S D E S I G N G R O U P , P C . U S E W I T H O U T W R I T T E N C O N S E N T O F B L O C S D E S I G N G R O U P , P C I S P R O H I B I T E D . V I S U A L C O N T A C T C O N S T I T U T E S A C C E P T A N C E O F T H E S E R E S T R I C T I O N S . FILE NAME: G:\Shared drives\BLOCS design\Projects\2024\24-04 Danville - Park IV Group\Landscape\24-04_TreeDisposition.dwgDATE / TIME OF PLOT (PST): 3/19/2025 11:59 AM BLOCS Design www.blocs.design hello@blocs.design 916 716 9331 3.19.2025 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3.19.2025 O&I DEVELOPMENT Park IV Group LLC, C/O O&I Development 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1920 Irvine CA, 92614 The Ivy at Danville 828 Diablo Road Danville, CA 94528 TOTAL EXISTING TREES:91 TREES TOTAL EXISTING PROTECTED TREES:5 TREES EXISTING PROTECTED TREES REMOVED DUE TO INCOMPATIBILITY WITH SITE :2 TREES EXISTING PROTECTED TREES REMOVED DUE TO HEALTH:3 TREES TOTAL EXISTING NON-PROTECTED TREES:86 TREES EXISTING NON-PROTECTED TREES REMOVED DUE TO INCOMPATIBILITY WITH SITE :46 TREES EXISTING NON-PROTECTED TREES REMOVED DUE TO HEALTH:40 TREES MITIGATION REQUIRED:2 TREES MITIGATION PROVIDED IN EXCESS OF REQUIREMENTS REFER TO PLANTING PLAN FOR REPLACEMENT SPECIES AND QUANTITIES. TREE DISPOSITION SUMMARY NORTH 0 20 40 1"=20'-0"SCALE 1. PRIOR TO THE LAND CLEARING STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEARLY MARK ALL PROTECTED TREES FOR WHICH A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED AND SHALL ERECT BARRIERS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE TREES ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING: (1) AROUND AN AREA AT OR GREATER THAN THE FULL DRIPLINE OF ALL PROTECTED NATIVE TREES. 2.NO PERSON SHALL ATTACH ANY SIGN, NOTICE OR OTHER OBJECT TO ANY PROTECTED TREE OR FASTEN ANY WIRES, CABLES, NAILS OR SCREWS TO ANY PROTECTED TREE IN ANY MANNER THAT COULD PROVE HARMFUL TO THE PROTECTED TREE, EXCEPT AS NECESSARY IN CONJUNCTION WITH ACTIVITIES IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 3. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT CAUSE OR PERMIT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL WITHIN THE OUTSIDE PERIMETER OF THE CROWN (DRIPLINE) OR ON THE NEARBY GROUND OF ANY TREE OR GROUP OF TREES WHICH IS TO BE PRESERVED. WITHIN THE OUTSIDE PERIMETER OF THE CROWN (DRIPLINE) OF ANY TREE OR ON NEARBY GROUND, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT CAUSE OR PERMIT STORAGE OF BUILDING MATERIAL AND/OR EQUIPMENT, OR DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OIL, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MORTAR OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF THE TREE. 4. NO PERSON SHALL PERMIT ANY UNNECESSARY FIRE OR BURNING WITHIN 30 FEET OF THE DRIPLINE OF A PROTECTED TREE. 5. ANY LANDSCAPING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE BARRIER AREA SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH HAND LABOR. 6. PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR COMPLIANCE FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, ALL TREES DESIGNATED TO BE PRESERVED THAT WERE DESTROYED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR WITH TREES OF EQUIVALENT DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT TREE CALIPER AND OF THE SAME SPECIES AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY ARBORIST, BEFORE OCCUPANCY OR USE, UNLESS APPROVAL FOR THEIR REMOVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED UNDER PERMIT. 7. THE CITY ARBORIST MAY CONDUCT PERIODIC INSPECTIONS OF THE SITE DURING LAND CLEARANCE AND CONSTRUCTION. 8. IF, IN THE OPINION OF THE CITY ARBORIST, DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES WILL SO SEVERELY STRESS ANY PROTECTED TREE SUCH THAT THEY ARE MADE SUSCEPTIBLE TO INSECT ATTACK, PREVENTATIVE SPRAYING OF THESE TREES BY THE CONTRACTOR MAY BE REQUIRED. TREE PROTECTION GENERAL NOTES THIS PLAN AND THE RELATED INFORMATION IS BASED ON THE ARBORIST REPORT REPORT TITLED 'TREE EVALUATION' DATED JULY 19 2024. ARBORIST CONTACT INFORMATION THE ARBOR GROUP 1021 HOWE AVENUE SACRAMENTO, CA 95112 PROJECT ARBORIST BOB PERALTA RCA#505 ISA WE-7150A 415 712 3213 ARBORIST REPORT INFORMATION PROJECT: DATE: : 24-02 The Ivy at Danville 828 Diablo Road Danville, CA 94528 SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE CLIENT PROJECT TH E U S E A N D P U B L I C A T I O N O F T H E S E P L A N S , S P E C I F I C A T I O N S , A N D D E S I G N S S H A L L B E R E S T R I C T E D T O T H E O R I G I N A L S I T E A N D P H A S E F O R W H I C H T H E Y W E R E P R E P A R E D A N D T I T L E T H E R E T O R E M A I N S W I T H B L O C S D E S I G N G R O U P , P C . U S E W I T H O U T W R I T T E N C O N S E N T O F B L O C S D E S I G N G R O U P , P C I S P R O H I B I T E D . V I S U A L C O N T A C T C O N S T I T U T E S A C C E P T A N C E O F T H E S E R E S T R I C T I O N S . FILE NAME: G:\Shared drives\BLOCS design\Projects\2024\24-04 Danville - Park IV Group\Landscape\24-04_TreeDisposition.dwgDATE / TIME OF PLOT (PST): 3/19/2025 12:00 PM BLOCS Design www.blocs.design hello@blocs.design 916 716 9331 3.19.2025 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3.19.2025 O&I DEVELOPMENT Park IV Group LLC, C/O O&I Development 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1920 Irvine CA, 92614 The Ivy at Danville 828 Diablo Road Danville, CA 94528 PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBILITY PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH ARBORIST REPORT TREE INVENTORY PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBILITY PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, POOR HEALTH NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE NON-PROTECTED, TO BE REMOVED, SITE INCOMPATIBLE L0.02 TREE DISPOSTION NOTES & TABLES EL CER R O B L V D DI A B L O R O A D PROJECT: DATE: : 24-02 The Ivy at Danville 828 Diablo Road Danville, CA 94528 SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE CLIENT PROJECT TH E U S E A N D P U B L I C A T I O N O F T H E S E P L A N S , S P E C I F I C A T I O N S , A N D D E S I G N S S H A L L B E R E S T R I C T E D T O T H E O R I G I N A L S I T E A N D P H A S E F O R W H I C H T H E Y W E R E P R E P A R E D A N D T I T L E T H E R E T O R E M A I N S W I T H B L O C S D E S I G N G R O U P , P C . U S E W I T H O U T W R I T T E N C O N S E N T O F B L O C S D E S I G N G R O U P , P C I S P R O H I B I T E D . V I S U A L C O N T A C T C O N S T I T U T E S A C C E P T A N C E O F T H E S E R E S T R I C T I O N S . FILE NAME: G:\Shared drives\BLOCS design\Projects\2024\24-04 Danville - Park IV Group\Landscape\24-04_Planting.dwgDATE / TIME OF PLOT (PST): 3/19/2025 11:22 AM BLOCS Design www.blocs.design hello@blocs.design 916 716 9331 3.19.2025 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3.19.2025 O&I DEVELOPMENT Park IV Group LLC, C/O O&I Development 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1920 Irvine CA, 92614 The Ivy at Danville 828 Diablo Road Danville, CA 94528 L0.06 OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT NORTH 0 20 40 1"=20'-0"SCALE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS PROJECT AREA: 118,448 SF OPEN AREA REQUIRED:29,612 SF (25%) PROVIDED OPEN AREA:31,204 SF (26.3%) PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPE AREA OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPE AREA OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPE AREA OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPE AREA OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPE AREA OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPE AREA OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPE AREA OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPE AREA OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPE AREA Tree Evaluation Prepared For: Blake-Tomilloso-Rhinehart blocs design group, pc 182 Ironwood Drive Pacheco, CA 94553 Prepared By: Bob Peralta RCA #505/ISA WE-7150A The Arbor Group 1021 Howe Avenue Sacramento, California 95112 (415) 812-3213 July 19, 2024 ATTACHMENT G Dear Blake, Thank you for asking me to provide a Consulting Arborist Report for The Ivy at Danville located at 828 Diablo Road in Danville,California.The Arbor Group visited the site on July 19,2024,to review 91 trees throughout the property.We also reviewed the Topographic Survey provided to you by CBG Civil Engineers dated July 15,2024 -using Sheet 1.The trees are within and around the existing business, with a majority of the trees around the parameter of the property. The existing property is currently a nursery that has used most of the space for their operations with only two trees in the center of the property: 1.Sycamore tree (Platinus occidentialis)-Tree Tag 401 -This tree is in fair health with a 27.2”dbh.-has a large canopy that needs structural pruning for safety to people and property. 2.Mulberry tree (Morus species)-Tree Tag 412 -This tree is in fair health with a 16.3”dbh.The tree appears to be a volunteer that is growing next to the foundation and retaining walls behind the tree. The entrance to the property off El Cerro Blvd.and Diablo Road are (8)planted trees that have matured over the years along the sidewalk and road: 3.Redwood Trees (Sequoia sempervirens)-Two of the Redwood trees - Tree Tags 403 &404 are growing under and near the High Voltage lines and are being pruned for clearance by PG&E tree crews.I do recommend removing these trees before PG&E needs to start topping these trees.The two trees are also growing on a berm and the root flare is starting to encroach onto the sidewalk.Redwood trees should never be planted under power lines and both these are recommended to be removed.The remaining (3)redwood trees -Tree Tags 407,408,&409 are Fair health and need to be monitored yearly to make sure no large branches fail onto El Cerro Blvd. 4.Valley Oak Trees (Quercas lobata)Tree tags 405,410,and 411 that are volunteer oak trees that have adapted well in their growing space.These are Native trees that are drought tolerant and can be pruned to keep them safe and healthy for many years.Note:Tree Tag 11 was rated poor -leaning over the road with a large metal stake that has grown into the trunk. 2 The Ivy at Danville July 19,2024 5.The other small trees that are growing at the entrance are:Tree Tag 402 - (1)Strawberry tree (Arbutus marina),and Tree Tag 406 -(1)Chinese hackberry (Celtis sinensis).Both trees are small and have adapted to their growing space in Fair health. 6.Behind the rock and dirt bins are (3)small volunteer trees -Tree Tag 413 - Fig tree that is a multi weak trunk tree in critical health.Tree Tag 434 - Border Privet and Tree tag 456 Pistache tree are both volunteer trees and are not protected. 7.There are (3)Valley Oak trees mostly bordering the neighbors'fence lines. Tree Tags 414,415 and 416 are growing right up against the fence and are growing away from the fence at a lean -I recommend corrective pruning to keep weight off the canopy. 8.Two of the oak trees are in poor and critical health: Tree Tag 459 -at one time had (4)large stems growing off the main trunk. The remaining two stems (18”/16”dbh.)are both leaning away from each other,one towards the neighbor’s property and the other towards your property.I recommend removing this tree or taking very large end-weight cuts off before one or both stems fail.Tree Tag 490 -this is a large half canopy leaning Valley Oak.This has a 25.8”dbh.,trunk from the base 30 feet up to the canopy is close to a 45 degree lean measured from the top of the canopy.I recommend removing this tree before it fails and harms people or property. 9.Tree Tag 491 is a volunteer Willow tree (Salix species).The tree has multiple small stems growing off the trunk..The trunk and root flare have signs of decay and the back of the trunk has signs of termite damage.I do recommend removing this tree due to poor health. 10.The remaining (67)Redwood trees have all been planted on 12”center to act as a living fence in four areas of the property.The trees are between 3 and 8” in various stages of health with most in critical health due to a lack of irrigation.These trees will never grow to maturity or remain healthy due to how close they were planted together.The lack of irrigation and poor growing conditions,all these row trees are recommended for removal. 3 The Ivy at Danville July 19,2024 The health rating for these trees was rated for health and Safety. Table 1.Tree Species and Health Rating. Table 1.Tree Species and Health Rating. . Dead Critical Poor Fair Good Very Good (0)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) Tree Species Name Total Coast Redwood Trees 34 3 37 74 Valley Oak Trees 1 2 6 9 Sycamore Tree 1 1 Strawberry Tree 1 1 Mulberry Tree 1 1 Fig Tree 1 1 Pistache Tree 1 1 Willow Tree 1 1 Border Pivet 1 1 Hackeberry Tree 1 1 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Totals by Health Rating 37 6 48 91 The health and structure of the trees were assessed visually from ground level.No drilling,root excavation,or aerial inspections were performed.Internal or non-detectable defects may exist and could lead to part of whole tree failures.Due to the dynamic nature of trees and their environment,it is not possible for Arborists to guarantee that trees will not fail in the future. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bob Peralta Bob Peralta Certified Arborist WE-7150A ASCA Consulting Arborist #505 Attached:Map and Pictures 4 The Ivy at Danville July 19,2024 5 The Ivy at Danville July 19,2024 The Ivy at Danville Map data ©2024 Imagery ©2024 Airbus, Maxar Technologies Report a map error Legend (91) Coast Redwood (74) Valley Oak (9) Willow Species (1) Mulberry Species (1) Marina Strawberr... (1) Common Fig (1) Chinese Pistache (1) Chinese Hackberr... (1) Border Privet (1) American Sycamor... (1) The Ivy at Danville 411 410 409 408 407 406 417 418 401419 405420412 416 415 404 403 402 414 413 411 410 409 408 407 406 417 418 401419 405420412 416 415 404 403 402 414 413 Map data ©2024 Imagery ©2024 Airbus, Maxar Technologies Report a map error Legend (91) Coast Redwood (9) Valley Oak (6) Willow Species (0) Mulberry Species (1) Marina Strawberr... (1) Common Fig (1) Chinese Pistache (0) Chinese Hackberr... (1) Border Privet (0) American Sycamor... (1) #Species Health Objective 401 60% - Fair 402 60% - Fair 403 40% - Poor 404 40% - Poor 405 60% - Fair 406 60% - Fair 407 60% - Fair 408 60% - Fair 409 60% - Fair 410 60% - Fair 411 40% - Poor 412 60% - Fair 413 20% - Critical 414 60% - Fair 415 60% - Fair 416 60% - Fair 417 60% - Fair 418 60% - Fair 419 60% - Fair 420 60% - Fair Platanus occidentalis 27.2 American Sycamore 46'-60' Arbutus cv. Marina 8" Marina Strawberry Tree 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…22.2 Coast Redwood 46'-60' Sequoia sempervir…28" Coast Redwood 46'-60' Quercus lobata 6.2 Valley Oak 16'-30' Celtis sinensis 8/6.2 Chinese Hackberry 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…32.9 Coast Redwood 46'-60' Sequoia sempervir…23.3 Coast Redwood 46'-60' Sequoia sempervir…21.2 Coast Redwood 46'-60' Quercus lobata 14.3 Valley Oak 16'-30' Quercus lobata 14" Valley Oak 46'-60' Morus spp.16.3 Mulberry Species 46'-60' Ficus carica 4/4/5/3/4 Common Fig 16'-30' Quercus lobata 4" Valley Oak 16'-30' Quercus lobata 10.8 Valley Oak 46'-60' Quercus lobata 3" Valley Oak 46'-60' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' The Ivy at Danville 436437435 439438440 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 431 430432 429 433 434 436437435 439438440 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 431 430432 429 433 434 Map data ©2024 Imagery ©2024 Airbus Report a map error Legend (91) Coast Redwood (19) Valley Oak (0) Willow Species (0) Mulberry Species (0) Marina Strawberr... (0) Common Fig (0) Chinese Pistache (0) Chinese Hackberr... (0) Border Privet (1) American Sycamor... (0) #Species Health Objective 421 60% - Fair 422 60% - Fair 423 60% - Fair 424 60% - Fair 425 60% - Fair 426 60% - Fair 427 60% - Fair 428 60% - Fair 429 60% - Fair 430 60% - Fair 431 60% - Fair 432 60% - Fair 433 60% - Fair 434 20% - Critical 435 60% - Fair 436 60% - Fair 437 60% - Fair 438 60% - Fair 439 60% - Fair 440 60% - Fair Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Ligustrum obtusifoli…5" Border Privet 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' The Ivy at Danville 442441443444445 448449450451446 452447 453 455 456 460 461 458 459457 442441443444445 448449450451446 452447 453 455 456 460 461 458 459457 Map data ©2024 Imagery ©2024 Airbus Report a map error Legend (91) Coast Redwood (17) Valley Oak (2) Willow Species (0) Mulberry Species (0) Marina Strawberr... (0) Common Fig (0) Chinese Pistache (1) Chinese Hackberr... (0) Border Privet (0) American Sycamor... (0) #Species Health Objective 441 60% - Fair 442 60% - Fair 443 60% - Fair 444 60% - Fair 445 60% - Fair 446 60% - Fair 447 60% - Fair 448 60% - Fair 449 60% - Fair 450 60% - Fair 451 60% - Fair 452 60% - Fair 453 60% - Fair 455 20% - Critical 456 40% - Poor 457 20% - Critical 458 20% - Critical 459 40% - Poor 460 20% - Critical 461 20% - Critical Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…3" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Quercus lobata 5" Valley Oak 46'-60' Sequoia sempervir…4" Coast Redwood 16'-30' Pistacia chinensis 4" Chinese Pistache 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Quercus lobata 18/16 Valley Oak 46'-60' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' The Ivy at Danville 462 463 464 465 467466468 469 470 471 472 474 475473 476 477 478 479 480 481 462 463 464 465 467466468 469 470 471 472 474 475473 476 477 478 479 480 481 Map data ©2024 Imagery ©2024 Airbus Report a map error Legend (91) Coast Redwood (20) Valley Oak (0) Willow Species (0) Mulberry Species (0) Marina Strawberr... (0) Common Fig (0) Chinese Pistache (0) Chinese Hackberr... (0) Border Privet (0) American Sycamor... (0) #Species Health Objective 462 20% - Critical 463 20% - Critical 464 20% - Critical 465 20% - Critical 466 20% - Critical 467 20% - Critical 468 20% - Critical 469 20% - Critical 470 20% - Critical 471 20% - Critical 472 20% - Critical 473 20% - Critical 474 20% - Critical 475 20% - Critical 476 20% - Critical 477 20% - Critical 478 20% - Critical 479 20% - Critical 480 20% - Critical 481 20% - Critical Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' The Ivy at Danville 554 485490483482 486 489484487489 491 554 485490483482 486 489484487489 491 Map data ©2024 Imagery ©2024 Airbus Report a map error Legend (91) Coast Redwood (9) Valley Oak (1) Willow Species (1) Mulberry Species (0) Marina Strawberr... (0) Common Fig (0) Chinese Pistache (0) Chinese Hackberr... (0) Border Privet (0) American Sycamor... (0) #Species Health Objective 482 20% - Critical 483 20% - Critical 484 20% - Critical 485 20% - Critical 486 20% - Critical 487 20% - Critical 489 20% - Critical 489 20% - Critical 490 20% - Critical 491 40% - Poor 554 20% - Critical Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Sequoia sempervir…8" Coast Redwood 31'-45' Quercus lobata 25.8 Valley Oak 46'-60' Salix spp.14" Willow Species 16'-30' Sequoia sempervir…4" Coast Redwood 16'-30' The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Platanus occidentalis ID# 1 American Sycamore Tag# 401 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 27.2 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Platanus occidentalis ID# 1 American Sycamore Tag# 401 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 27.2 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Platanus occidentalis ID# 1 American Sycamore Tag# 401 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 27.2 Health: 60% - Fair The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Platanus occidentalis ID# 1 American Sycamore Tag# 401 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 27.2 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Arbutus cv. Marina ID# 2 Marina Strawberry Tree Tag# 402 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 8" Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Arbutus cv. Marina ID# 2 Marina Strawberry Tree Tag# 402 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 8" Health: 60% - Fair The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 4 Coast Redwood Tag# 403 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 22.2 Health: 40% - Poor July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 4 Coast Redwood Tag# 403 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 22.2 Health: 40% - Poor July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 4 Coast Redwood Tag# 403 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 22.2 Health: 40% - Poor The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 4 Coast Redwood Tag# 403 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 22.2 Health: 40% - Poor July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 4 Coast Redwood Tag# 403 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 22.2 Health: 40% - Poor July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 3 Coast Redwood Tag# 404 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 28" Health: 40% - Poor The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 3 Coast Redwood Tag# 404 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 28" Health: 40% - Poor July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 3 Coast Redwood Tag# 404 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 28" Health: 40% - Poor July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 3 Coast Redwood Tag# 404 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 28" Health: 40% - Poor The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 3 Coast Redwood Tag# 404 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 28" Health: 40% - Poor July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 5 Valley Oak Tag# 405 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 6.2 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 5 Valley Oak Tag# 405 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 6.2 Health: 60% - Fair The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 5 Valley Oak Tag# 405 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 6.2 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 5 Valley Oak Tag# 405 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 6.2 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Celtis sinensis ID# 6 Chinese Hackberry Tag# 406 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 8/6.2 Health: 60% - Fair The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Celtis sinensis ID# 6 Chinese Hackberry Tag# 406 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 8/6.2 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Celtis sinensis ID# 6 Chinese Hackberry Tag# 406 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 8/6.2 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Celtis sinensis ID# 6 Chinese Hackberry Tag# 406 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 8/6.2 Health: 60% - Fair The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 7 Coast Redwood Tag# 407 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 32.9 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 7 Coast Redwood Tag# 407 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 32.9 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 7 Coast Redwood Tag# 407 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 32.9 Health: 60% - Fair The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 7 Coast Redwood Tag# 407 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 32.9 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 7 Coast Redwood Tag# 407 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 32.9 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 8 Coast Redwood Tag# 408 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 23.3 Health: 60% - Fair The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 8 Coast Redwood Tag# 408 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 23.3 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 8 Coast Redwood Tag# 408 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 23.3 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 8 Coast Redwood Tag# 408 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 23.3 Health: 60% - Fair The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 8 Coast Redwood Tag# 408 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 23.3 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 9 Coast Redwood Tag# 409 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 21.2 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 9 Coast Redwood Tag# 409 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 21.2 Health: 60% - Fair The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 9 Coast Redwood Tag# 409 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 21.2 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 9 Coast Redwood Tag# 409 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 21.2 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 9 Coast Redwood Tag# 409 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 21.2 Health: 60% - Fair The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 10 Valley Oak Tag# 410 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 14.3 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 10 Valley Oak Tag# 410 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 14.3 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 10 Valley Oak Tag# 410 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 14.3 Health: 60% - Fair The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 10 Valley Oak Tag# 410 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 14.3 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 10 Valley Oak Tag# 410 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 14.3 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 11 Valley Oak Tag# 411 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 14" Health: 40% - Poor The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 11 Valley Oak Tag# 411 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 14" Health: 40% - Poor July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 11 Valley Oak Tag# 411 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 14" Health: 40% - Poor July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 11 Valley Oak Tag# 411 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 14" Health: 40% - Poor The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Morus spp.ID# 12 Mulberry Species Tag# 412 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 16.3 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Morus spp.ID# 12 Mulberry Species Tag# 412 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 16.3 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Morus spp.ID# 12 Mulberry Species Tag# 412 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 16.3 Health: 60% - Fair The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Morus spp.ID# 12 Mulberry Species Tag# 412 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 16.3 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Ficus carica ID# 13 Common Fig Tag# 413 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 4/4… Health: 20% - Critical July 19, 2024 Ficus carica ID# 13 Common Fig Tag# 413 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 4/4… Health: 20% - Critical The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 14 Valley Oak Tag# 414 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 4" Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 14 Valley Oak Tag# 414 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 4" Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 15 Valley Oak Tag# 415 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 10.8 Health: 60% - Fair The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 15 Valley Oak Tag# 415 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 10.8 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 15 Valley Oak Tag# 415 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 10.8 Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 15 Valley Oak Tag# 415 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 10.8 Health: 60% - Fair The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 16 Valley Oak Tag# 416 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 3" Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 16 Valley Oak Tag# 416 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 3" Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 16 Valley Oak Tag# 416 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 3" Health: 60% - Fair The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 17 Coast Redwood Tag# 417 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 3" Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 17 Coast Redwood Tag# 417 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 3" Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 17 Coast Redwood Tag# 417 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 3" Health: 60% - Fair The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 17 Coast Redwood Tag# 417 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 3" Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Ligustrum obtusifolium ID# 34 Border Privet Tag# 434 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 5" Health: 20% - Critical July 19, 2024 Ligustrum obtusifolium ID# 34 Border Privet Tag# 434 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 5" Health: 20% - Critical The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 35 Coast Redwood Tag# 435 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 3" Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 36 Coast Redwood Tag# 436 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 3" Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 53 Valley Oak Tag# 453 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 5" Health: 60% - Fair The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 53 Valley Oak Tag# 453 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 5" Health: 60% - Fair July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 55 Coast Redwood Tag# 455 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 4" Health: 20% - Critical July 19, 2024 Pistacia chinensis ID# 56 Chinese Pistache Tag# 456 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 4" Health: 40% - Poor The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 57 Coast Redwood Tag# 457 Height: 31'-45'DBH: 8" Health: 20% - Critical July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 58 Coast Redwood Tag# 458 Height: 31'-45'DBH: 8" Health: 20% - Critical July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 59 Valley Oak Tag# 459 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 18/16 Health: 40% - Poor The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 59 Valley Oak Tag# 459 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 18/16 Health: 40% - Poor July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 59 Valley Oak Tag# 459 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 18/16 Health: 40% - Poor July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 59 Valley Oak Tag# 459 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 18/16 Health: 40% - Poor The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 60 Coast Redwood Tag# 460 Height: 31'-45'DBH: 8" Health: 20% - Critical July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 61 Coast Redwood Tag# 461 Height: 31'-45'DBH: 8" Health: 20% - Critical July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 68 Coast Redwood Tag# 468 Height: 31'-45'DBH: 8" Health: 20% - Critical The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 80 Coast Redwood Tag# 480 Height: 31'-45'DBH: 8" Health: 20% - Critical July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 90 Valley Oak Tag# 490 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 25.8 Health: 20% - Critical July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 90 Valley Oak Tag# 490 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 25.8 Health: 20% - Critical The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 90 Valley Oak Tag# 490 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 25.8 Health: 20% - Critical July 19, 2024 Quercus lobata ID# 90 Valley Oak Tag# 490 Height: 46'-60'DBH: 25.8 Health: 20% - Critical July 19, 2024 Salix spp.ID# 91 Willow Species Tag# 491 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 14" Health: 40% - Poor The Ivy at Danville July 19, 2024 Salix spp.ID# 91 Willow Species Tag# 491 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 14" Health: 40% - Poor July 19, 2024 Salix spp.ID# 91 Willow Species Tag# 491 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 14" Health: 40% - Poor July 19, 2024 Sequoia sempervirens ID# 54 Coast Redwood Tag# 554 Height: 16'-30'DBH: 4" Health: 20% - Critical Attachment I is a summary of a 294 page Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. To view the entire document, please visit the Danville Town Talks website by scanning the QR code or following the link below. https://danvilletowntalks.org/private-land-development/news_feed/828-diablo-road ATTACHMENT I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville 828 Diablo Road Danville, Contra Costa County, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Prepared for: Park IV Group LLC 3 Park Plaza Irvine, California Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Concord, California 1220 Concord Avenue, Suite 450 Concord, California 94520 P 510-547-7771 F 510-547-1983 Terracon.com Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials May 28, 2024 Park IV Group LLC 3 Park Plaza Irvine, California 92614 Attn: Ms. Carissa Savant P: (949) 744-5200 E: csavant@oakmontmg.com Re: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville 828 Diablo Road Danville, Contra Costa County, California Terracon Project No. R1247301 Dear Ms. Savant: Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) is pleased to submit the enclosed Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report for the above-referenced subject property (hereinafter known as the ‘site’). This assessment was performed in accordance with a Terracon Proposal No. PR1247301, dated April 11, 2024. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. In addition to Phase I services, our professionals provide other environmental, geotechnical, construction materials, and facilities services on a wide variety of projects locally, regionally, and nationally. For more detailed information on all of Terracon’s services please visit our website at www.terracon.com. If there are any questions regarding this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc. Elissa Tianero Joe Rosenbery, PG 9420 Kristin Stout Assistant Scientist Environmental Department Manager Senior Associate Attachments For: Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................... i Findings and Opinions ................................................................................ i Significant Data Gaps ................................................................................ vi Conclusions ............................................................................................. vi Recommendations..................................................................................... vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 1 1.1 Site Description ................................................................................ 1 1.2 Scope of Services .............................................................................. 1 1.3 Standard of Care ............................................................................... 2 1.4 Additional Scope Limitations, ASTM Deviations, and Data Gaps ................. 2 1.5 Reliance ........................................................................................... 3 1.6 Client Provided Information ................................................................ 4 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ................................................................. 4 3.0 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ................................................ 6 3.1 Historical Topographic Maps, Aerial Photographs, and Sanborn Maps ......... 6 3.2 Historical City Directories ................................................................... 7 3.3 Site Ownership ................................................................................. 8 3.4 Title Search ...................................................................................... 8 3.5 Environmental Liens and Activity and Use Limitations.............................. 8 3.6 Interviews Regarding Current and Historical Site Uses ............................. 8 3.7 Prior Report Review ........................................................................... 9 4.0 RECORDS REVIEW ..................................................................12 4.1 Federal and State/Tribal Databases ..................................................... 13 4.2 Local Agency Inquiries ...................................................................... 17 4.3 Local Area Knowledge ....................................................................... 18 5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ..........................................................19 5.1 General Site Information ................................................................... 19 5.2 Overview of Current Site Occupants .................................................... 20 5.3 Overview of Current Site Operations ................................................... 20 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 5.4 Site Observations ............................................................................. 20 Site Operations, Processes, and Equipment ................................................... 22 Emergency generators ........................................................... 22 Heating and/or cooling systems ............................................... 22 Pesticide/herbicide production or storage .................................. 22 Aboveground Chemical or Waste Storage...................................................... 22 Drums, barrels, and/or containers 5 gallons ............................ 22 Releases or Potential Releases .................................................................... 23 Trash, debris, and/or other waste materials .............................. 23 Dumping or disposal areas ..................................................... 23 Construction/demolition debris and/or dumped fill dirt ................ 23 6.0 ADJOINING PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE .................................24 7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ...........................................................24 8.0 DECLARATION .......................................................................24 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Exhibit 1: Topographic Map, Exhibit 2: Site Diagram APPENDIX B Site Photographs APPENDIX C Historical Documentation and User Questionnaire APPENDIX D Environmental Database Information APPENDIX E Credentials APPENDIX F Description of Terms and Acronyms Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was performed in accordance with Terracon Proposal No. PR1247301 dated April 11, 2024, and was conducted consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E1527-21, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The purpose of this ESA was to assist the client in developing information to identify RECs in connection with the site as reflected by the scope of this report. The ESA was conducted under the supervision or responsible charge of Kristin Stout, Environmental Professional. Elissa Tianero performed the site reconnaissance on May 15, 2024. Findings and Opinions A summary of findings is provided below. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. Site Description and Use The site is located at 828 Diablo Road in Danville, Contra Costa County, California and consists of an approximately 2.72-acre tract of land identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 196-270-029. The site is improved with a plant nursery with a store, office space, storage, and topsoil sales. During the site reconnaissance, the site was occupied by Sloat Garden Center. Historical Information Based on a review of the historical information, the site consisted of undeveloped land by the mid-1890s, developed with an apparent farmstead along the northeastern portion of the site by the early 1950s, expanded the farmstead to the south with apparent agricultural land by the late 1950s, developed with a nursery and storage yard by the early 1980s, and developed with the existing commercial buildings by the mid-1990s. According to historical city directories and records reviewed with local agencies, site tenants have included Mitchell Wm W (1970), Two Pine Nursery (1970), Diablo Nursery / Top Soil (1976-1995), Kobold Mark (1981), Four Seasons Lndscp (1985), Freitas Tc Constr (1985), Rose Landscaping (1985), Gardenseed (1995), Parsons Gary (2001), and Sloat Garden Center / Top Soil (2001-2022). The adjoining properties consisted of undeveloped land by the mid-1890s. The northern adjoining properties consisted of orchards by the late 1930s and by the mid-1970s when El Cerro Boulevard was constructed, and the existing houses were under development. The remaining adjoining properties consisted of Diablo Road to the east and the development of the residential neighborhood that surrounds the site since the mid- Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials ii 1940s and developed them to the existing layout by the early 1980s to mid-2010s. The adjoining properties have remained relatively unchanged through the present. Based on a review of the historical information, Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) were not identified in connection with the site. Prior Reports Terracon requested the client provide any previous environmental reports they are aware of for the site. The following previous reports were provided by the client to Terracon for review. In addition to the client-provided records, it should be noted that a 1995 Phase I ESA for the site was identified in records reviewed at the Contra Costa Environmental Health Department and is discussed further under Records Review. A Limited Phase II ESA, prepared by Atrim Engineering & Construction, Inc. (AEC) dated March 20, 1995, was conducted at the site. According to AEC, a Phase I ESA was conducted that identified a 550-gallon regular gasoline underground storage tank (UST) was reportedly removed from the site in 1986 with no records of removal, including confirmation soil sampling. A geophysical survey located the former UST within an approximately 6 by 9 SF area with an approximately 1.5 inch depression. AEC advanced one soil boring in the approximate center of the backfilled UST pit to a depth of 26.5 feet bgs. Perched surface runoff Water was encountered within the backfilled material at a depth of 3 feet bgs and was noted exhibiting gasoline odors and a dark brown residue on the water surface. Four soil samples were collected at various depths ranging from 5 feet to 26.5 feet bgs and analyzed for purgeable hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX). AEC stated that the reported concentrations of TPH-g and BTEX were above acceptable regulatory levels established as the time. Based on the residual impacts identified, AEC recommended that the report should be submitted to the CCEHD and the RWQCB. On January 15, 1996, AEC prepared an Immediate Source Removal and Migration Control Report for the site. In September 1995, AEC excavated approximately 131 cubic yards of soil and gravel in the area of the former UST. Four confirmation soil samples were collected, one from each excavation sidewall, and were analyzed for TPH-g and BTEX. The reported concentrations of TPH-g and BTEX in the excavation sidewall samples were below laboratory detection limits except for xylenes in one sample. However, the reported concentration of xylenes was below the regulatory screening levels of the time. The excavated soil was stockpiled on plastic sheeting towards the northwestern corner of the site and bioremediated over time. In October 1995, four discrete soil samples collected within the stockpile were reportedly non-detect for TPH-g and BTEX. According to AEC, the soil was bioremediated to non-detectable levels and were subsequently re-used on-site. AEC recommended obtaining a closure letter from the Contra Costa Environmental Health Department (CCEHD) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for remediation work completed. Closure documentation Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials iii from the CCEHD and/or RWQCB were not identified in records reviewed and/or provided to Terracon. While not a REC, Terracon recommends obtaining a closure letter from the CCEHD and/or RWQCB in relation to the former UST located on-site. On June 15, 2001, Steamborn prepared a Remediation of Buried Waste (RBW) Report for the site which documented the removal and remediation of buried agricultural chemicals (pesticides). Steamborn indicated that circa December 1998, containers of pesticides were buried in a trench in the northern portion of the topsoil yard, adjacent to the northern exterior of the storage and office building. On March 12 and 13, 2001, Steamborn excavated the containers which were first encountered at a depth of approximately 2.5 to 3 feet bgs, which was overseen by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). During excavation activities, the containers were noted as broken or punctured along with chemical odors and elevated organic vapor readings and Steamborn was unable to recover pure product for identification or sampling. Confirmation soil samples were collected from the excavation and analyzed for TPH-g, TPH as diesel (TPH-d), BTEX, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), California Administrative Manual (CAM)-17 metals, and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs). Results of the confirmation soil sampling activities indicated impacts of lindane were present and it was determined that additional excavation was needed in the western portion of the excavation. Based on a review of the laboratory reports for the confirmation soil samples, the analytical results did not exceed San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential properties. However, based on the minimal soil sample collected in the bottom of the excavation (one) and that DTSC has not commented on the report or issued a closure letter for the site, the former buried chemical containers is considered a REC. On August 14, 2009, Anton Geological (Anton) prepared a Limited Near-Surface Soil Sampling (LNSSS) report at the site for US Bank. Anton was provided the previous reports summarized above and stated that US Bank was not concerned about re- investigating the former UST area or former container burial area and was primarily concerned about the environmental integrity of the near surface soil due to the long- term nursery operations. Anton collected ten soil samples from the upper six inches bgs, locations depicted on Exhibit 2 of Appendix A. The soil samples were analyzed for organophosphorus pesticides (OPPs), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), chlorinated herbicides, total lead and arsenic. Additionally, three soil samples were analyzed for CAM-17 metals analysis. According to Anton, arsenic was not detected in any of the samples. Slightly elevated concentrations of lead were detected in two of the three samples analyzed and indicated the metals concentrations were within regional background concentrations. OPPs and chlorinated herbicides were not detected above laboratory detection limits. The following OCPs were reported above laboratory detection limits: chlordane, 4,4’- dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (4,4’-DDE), dieldrin, 4,4’- Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials iv dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (4,4’-DDT), and endosulfan sulfate. Anton stated that lead concentrations were likely related to the nearby painted surfaces of the buildings. Chlordane, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, and endosulfan sulfate concentrations were below the US EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) and California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) except for dieldrin which exceeded residential and industrial screening levels. The reported concentrations of dieldrin in the soil samples collected by Anton exceed the SFBRWQCB residential soil ESLs. Anton indicated that the pesticide-impacted soils were primarily located along the eastern half of the site and were not identified along the western half. According to Anton, the migration of the pesticide residues is not likely. Anton indicated that no further environmental investigation is warranted at the time; however, if the eastern portion of the site were to be converted to residential land use, Anton recommended further environmental investigation and/or remediation should be completed. Based on the analytical data collected by Anton, Terracon concludes the presence of dieldrin in concentrations exceeding residential (unrestricted) land use ESL represents a REC. Records Review Selected federal and state environmental regulatory databases as well as responses from state and local regulatory agencies were reviewed. The site, identified as Diablo Nursery / Parson’s Nurseries Inc. / Sloat Garden Center, Inc., is listed on the environmental regulatory, hazardous waste, Historical Hazardous Substance Storage Information Database (HHSS), Historical Hazardous Substance Storage Container Information - Facility Summary (HIST TANK), and Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (UST SWEEPS) databases. According to the environmental regulatory listings, the site is regulated for an inactive UST and a hazardous waste generator. Seven violations were issued from 2013 to 2017 regarding improper hazardous waste management, failure to provide hazardous chemical training to all employees, and failure to submit required documents; however, all violations were reportedly returned with compliance. Additional violations were not identified on the RCRA listings. According to the hazardous waste listings, the site had generated hazardous waste streams consisting of asbestos-containing waste, contaminated soils from a site clean-up, and gamma-lindane in 2001 and 2014. The hazardous manifest for the contaminated soils indicates that lindane was disposed of via incineration. The generation of gamma-lindane is previously discussed in Section 3.7. The UST listings indicate that one 550-gallon gasoline underground storage tank (UST) was installed for Diablo Nursey; however, additional information relating to the location and installation and removal dates were not provided. Terracon requested records from the Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department (CCCEHD) regarding the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials v former UST. Records were identified and are further discussed in Sections 3.7 and 4.2. Based on the absence of a regulatory closure document for the hazardous waste generated and UST, the lack of a former closure letter from the CCEHD and RWQCB is considered a BER. According to the Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department records, Antrim Engineering & Construction, Inc. (AEC) completed a Phase I ESA for the site on March 10, 1995. Antrim identified the followed recognized or observed environmental risks: status of the UST, areas of obvious staining resulting for suspected petroleum hydrocarbons, an unidentified depression observed in the southwest corner of the site, deteriorating or suspect containers & bags of herbicides, pesticides, & fertilizers, and a surface catchment drainage ditch was observed to travel the entire southern boundary. A separate letter suggesting recommendations and cost estimate proposal only included sampling the former UST location and disposal of deteriorating containers. Based upon the review of the previous reports in Section 3.7 and this Phase I ESA report, the staining and surface catchment drainage ditch represents a REC to the site. The remaining facilities listed in the database report do not appear to represent RECs to the site at this time based upon regulatory status, apparent topographic gradient, and/or distance from the site. Site Reconnaissance During the site reconnaissance, Terracon observed one propane-powered emergency generator, two cooling fans, pesticide, herbicide, and insecticide bottles for consumer purchase, various drums and containers ranging from 5-gallons to 55-gallons and consisted of hydraulic oil, unknown content, propane, and diesel, minor amounts of trash, one solid waste dumpster, one recycling dumpster, and a topsoil sales area for mulch, soil, and gravel. Based on site observations and interview with Mr. Zack Straus, CFO of Sloat Garden Center, the observed site features do not represent a REC to the site. Adjoining Properties The northern adjoining properties consists of a residential neighborhood (878 and 882 El Cerro Boulevard) followed by El Cerro Boulevard and a residential neighborhood (893 El Cerro Boulevard and 802 Ackerman Drive). The eastern adjoining properties consists of Diablo Road followed by a residential neighborhood (5 and 6 Tyler Court). The southern adjoining properties consists of Le Petite Academy (816 Diablo Road) and a residential neighborhood (15, 21, 27, and 33 Betten Court). The western adjoining property consists of a single-family residence (10 Turrini Plaza). RECs were not observed with the adjoining properties. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials vi Significant Data Gaps Significant data gaps (SDGs) were not identified. Conclusions We have performed a Phase I ESA consistent with the procedures included in ASTM Practice E1527-21 at SITE ADDRESS, the site. The following RECs were identified in connection with the site: Former Buried Pesticide Containers: Based on the minimal soil sample collected in the bottom of the excavation (one) and that DTSC has not commented on the report or issued a closure letter for the site, the former buried pesticide containers represents a REC. Dieldrin Impacts: Based on the analytical data collected by Anton, Terracon concludes the presence of dieldrin in concentrations exceeding residential (unrestricted) land use ESL represents a REC. Surface Catchment Drainage Ditch: Based upon the review of the previous reports in Section 3.7 and this Phase I ESA report, the staining and surface catchment drainage ditch represents a REC to the site. Controlled RECs (CRECs), and/or SDGs were not identified in connection with the site. Recommendations Based on the scope of services, limitations, and conclusions of this assessment, Terracon recommends further investigation to assess the above-identified RECs. While not a REC, Terracon recommends obtaining a closure letter from the CCEHD and/or RWQCB in relation to the former UST located on-site. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Site Description Site Name The Ivy at Danville Site Location/Address 828 Diablo Road, Danville, Contra Costa County, California Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 196-270-029 Land Area Approximately 2.72 acres. Site Improvements Improved with a plant nursery with a store, office space, storage, and topsoil sales. Anticipated Future Site Use Redevelopment with an assisted living and memory care facility. Reason for the ESA Acquiring the site. The location of the site is depicted on Exhibit 1 of Appendix A, which was reproduced from a portion of the USGS 7.5-minute series topographic map. The site and adjoining properties are depicted on the Site Diagram, which is included as Exhibit 2 of Appendix A. Acronyms and terms used in this report are described in Appendix F. 1.2 Scope of Services This Phase I ESA was performed in accordance with Terracon Proposal No. PR1247301 dated April 11, 2024, and was conducted consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E1527-21, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The purpose of this ESA was to assist the client in developing information to identify RECs in connection with the site as reflected by the scope of this report. Recognized environmental conditions are defined by ASTM E1527- 21 as “(1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment; (2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.” A de minimis condition is not a recognized environmental condition. This purpose was undertaken through user-provided information, a regulatory database review, historical and physical records review, interviews (including local government inquiries, as applicable), and a visual noninvasive reconnaissance of the site and adjoining properties. Limitations, ASTM deviations, and significant data gaps (if identified) are noted in the applicable sections of the report. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 2 1.3 Standard of Care This ESA was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of this profession, undertaken in similar studies at the same time and in the same geographical area. We have endeavored to meet this standard of care, but may be limited by conditions encountered during performance, a client-driven scope of work, or inability to review information not received by the report date. Where appropriate, these limitations are discussed in the text of the report, and an evaluation of their significance with respect to our findings has been conducted. Phase I ESAs, such as the one performed at this site, are of limited scope, are noninvasive, and cannot eliminate the potential that hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances are present or have been released at the site beyond what is identified by the limited scope of this ESA. In conducting the limited scope of services described herein, certain sources of information and public records were not reviewed. It should be recognized that environmental concerns may be documented in public records that were not reviewed. No ESA can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs in connection with a property. Performance of this practice is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs. No warranties, express or implied, are intended or made. The limitations herein must be considered when the user of this report formulates opinions as to risks associated with the site or otherwise uses the report for any other purpose. These risks may be further evaluated – but not eliminated – through additional research or assessment. We will, upon request, advise you of additional research or assessment options that may be available and associated costs. 1.4 Additional Scope Limitations, ASTM Deviations, and Data Gaps Based upon the agreed-on scope of services, this ESA did not include subsurface or other invasive assessments, vapor intrusion assessments or indoor air quality assessments (i.e., evaluation of the presence of vapors within a building structure), business environmental risk evaluations, or other services not particularly identified and discussed herein. Credentials of the company (Statement of Qualifications) have not been included in this report but are available upon request. Pertinent documents are referred to in the text of this report, and a separate reference section has not been included. Reasonable attempts were made to obtain information within the scope and time constraints set forth by the client; however, in some instances, information requested is not, or was not, received by the issuance date of the report. Information obtained for this ESA was received from several sources that we believe to be reliable; nonetheless, the authenticity or reliability of these sources cannot and is not warranted hereunder. This ESA was further limited by the following: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 3 The client did not provide the requested User’s information as of the issuance date of the report, which represents a data gap. Terracon assumes the client is evaluating the questionnaire information outside the context of Terracon’s Phase I ESA scope of work and report. Based on the historical and environmental regulatory database reviews, the absence of a user questionnaire does not appear to represent a significant data gap. An evaluation of the significance of limitations and missing information with respect to our findings has been conducted, and where appropriate, significant data gaps are identified and discussed in the text of the report. However, it should be recognized that an evaluation of significant data gaps is based on the information available at the time of report issuance, and an evaluation of information received after the report issuance date may result in an alteration of our conclusions, recommendations, or opinions. We have no obligation to provide information obtained or discovered by us after the issuance date of the report, or to perform any additional services, regardless of whether the information would affect any conclusions, recommendations, or opinions in the report. This disclaimer specifically applies to any information that has not been provided by the client. This report represents our service to you as of the report date and constitutes our final document; its text may not be altered after final issuance. Findings in this report are based upon the site’s current utilization, information derived from the most recent reconnaissance and from other activities described herein; such information is subject to change. Certain indicators of the presence of hazardous substances, petroleum products or PFAS compounds may have been latent, inaccessible, unobservable, or not present during the most recent reconnaissance and may subsequently become observable (such as after site renovation or development). Further, these services are not to be construed as legal interpretation or advice. 1.5 Reliance This ESA report is prepared for the exclusive use and reliance of Park IV Group LLC. Use or reliance by any other party is prohibited without the written authorization of Park IV Group LLC and Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon). Reliance on the ESA by the client and all authorized parties will be subject to the terms, conditions and limitations stated in the proposal, ESA report, and Terracon’s Agreement for Services. The limitation of liability defined in the Agreement for Services is the aggregate limit of Terracon’s liability to the client and all relying parties. Continued viability of this report is subject to ASTM E1527-21 Section 4.6. If the ESA will be used by a different user (third party) than the user for whom the ESA was originally prepared, the third party must also satisfy the user’s responsibilities in Section 6 of ASTM E1527-21. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 4 1.6 Client Provided Information Prior to the site visit, a client’s representative, was asked to provide the following user questionnaire information as described in ASTM E1527-21 Section 6. Client Questionnaire Responses Client Questionnaire Item Client Did Not Respond Client’s Response Yes No Specialized Knowledge or Experience that is material to a REC in connection with the site. X Actual Knowledge of Environmental Liens or Activity Use Limitations (AULs) that may encumber the site. X Actual Knowledge of a Lower Purchase Price because contamination is known or believed to be present at the site. X Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information that is material to a REC in connection with the site. X Obvious Indicators of Releases at the site. X The client did not provide the requested User’s information as of the issuance date of the report, which represents a data gap. Terracon assumes the client is evaluating the questionnaire information outside the context of Terracon’s Phase I ESA scope of work and report. 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING Physical Setting Information Source Topography Site Elevation Approximately 400 feet above mean sea level (msl). USGS Topographic Map, Diablo and Las Trampas Ridge, California Quadrangle, 2021 (Appendix C) Topographic Gradient Relatively flat area with general gradient towards the southwest Closest Surface Water San Ramon Creek, approximately3,920 feet southwest of the site. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 5 Soil Characteristics Soil Type and Description Clear Lake clay (96%) This soil, located throughout a majority of the site, is poorly drained with 0 to 15 percent slopes. Parent material consists of clayey alluvium derived from metamorphic and sedimentary rock. The typical soil profile consists of clay down to 60 inches below ground surface (bgs). Alo clay (4%) This soil, located on the northwestern portion of the site, is well drained with 15 to 30 percent slopes. Parent material consists of residuum weathered from sandstone and shale. The typical soil profile consists of clay down to 30 inches bgs underlain with bedrock to a total depth of 40 inches bgs. Contra Costa County, California USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey, issued September 12, 2023 Geology/Hydrogeology Formation Surficial Sediments (Qa) National Geologic Map Database, Dibble Geological Foundation, Geologic map of the Diablo quadrangle, Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, California, 2005 (1:24,000) Description Alluvial pebble gravel, sand and clay of valley area. Estimated Depth to First Occurrence of Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 12.38 to 16.2 feet bgs in groundwater monitoring wells at a facility located approximately 2,465 feet southeast of the site. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) online database GeoTracker Unocal Service Station #7538 (T10000000428), Case Closure Summary, dated July 24, 2013 *Hydrogeologic Gradient West-southwest. * The groundwater flow direction and the depth to shallow, unconfined groundwater, if present, would likely vary depending upon seasonal variations in rainfall and other hydrogeological features. Without the benefit of on-site groundwater monitoring wells surveyed to a datum, groundwater depth and flow direction beneath the site cannot be directly ascertained. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 6 3.0 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION Terracon reviewed the following historical sources to develop a history of the previous uses of the site and surrounding area, in order to help identify RECs associated with past uses. Copies of selected historical documents are included in Appendix C. 3.1 Historical Topographic Maps, Aerial Photographs, and Sanborn Maps Readily available historical USGS topographic maps, selected historical aerial photographs (at approximately 10-to-15-year intervals) and historical fire insurance maps produced by the Sanborn Map Company were reviewed to evaluate land development and obtain information concerning the history of development on and near the site. Reviewed historical topographic maps, aerial photographs, and Sanborn maps are summarized below. Historical fire insurance maps produced by the Sanborn Map Company were requested from ERIS to evaluate past uses and relevant characteristics of the site and surrounding properties. Based upon inquiries to the above-listed Sanborn provider, Sanborn maps were not available for the site. Topographic maps: o Mt. Diablo, California, published in 1896 and 1898 (1:62,500) o Mt. Diablo and Concord, California, published in 1943 (1:62,500) o Diablo, California, published in 1953 (1:24,000) o Diablo and Las Trampas Ridge, California, published in 1968, 1973, 1980, 2015, 2018, and 2021 (1:24,000) Aerial photographs: o Fairchild, published in 1939 (1”=500’) o United States Geological Survey, published in 1946, 1968, 1974, 1981, and 1993 (1”=500’) o Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Service, published in 1950 and 1958 (1”=500’) o United States Department of Agriculture, published in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 (1”=500’) o Maxar Technologies, published in 2023 (1”=500’) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 7 Historical Maps and Aerial Photographs Direction Description Site Undeveloped land (1896-1946); developed with an apparent farmstead along the northeastern portion (1950); farmstead expanded to the south with apparent agricultural land (1958-1974); developed with a nursery and a storage yard (1981); developed with the existing commercial building (1996-2023). North Undeveloped land (1896-1898); utilized northwestern portion as orchards (1939- 1968); orchards no longer apparent; began development of the existing single- family residential neighborhoods and El Cerro Boulevard (1974); developed residential neighborhood to the existing layout (1981-2023). East Developed with Diablo Road followed by undeveloped land (1896-2012); apparent construction work (2014); developed with the existing single-family residential neighborhood (2016-2023). South Undeveloped land (1896-1939); developed with single-family residential buildings (1946-1950); single-family residential buildings no longer apparent (1958); developed with the existing single-family residential neighborhood (1968-2023). West Undeveloped land (1896-1974); developed with the existing single-family residence (1981-2023). Based on a review of the historical topographic maps and aerial photographs, RECs were not identified in connection with the site. 3.2 Historical City Directories The Pacific Telephone, Haines, and Digital Business Directory city directories used in this study were made available through ERIS (selected years reviewed: 1956 through 2022) and were reviewed at approximate five-year intervals, if readily available. City directories not available prior to 1956. The current street address for the site was identified as 828 Diablo Road. Historical City Directories Direction Description Site 828 Diablo Road: Mitchell Wm W (1970); Two Pine Nursery (1970); Diablo Nursery / Top Soil (1976-1995); Kobold Mark (1981); Four Seasons Lndscp (1985); Freitas Tc Constr (1985); Rose Landscaping (1985); Gardenseed (1995); Parsons Gary (2001); Sloat Garden Center / Top Soil (2001-2022). North 878, 882 El Cerro Boulevard: Residential listings (1976-2022). 893 El Cerro Boulevard: Residential listing (2001); My Buddy Cleaners* (2008); residential listing (2020-2022). 802 Ackerman Drive: Residential listings (1981-2022) East 5-6 Tyler Court: No Listings (1960-2022). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 8 Direction Description South 816 Diablo Road: Makepeace W Ve / DW / WM (1960-1985); Acorn Learning Center (1990-2022); Goss Larry (2001). 15, 21, 27, 33 Betten Court: Residential Listings (1960-2022). West 10 Turrini Plaza: Residential Listing (2016); *My Buddy Cleaners, located at 893 El Cerro Boulevard, was identified on the historical city directories as a “GMT PRESSG and CLRS AGT”; however, the listing was listed in 2008 and the facility consists of a single-family residence since 1981. Therefore, based on the cross-gradient, nature of surrounding operations as a residential neighborhood, and absence of a release, RECs were not identified in connection with the site. 3.3 Site Ownership Based on a review of information obtained from the Contra Costa County Assessor’s records, the current site owner is Gary and Steven Parson. 3.4 Title Search At the direction of the client, a title search was not included as part of the scope of services. Unless notified otherwise, we assume that the client is evaluating this information outside the scope of this report. 3.5 Environmental Liens and Activity and Use Limitations The ERIS regulatory database report included a review of both Federal and State Engineering Control (EC) and Institutional Control (IC) databases. Based on a review of the database report, the site was not listed on the EC or IC databases. Please note that in addition to these federal and state listings, AULs can be recorded at the county and municipal level that may not be listed in the regulatory database report. Environmental lien and activity and use limitation records recorded against the site were not provided by the client. At the direction of the client, performance of a review of these records was not included as part of the scope of services and unless notified otherwise, we assume that the client is evaluating this information outside the scope of this report. 3.6 Interviews Regarding Current and Historical Site Uses The following individuals were interviewed regarding the current and historical use of the site. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 9 Interviews Interviewer Name / Phone # Title Date / Time Elissa Tianero Carissa Savant / (949)-878-8160 VP of Development May 14, 2024 / 2:16PM Zack Straus / (415)-332-0657 ext. 105 Chief Financial Officer (CFO) May 20, 2024 / 11:30AM Terracon interviewed Ms. Carissa Savant, VP of Development, via email, who has been familiar with the site for approximately six months. Ms. Savant stated that the current owners of the site are Gary M. and Steven H. Parsons. She further stated that the site is utilized as a nursery and is unaware of previous site operations. The items/features currently or historically associated with the site was not completed by Ms. Savant; however, inquired information from the owners regarding the property. The owners stated that they have been operating on the site since the mid-1990s until the business was sold to Sloat Garden Center, Inc., who have been the current operators since May 1999. Additionally, Ms. Savant was aware of previous environmental reports / investigations and environmental concerns associated with the site and the reports are further discussed in Section 3.7. Terracon interviewed Mr. Zack Straus, CFO of Sloat Garden Center, prior and during the site reconnaissance, who has been familiar with the site for approximately seven years. Mr. Straus stated that the site has been operating as a nursery for at least 40 to 50 years. He further stated the site is equipped with an emergency generator, pesticide/herbicide storage, drums, barrels, and/or other containers more than 5 gallons, trash, debris, and other waste materials, dumping or disposal areas, and construction/demolition debris and/or dumped fill dirt. He was not aware of any aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), underground storage tanks (USTs), oil/water separators (OWS), sumps, septic tanks, wells, or pipelines currently or historically located on-site, nor was he aware of any automotive service, x-ray development, large- scale printing, or dry-cleaning operations previously conducted on-site. Additionally, Mr. Straus was not aware of pending, threatened or past environmental litigation, proceedings, or notices of possible violations of environmental laws or liability or potential environmental concerns in connection with the site. The site’s current features and operations are further discussed in 5.4. 3.7 Prior Report Review Terracon requested the client provide any previous environmental reports they are aware of for the site. The following previous reports were provided by the client to Terracon for review. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 10 In addition to the client-provided records, it should be noted that a 1995 Phase I ESA for the site was identified in records reviewed at the Contra Costa Environmental Health Department and is discussed in Section 4.2. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Diablo Nursey Garden Center 828 Diablo Road, Danville, California Dated: March 20, 1995 Prepared by: Antrim Engineering & Construction, Inc. Prepared for: Bank of San Ramon Valley On March 20, 1995, Atrim Engineering & Construction, Inc. (AEC) prepared a Limited Phase II ESA report for the site. According to AEC, a Phase I ESA was conducted that identified a 550-gallon regular gasoline underground storage tank (UST) was reportedly removed from the site in 1986 with no records of removal, including confirmation soil sampling. A geophysical survey located the former UST within an approximately 6 by 9 SF area with an approximately 1.5 inch depression. AEC advanced one soil boring in the approximate center of the backfilled UST pit to a depth of 26.5 feet bgs. The soil boring penetrated approximately 8 feet of ¾-inch crushed rock, indicative of a backfilled area. Perched surface runoff Water was encountered within the backfilled material at a depth of 3 feet bgs and was noted exhibiting gasoline odors and a dark brown residue on the water surface. Four soil samples were collected at various depths ranging from 5 feet to 26.5 feet bgs and analyzed for purgeable hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX). AEC stated that the reported concentrations of TPH-g and BTEX were above acceptable regulatory levels established as the time. Based on the residual impacts identified, AEC recommended that the report should be submitted to the CCEHD and the RWQCB. Immediate Source Removal and Migration Control Diablo Nursey Garden Center 828 Diablo Road, Danville, California Dated: January 15, 1996 Prepared by: Antrim Engineering & Construction, Inc. Prepared for: Steve and Gary Parson On January 15, 1996, AEC prepared an Immediate Source Removal and Migration Control Report for the site. In September 1995, AEC excavated approximately 131 cubic yards of soil and gravel in the area of the former UST. Four confirmation soil samples were collected, one from each excavation sidewall, and were analyzed for TPH-g and BTEX. The reported concentrations of TPH-g and BTEX in the excavation sidewall samples were below laboratory detection limits except for xylenes in one sample. However, the reported concentration of xylenes was below the regulatory screening levels of the time. The excavated soil was stockpiled on plastic sheeting towards the northwestern corner of the site and bioremediated over time. In October 1995, four Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 11 discrete soil samples collected within the stockpile were reportedly non-detect for TPH-g and BTEX. According to AEC, the soil was bioremediated to non-detectable levels and were subsequently re-used on-site. AEC recommended obtaining a closure letter from the Contra Costa Environmental Health Department (CCEHD) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for remediation work completed. Closure documentation from the CCEHD and/or RWQCB were not identified in records reviewed and/or provided to Terracon. While not a REC, Terracon recommends obtaining a closure letter from the CCEHD and/or RWQCB in relation to the former UST located on-site. Remediation of Buried Waste Report 828 Diablo Road, Danville, California Dated: June 15, 2001 Prepared by: Streamborn Prepared for: Gary and Steven Parsons On June 15, 2001, Steamborn prepared a Remediation of Buried Waste (RBW) Report for the site which documented the removal and remediation of buried agricultural chemicals (pesticides). Steamborn indicated that circa December 1998, containers of pesticides were buried in a trench in the northern portion of the topsoil yard, adjacent to the northern exterior of the storage and office building. On March 12 and 13, 2001, Steamborn excavated the containers which were first encountered at a depth of approximately 2.5 to 3 feet bgs, which was overseen by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). During excavation activities, the containers were noted as broken or punctured along with chemical odors and elevated organic vapor readings and Steamborn was unable to recover pure product for identification or sampling. Confirmation soil samples were collected from the excavation and analyzed for TPH-g, TPH as diesel (TPH-d), BTEX, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), California Administrative Manual (CAM)-17 metals, and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs). Results of the confirmation soil sampling activities indicated impacts of lindane were present and it was determined that additional excavation was needed in the western portion of the excavation. Based on a review of the laboratory reports for the confirmation soil samples, the analytical results did not exceed San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for residential properties. However, based on the minimal soil sample collected in the bottom of the excavation (one) and that DTSC has not commented on the report or issued a closure letter for the site, the former buried chemical containers is considered a REC. Limited Near-Surface Soil Sampling Sloat Garden Center 828 Diablo Road, Danville, California Dated: August 14, 2009 Prepared by: Anton Geological Prepared for: Gary Parsons Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 12 On August 14, 2009, Anton Geological (Anton) prepared a Limited Near-Surface Soil Sampling (LNSSS) report at the site for US Bank. Anton was provided the previous reports summarized above and stated that US Bank was not concerned about re- investigating the former UST area or former container burial area and was primarily concerned about the environmental integrity of the near surface soil due to the long- term nursery operations. Anton collected ten soil samples from the upper six inches bgs, locations depicted on Exhibit 2 of Appendix A. The soil samples were analyzed for organophosphorus pesticides (OPPs), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), chlorinated herbicides, total lead and arsenic. Additionally, three soil samples were analyzed for CAM-17 metals analysis. According to Anton, arsenic was not detected in any of the samples. Slightly elevated concentrations of lead were detected in two of the three samples analyzed and indicated the metals concentrations were within regional background concentrations. OPPs and chlorinated herbicides were not detected above laboratory detection limits. The following OCPs were reported above laboratory detection limits: chlordane, 4,4’- dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (4,4’-DDE), dieldrin, 4,4’- dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (4,4’-DDT), and endosulfan sulfate. Anton stated that lead concentrations were likely related to the nearby painted surfaces of the buildings. Chlordane, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, and endosulfan sulfate concentrations were below the US EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) and California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) except for dieldrin which exceeded residential and industrial screening levels. The reported concentrations of dieldrin in the soil samples collected by Anton exceed the SFBRWQCB residential soil ESLs. Anton indicated that the pesticide-impacted soils were primarily located along the eastern half of the site and were not identified along the western half. According to Anton, the migration of the pesticide residues is not likely. Anton indicated that no further environmental investigation is warranted at the time; however, if the eastern portion of the site were to be converted to residential land use, Anton recommended further environmental investigation and/or remediation should be completed. Based on the analytical data collected by Anton, Terracon concludes the presence of dieldrin in concentrations exceeding residential (unrestricted) land use ESL represents a REC. 4.0 RECORDS REVIEW Regulatory database information was provided by ERIS, a contract information services company in a report dated May 3, 2024. The purpose of the records review was to identify RECs in connection with the site. Information in this section is subject to the accuracy of the data provided by the information services company and the date at Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 13 which the information is updated. The scope herein did not include confirmation of facilities listed as "unmappable" by regulatory databases. In some of the following subsections, the words up-gradient, cross-gradient, and down- gradient refer to the topographic gradient in relation to the site. As stated previously, the groundwater flow direction and the depth to shallow groundwater, if present, would likely vary depending upon seasonal variations in rainfall and the depth to the soil/bedrock interface. Without the benefit of on-site groundwater monitoring wells surveyed to a datum, groundwater depth and flow direction beneath the site cannot be directly ascertained. 4.1 Federal and State/Tribal Databases Listed below are the facility listings identified on federal and state/tribal databases within the ASTM-required search distances from the approximate site boundaries. Database definition, descriptions, and the database search report are included in Appendix D. Federal Databases Database Description Distance (miles) Listings CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System 0.5 0 CERCLIS NFRAP Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System – No Further Remedial Action Planned 0.5 0 DELETED NPL National Priority List – Deleted 0.5 0 ERNS Emergency Response Notification System Site 0 FED BROWNFIELDS The Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) Brownfield Database 0.5 0 FED ENG Federal Engineering Controls Site 0 FED INST Federal Institutional Controls Site 0 FINDS/FRS Facility Registry Service/Facility Index Site 2 NPL National Priority List 1.0 0 PROPOSED NPL National Priority List – Proposed 1.0 0 RCRA CORRACTS Resource Conservation and Recovery Act – Corrective Action 1.0 0 RCRA LQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act – Large Quantity Generator Site and adjoining properties 0 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 14 Database Description Distance (miles) Listings RCRA NON GEN Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Non- Generators Site and adjoining properties 7 RCRA SQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act – Small Quantity Generator Site and adjoining properties 1 RCRA TSD Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Non- Corrective Action Sites – Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities 0.5 4 RCRA VSQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act – Very Small Quantity Generator Site and adjoining properties 0 SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System List 8R Active Site Inventory 0.5 0 SEMS ARCHIVE Superfund Enterprise Management System List 8R Active Archive Sites 0.5 0 State/Tribal Databases Database Description Distance (miles) Listings AST Aboveground Storage Tanks Site and adjoining properties 0 CERS HAZ California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Hazardous Waste Sites Site and adjoining properties 1 CLEANUP SITES GeoTracker Cleanup Program Sites 0.5 0 CUPA CONTRACO Contra Costa County – Certified Unified Program Agency List Site and adjoining properties 3 DELISTED HAZ Delisted California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Hazardous Waste Sites Site and adjoining properties 0 ENVIROSTOR EnviroStor Database 0.5 0 HAZ GEN Generators from Hazardous Waste Manifest Data Site 1 HAZNET Hazardous Waste Manifest Data Site 2 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 15 Database Description Distance (miles) Listings HHSS Historical Hazardous Substance Storage Information Database Site and adjoining properties 1 HIST TANK Historical Hazardous Substance Storage Container Information - Facility Summary Site and adjoining properties 1 INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs) on Indian Lands 0.5 0 INDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) on Indian Lands Site and adjoining properties 0 INSP COMP ENF EnviroStor Inspection, Compliance, and Enforcement 0.5 0 LUST Leaking Underground Fuel Tank Reports 0.5 3 RESPONSE State Response Sites 1.0 0 SCH School Property Evaluation Program Sites 0.5 0 SWF/LF Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) 0.5 0 UST Permitted Underground Storage Tank (UST) in GeoTracker Site and adjoining properties 0 UST SWEEPS Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System Site and adjoining properties 1 VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program 0.5 0 In addition to the above ASTM-required listings, Terracon reviewed other federal, state, local, and proprietary databases provided by the database firm. A list of the additional reviewed databases is included in the regulatory database report in Appendix D. The site is identified in the environmental regulatory database. The following table summarizes the site-specific information provided by the database and/or gathered by this office for identified facilities. Facilities within 500 feet are listed in order of proximity to the site. Additional discussion for selected facilities follows the summary table. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 16 Listed Facilities Facility Name and Location Estimated Distance / Direction/Gradient Database Listings Findings Summary Diablo Nursery / Parson's Nurseries Inc / Sloat Garden Center, Inc. 828 Diablo Road Site CERS HAZ, CUPA CONTRACO, FINDS/FRS, HAZ GEN, HAZNET, HHSS, HIST TANK, RCRA SQG, UST SWEEPS BER, further discussed below. Diablo Nursery / Parson’s Nurseries Inc. / Sloat Garden Center, Inc. (828 Diablo Road) The above-listed facilities, identified as the site, are listed on the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Hazardous Waste Sites (CERS HAZ), Contra Costa County – Certified Unified Program Agency List (CUPA CONTRACO), Facility Registry Service/Facility Index (FINDS/FRS), Generators from Hazardous Waste Manifest Data (HAZ GEN), Hazardous Waste Manifest Data (HAZNET), Historical Hazardous Substance Storage Information Database (HHSS), Historical Hazardous Substance Storage Container Information - Facility Summary (HIST TANK), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act – Small Quantity Generator (RCRA SQG), and Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (UST SWEEPS) databases. According to the CERS HAZ, CUPA CONTRACO, and FINDS/FRS listings, the site is regulated for an inactive underground storage tank and a hazardous waste generator. Seven violations were issued from 2013 to 2017 regarding improper hazardous waste management, failure to provide hazardous chemical training to all employees, and failure to submit required documents; however, all violations were reportedly returned with compliance. Additional violations were not identified on the RCRA listings. According to the HAZ GEN, HAZNET, and RCRA SQG listings, the site had generated hazardous waste streams consisting of asbestos-containing waste, contaminated soils from a site clean-up, and gamma-lindane in 2001 and 2014. The hazardous manifest for the contaminated soils indicates that lindane was disposed of via incineration. The generation of gamma-lindane was previously discussed in Section 3.7. The HHSS, HIST TANK, and UST SWEEPS listings indicate that one 550-gallon gasoline UST was installed for Diablo Nursey; however, additional information relating to the location and installation and removal dates were not provided. Terracon requested records from the CCCEHD regarding the former UST. Records were identified and are further discussed in Sections 3.7 and 4.2. Based on the absence of a regulatory closure document for the hazardous waste generated and UST, the lack of a former closure letter from the DTSC and CCEHD and RWQCB, respectively, is considered a BER. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 17 The remaining facilities listed in the database report do not appear to represent RECs to the site at this time based upon regulatory status, apparent topographic gradient, and/or distance from the site. Unmapped facilities are those that do not contain sufficient address or location information to evaluate the facility listing locations relative to the site. The report listed no facilities in the unmapped section. Determining the location of unmapped facilities is beyond the scope of this assessment; however, none of these facilities were identified as the site or adjacent properties. These facilities are listed in the database report in Appendix D. 4.2 Local Agency Inquiries Agency Contacted/ Contact Method Response San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board / Email: mwong@waterboards.ca.gov On May 10, 2024, Terracon received a response from the agency indicating records were not identified for the site. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) / Online: http://www.baaqmd.gov/contact- us/request-public-records On May 2, 2024, Terracon received a response from the agency indicating records were not identified for the site. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) / Email: PubReqAct@dtsc.ca.gov On May 16, 2024, Terracon received a response from the agency indicating records identified for the site and would need to be reviewed in-person. On May 22, 2024, Terracon mobilized to the agency and reviewed records relating to the site regarding the prior reports provided by the client and previously discussed in Section 3.7. Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department (CCCEHD) / Email: ccchazmat@cchealth.org On May 6, 2024, Terracon received records from the agency relating to the site. The provided records included records a hazardous material business plan (HMBP), hazardous waste inspection/compliance checklists and violations, and a permit to operate as a hazardous waste generator from 1995 to 2023. The former UST is further discussed in Section 3.7 and inspection/compliance checklists and violations were previously discussed in Section 4.1. A summary of a review of a Phase I ESA report included in the records review is summarized below. Contra Costa County Building Department / Email: Records@dcd.cccounty.us On May 3, 2024, Terracon received records from the agency relating to the site. The provided records included a building permit regarding a roof inspection on December 4, 1975. Based on a review of the provided record, RECs were not identified. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 18 Agency Contacted/ Contact Method Response City of Danville City Clerk / Email: cityclerk@danville.ca.gov On May 15, 2024, Terracon received records from the agency relating to the site. The provided records included various plumbing, building, and electrical permits for exterior improvements from 1991 to 2024. 1991 to 2024. Based on a review of the provided record, RECs were not identified. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District / Email: info@firedepartment.org On May 7, 2024, Terracon received a response from the agency indicating records were not identified for the site. CCCEHD Records Antrim Engineering & Construction, Inc. (AEC) completed a Phase I ESA for the site on March 10, 1995. Antrim identified the followed recognized or observed environmental risks: Status of former USTs; Areas of obvious staining resulting for suspected petroleum hydrocarbons present in the maintenance shed & storage trailer locations on-site; An unidentified depression observed in the southwest corner of the site; Deteriorating or suspect containers & bags of herbicides, pesticides, & fertilizers were observed in several locations; and A surface catchment drainage ditch was observed to travel the entire southern boundary. Antrim noted that the ditch provides uncontrolled directed flow of potentially fertilizer, herbicide, or pesticide contaminated runoff effluents & irrigation water from the bedding and display areas of the site to the storm sewer at Diablo Road. In addition, multiple catchment basins are located in the southern portion of the site that deliver effluents into the storm sewer system. A separate letter suggesting recommendations and cost estimate proposal only included sampling the former UST location and disposal of deteriorating containers. Based upon the review of the previous reports in Section 3.7 and this Phase I ESA report, the staining and surface catchment drainage ditch represents a REC to the site. 4.3 Local Area Knowledge Based on a review of the California Department of Conservation’s Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) Well Finder website, there are no active or Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 19 decommissioned oil or gas production wells located on the site or surrounding properties. Based on a review of the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) Public Viewer website, hazardous liquid or gas transmission pipelines were not identified on the site or surrounding properties. 5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 5.1 General Site Information Information contained in this section is based on a visual reconnaissance conducted while walking through the site and the accessible interior areas of structures, if any, located on the site. The site and adjoining properties are depicted on the Site Diagram, which is included in Exhibit 2 of Appendix A. Photo documentation of the site at the time of the visual reconnaissance is provided in Appendix B. Credentials of the individuals planning and conducting the site visit are included in Appendix E. General Site Information Site Reconnaissance Field Personnel Elissa Tianero Reconnaissance Date May 20, 2024 Weather Conditions Clear, 75°F Site Contact/Title Zack Straus / CFO Building Description Building Identification Building Use Approx. Construction Date Number of Stories Approx. Size (ft²) Store Sales floor with a restroom and office space 1950 1 1,665 Greenhouse Plant sales floor 1981 1 1,370 Storage Storage area 1981 1 655 Office Office for topsoil sales 1981 1 230 Breakroom Breakroom for staff members 1993 1 330 Shed Storage area 2012 1 50 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 20 Site Reconnaissance Site Utilities Drinking Water East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Wastewater Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) Electric Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Natural Gas PG&E 5.2 Overview of Current Site Occupants During the site reconnaissance, the site was occupied by Sloat Garden Store. 5.3 Overview of Current Site Operations During the site reconnaissance, the site operated as a plant nursery with a store, office space, storage, and topsoil sales. 5.4 Site Observations The following table summarizes site observations and interviews. Affirmative responses (designated by an “X”) are discussed in more detail following the table. Site Characteristics Category Item or Feature Observed or Identified Site Operations, Processes, and Equipment Emergency generators X Elevators Air compressors Hydraulic lifts Dry cleaning Photo processing Ventilation hoods and/or incinerators Waste treatment systems and/or water treatment systems Heating and/or cooling systems X Paint booths Sub-grade mechanic pits Wash-down areas or carwashes Pesticide/herbicide production or storage X Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 21 Category Item or Feature Observed or Identified Printing operations Metal finishing (electroplating, chrome plating, galvanizing, etc.) Salvage operations Oil, gas, or mineral production Other processes or equipment Aboveground Chemical or Waste Storage Aboveground storage tanks Drums, barrels, and/or containers 5 gallons X MSDS or SDS Underground Chemical or Waste Storage, Drainage or Collection Systems Underground storage tanks or ancillary UST equipment Sumps, cisterns, French drains, catch basins, and/or dry wells Grease traps Septic tanks and/or leach fields Oil/water separators, clarifiers, sand traps, triple traps, interceptors Pipeline markers Interior floor drains Electrical Transformers/ PCBs Transformers and/or capacitors Other equipment Releases or Potential Releases Stressed vegetation Stained soil Stained pavement or similar surface Leachate and/or waste seeps Trash, debris, and/or other waste materials X Dumping or disposal areas X Construction/demolition debris and/or dumped fill dirt X Surface water discoloration, odor, sheen, and/or free- floating product Strong, pungent, or noxious odors Exterior pipe discharges and/or other effluent discharges Surface water bodies Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 22 Category Item or Feature Observed or Identified Other Notable Site Features Quarries or pits Wastewater lagoons Wells Site Operations, Processes, and Equipment Emergency generators During the site reconnaissance, one propane-powered emergency generator was observed in the southern canopy. According to Mr. Zack Straus, CFO of Sloat Garden Center Store, the generator is for the buildings, stores, and office space and is serviced as needed by on-site staff. Staining or evidence of a release was not observed on the concrete in the vicinity of the generator. Based on the interview with Mr. Straus and absence of staining, the generator does not represent a REC to the site. Heating and/or cooling systems During the site reconnaissance, the store and greenhouse were observed equipped with cooling fans. According to Mr. Straus, the cooling fans are checked for proper maintenance by on-site staff as needed. Based on site observations, the cooling fans do not represent a REC to the site. Pesticide/herbicide production or storage During the site reconnaissance, the store had various pesticides, insecticides, and herbicide bottles on the sales floor and were located on wooden shelves on concrete. Mr. Straus indicated that the site does not utilize pesticides, insecticides, and/or herbicides on-site. In addition, Mr. Straus stated that the site does not have bulk storage of pesticides and the sort and are only utilized for selling to the consumers. Staining or evidence of a release was not observed in the vicinity of the containers. Based on site observations, the observed containers do not represent a REC to the site. Aboveground Chemical or Waste Storage Drums, barrels, and/or containers 5 gallons During the site reconnaissance, the following drums and containers were observed: Approx. Quantity Approximate Capacity (gallons) Contents Location 25+ 5 Waste oil Within the storage building Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 23 Approx. Quantity Approximate Capacity (gallons) Contents Location 3 5 Unknown East of the breakroom 1 8 Propane Canopy 1 8 Propane Within the storage building 3 8 Propane South of the dumpster 1 55 Diesel Within the storage building 1 55 Unknown Along the exterior of the office and storage building Staining or evidence of a release was observed on the 55-gallon diesel drum. Mr. Straus stated that the drum and containers collect waste oils that are generated from the fleet vehicles and the on-site staff dispose of them through a third party. The remaining drums and containers did not have staining or evidence of a release in the vicinity of the drums and containers. Based on site observations, the observed drums and containers do not represent a REC to the site. Releases or Potential Releases Trash, debris, and/or other waste materials Minor amounts of trash, consisting of typical municipal litter items such as bottles, plastic, and miscellaneous food wrappers were observed along the southern, western, and northern boundary of the site. Staining, noxious odors, or evidence of hazardous materials disposal were not observed. Based on site observations, the debris materials did not appear to be hazardous in nature and do not represent a REC to the site. Dumping or disposal areas One solid waste dumpster and one recycling dumpster was observed to the west of the plant nursery. Staining, noxious odors, or evidence of hazardous materials disposal were not observed. Based on site observations, the dumpster and debris materials did not appear to be hazardous in nature and do not represent a REC to the site. Construction/demolition debris and/or dumped fill dirt During the site reconnaissance, the site has a topsoil area where mulch, gravel, and soil are collected for consumer purchases. Mr. Straus stated that the topsoils are obtained from quarries located in California. Staining, noxious odors, or evidence of hazardous materials disposal were not observed. Based on site observations and interview with Mr. Straus, the topsoil materials do not appear to be hazardous in nature and do not represent a REC to the site. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Ivy at Danville | Danville, California May 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. R1247301 Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 24 6.0 ADJOINING PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE Visual observations of adjoining properties (from site boundaries) are summarized below. Adjoining Properties Direction Description North The northern adjoining properties consists of a residential neighborhood (878 and 882 El Cerro Boulevard) followed by El Cerro Boulevard and a residential neighborhood (893 El Cerro Boulevard and 802 Ackerman Drive). East The eastern adjoining properties consists of Diablo Road followed by a residential neighborhood (5 and 6 Tyler Court). South The southern adjoining properties consists of Le Petite Academy (816 Diablo Road) and a residential neighborhood (15, 21, 27, and 33 Betten Court). West The western adjoining property consists of a single-family residence (10 Turrini Plaza). RECs were not observed with the adjoining properties. 7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES Per the agreed scope of services specified in the proposal, additional services were not conducted. 8.0 DECLARATION I, Kristin Stout, declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in Section 312.10 of 40 CFR 312; and I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the site. I have developed and performed the All Appropriate Inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. __________________________ Kristin Stout Environmental Department Manager For: Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials APPENDIX A EXHIBIT 1: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP EXHIBIT 2: SITE DIAGRAM Attachment J is a summary of a 644 page Traffic Impact Analysis. To view the entire document, please visit the Danville Town Talks website by scanning the QR code or following the link below. https://danvilletowntalks.org/private-land-development/news_feed/828-diablo-road ATTACHMENT H Ivy Care Facility Ivy at Danville Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared For O&I Development April 29, 2025 Hashem Basrawi, EIT Chad Karns Meghan Macias, TE Ivy at Danville Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared For O&I Development 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1900 Irvine, CA 92614 Prepared By 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 794-1180 Prepared By: Hashem Basrawi, EIT U nder the Guidance of: Chad Karns, Meghan Macias, TE Contact: techservices@epdsolutions.com April 29, 2025 Names of Project owners Ivy at Danville i Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1 2 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Project Description .................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Study Area and Analysis Scenarios ...................................................................................... 7 2.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Significance Criteria ............................................................................................................ 10 3 Baseline Conditions .............................................................................................. 11 3.1 Existing Transportation System and Access ....................................................................... 11 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes and Intersection Operations ...................................................... 13 3.3 Cumulative Year 2035 Traffic Volumes and Intersection Operations ............................. 17 4 Proposed Project .................................................................................................. 26 4.1 Project Trip Generation ...................................................................................................... 26 4.2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ........................................................................... 29 4.3 Site Plan Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 35 4.4 Intersection Sight Distance .................................................................................................. 36 5 With Project Conditions ....................................................................................... 38 5.1 Existing With Project Conditions ......................................................................................... 38 5.2 Cumulative Year 2035 With Project Conditions ............................................................... 43 6 Bike and Pedestrian Analysis ............................................................................. 48 7 Parking Demand Analysis ................................................................................... 51 8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 53 Figures Figure 2.1: Project Location ................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2.2: Project Site Plan ................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 2.3: Project Study Intersections ................................................................................................ 8 Figure 3.1: Existing Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic Control. ..................................... 12 Figure 3.2: Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes .................................................................................... 14 Figure 3.3: Existing MD Peak Hour Volumes .................................................................................... 15 Figure 3.4: Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes .................................................................................... 16 Figure 3.5: Location of Cumulative Projects ..................................................................................... 19 Figure 3.6: Cumulative Projects AM Trip Assignment ...................................................................... 20 Figure 3.7: Cumulative Projects MD Trip Assignment ...................................................................... 21 Figure 3.8: Cumulative Projects PM Trip Assignment ....................................................................... 22 Figure 3.9: Cumulative Year 2035 AM Traffic Volumes ................................................................. 23 Figure 3.10: Cumulative Year 2035 MD Traffic Volumes ............................................................... 24 Figure 3.11: Cumulative Year 2035 PM Traffic Volumes ............................................................... 25 Ivy at Danville ii Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 4.1: Project Inbound Trip Distribution ................................................................................... 30 Figure 4.2: Project Outbound Trip Distribution ................................................................................ 31 Figure 4.3: Project AM Trip Assignment ........................................................................................... 32 Figure 4.4: Project MD Trip Assignment ........................................................................................... 33 Figure 4.5: Project PM Trip Assignment ............................................................................................ 34 Figure 5.1: Existing With Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................. 40 Figure 5.2: Existing With Project MD Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................. 41 Figure 5.3: Existing With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................. 42 Figure 5.4: Cumulative Year 2035 With Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................ 45 Figure 5.5: Cumulative Year 2035 With Project MD Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................ 46 Figure 5.6: Cumulative Year 2035 With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................... 47 Tables Table 2.1: Relationship between Delay and LOS at Signalized Intersections ................................. 9 Table 2.2: Relationship Between Delay and LOS at an Unsignalized Intersection .......................... 9 Table 3.1: Existing AM, MD, and PM Peak Hour Level of Service ................................................. 13 Table 3.2: Cumulative Year 2035 AM, MD, and PM Peak Hour Level of Service........................ 17 Table 3.3: Cumulative Project Trip Generation ............................................................................... 18 Table 4.1: Trip Generation Survey Results ...................................................................................... 27 Table 4.2: Project Trip Generation Utilizing Survey Results .......................................................... 27 Table 4.3: Project Trip Generation Utilizing ITE Trip Rates ........................................................... 28 Table 4.4: Time Gap for Unsignalized Intersections – Highway Design Manual Topic 405 ........ 36 Table 4.5: Right-Turn Intersection Sight Distance Analysis ............................................................. 37 Table 4.6: Left-Turn Intersection Sight Distance Analysis ............................................................... 37 Table 5.1: Existing Without and With Project AM, MD, and PM Peak Hour LOS ......................... 39 Table 5.2: Cumulative Year 2035 With Project AM, MD, and PM Peak Hour LOS ..................... 44 Table 7.1: Town of Danville Parking Requirement .......................................................................... 51 Table 7.2: ITE Parking Requirement - Land Use Code 254 – Assisted Living ............................... 51 Appendices Appendix A – Traffic Study Scoping Agreement Appendix B – Traffic Counts Appendix C – Level of Service Calculations Appendix D – Trip Generation Data Appendix E – C umulative Projects P rovided B y Town of Danville Appendix F – Project Site Plan Appendix G – Vehicle Turning Template Ivy at Danville 1 Traffic Impact Analysis 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc. (EPD) to analyze the potential traffic deficiencies of the Ivy at Danville Project (proposed Project), a proposed senior assisted living facility to be located at 828 Diablo Road in the Town of Danville. The Project site totals an area of 2.72 acres, or 118,449 square feet (SF). The Project site is currently occupied by the Sloat Garden Center Store and a topsoil yard. The proposed Project would demolish the existing garden store and replace it with a senior assisted living facility. The senior assisted living facility would comprise a 111,984 SF 3-story building which would provide 105 units including 110 beds. The Project site is located at the southwest corner of El Cerro Boulevard and Diablo Road. This TIA was prepared based on the scope of work (included as Appendix A) provided by the Town of Danville staff. The trip generation for the Cumulative Year 2035 conditions was based on the data provided by the Town of Danville staff. The proposed Project would generate 75 daily trips, 6 net trips during the AM peak hour, 14 net trips during the MD peak hour, and 18 net trips during the PM peak hour. Intersection Analysis The following study area intersections were evaluated during the AM, MD, and PM peak hours: 1. Project Driveway/Diablo Road 2. El Cerro Boulevard/W. El Pintado Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps 3. El Cerro Boulevard/I-680 Northbound Ramps 4. El Cerro Boulevard/Diablo Road/Ackerman Drive 5. El Cerro Boulevard/Danville Boulevard 6. Diablo Road/Camino Tassajara 7. Diablo Road/I-680 Northbound Ramps 8. Diablo Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps AM, MD, and PM peak hour traffic operations were evaluated for the following scenarios: • Existing Conditions: Defined as existing conditions under year 2024. • Cumulative Year 2035 Conditions: Defined as Existing Conditions with an ambient growth rate of 1.5% and traffic from approved projects in the area. • Existing With Project Conditions: Defined as Existing Conditions with the addition of Project traffic. • Cumulative Year 2035 With Project Conditions: Defined as Cumulative Year 2035 Conditions with the addition of Project traffic. Existing Intersection Analysis Results All intersections operate at a satisfactory LOS during AM, MD, and PM peak hours under Existing Conditions except for the following intersections which operate at unsatisfactory LOS: 1. Project Driveway/Diablo Road (operates at LOS E during AM peak hour) 2. El Cerro Boulevard/W. El Pintado Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps (operates at LOS F during AM peak hour and LOS F during the MD peak hour). Ivy at Danville 2 Traffic Impact Analysis Cumulative Year 2035 Intersection Analysis Results All intersections are anticipated to operate at a satisfactory LOS during AM, MD, and PM peak hours under Cumulative Year 2035 Conditions except for the following intersections which would operate at unsatisfactory LOS: 1. Project Driveway/Diablo Road (operates at LOS E during AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour) 2. El Cerro Boulevard/W. El Pintado Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps (operates at LOS F during AM peak hour and LOS F during the MD peak hour) Existing With Project Intersection Analysis Results All intersections are anticipated to operate at a satisfactory LOS during AM, MD, and PM peak hours under Existing With Project Conditions except for the following intersections which would operate at unsatisfactory LOS: 1. Project Driveway/Diablo Road (operates at LOS E during AM peak hour) 2. El Cerro Boulevard/W. El Pintado Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps (operates at LOS F during AM peak hour, LOS F during the MD peak hour, and LOS E during the PM peak hour) However, it should be noted that per the Town’s guidelines, the Project would not be required to provide improvements to the aforementioned deficient intersections since the delay caused by the addition of the Project’s traffic would be less than 5 seconds. Cumulative Year 2035 With Project Intersection Analysis Results All intersections are anticipated to operate at a satisfactory LOS during AM, MD, and PM peak hours under Cumulative Year 2035 With Project Conditions except for the following intersections which would operate at unsatisfactory LOS: 1. Project Driveway/Diablo Road (operates at LOS E during AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour) 2. El Cerro Boulevard/W. El Pintado Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps (operates at LOS F during AM peak hour and LOS F during the MD peak hour) However, it should be noted that per the Town’s guidelines, the Project would not be required to provide improvements to the aforementioned deficient intersections since the delay caused by the addition of the Project’s traffic would be less than 5 seconds. Bike and Pedestrian Analysis Results The Project should ensure that the Town’s General Plan Mobility Element bike and pedestrian design standards are met by: • Ensuring that existing Class II bike facilities at the Project’s frontages would remain operational, serving bicyclists post-Project development. • Ensuring that the existing northern driveway of the Project site gets repaved per applicable design code standards, to provide a continuous concrete sidewalk for pedestrians along the eastern Project frontage (along Diablo Road. Ivy at Danville 3 Traffic Impact Analysis Parking Demand Analysis Conclusion The proposed Project provides a total of 60 parking spaces. According to the Town of Danville Municipal Code, Article 1 - General Provisions, Section 32-1.14, Off-Street Parking, one (1) space is required for every three (3) beds. The required parking is 37 spaces, based on the ratio of one space per three beds. Additionally, based on ITE Parking Generation, 6th Edition (2023), Land Use Code 254 (Assisted Living), which recommends 0.4 parking spaces per bed, the required parking is 44 spaces. Therefore, the proposed Project provides 23 additional parking spaces over the City’s required 37 spaces and 16 additional parking spaces over the ITE-required 44 spaces, meeting both the City’s and ITE’s parking standards. Project Improvements The proposed Project would be responsible for the following improvements: • The Project driveway should be delineated with a double yellow centerline striping for a length of at least 30 feet to prevent corner cutting by larger vehicles. • A STOP sign and pavement marking should be installed at the Project driveway. Ivy at Danville 4 Traffic Impact Analysis 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Project Description The Project site is located at 828 Diablo Road in the Town of Danville, at the southwest corner of El Cerro Boulevard and Diablo Road. It is identified by Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 196-270-029 and totals an area of 2.72 acres, or 118,449 square feet (SF). The Project site is currently occupied by the Sloat Garden Center Store and a topsoil yard. The proposed Project would demolish the existing garden store and replace it with a senior assisted living facility. The senior assisted living facility would comprise a 111,984 SF 3-story building which would provide 105 units including 110 beds. Approximately 45-60 part-time and full-time employees are anticipated to work, with peak shifts requiring 15-20 staff members. The Project would provide 60 parking spaces including 54 standard parking spaces, 3 clean air/electric vehicle (EV) spaces, 2 accessible parking spaces, and 1 van accessible parking space. The location of the Project site is shown in Figure 2.1 and the Project site plan is shown in Figure 2.2. Regional access to the proposed Project is provided by Interstate 680 (I-680) and local access is provided by El Cerro Boulevard, Diablo Road, Camino Tassajara, and Danville Boulevard. Ivy at Danville 5 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2.1: Project Location Ivy at Danville 6 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2.2: Project Site Plan Ivy at Danville 7 Traffic Impact Analysis 2.2 Study Area and Analysis Scenarios The study area was established based on the scope of work, which was provided by Town of Danville staff, and is included as Appendix A. This TIA includes the analysis of the following intersections : 1. Project Driveway/Diablo Road 2. El Cerro Boulevard/W. El Pintado Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps 3. El Cerro Boulevard/I-680 Northbound Ramps 4. El Cerro Boulevard/Diablo Road/Ackerman Drive 5. El Cerro Boulevard/Danville Boulevard 6. Diablo Road/Camino Tassajara 7. Diablo Road/I-680 Northbound Ramps 8. Diablo Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps The location of the study intersections are shown in Figure 2.3. The study intersections were evaluated during the morning (AM), midday (MD), and afternoon (PM) peak hours, which are defined as the hours with the highest traffic volumes between 7 AM and 9 AM, 2 PM and 4 PM, and 4 PM and 6 PM, respectively. AM, MD, and PM peak hour traffic operations were evaluated for the following scenarios: • Existing Conditions: Defined as existing conditions under year 2024. • Cumulative Year 2035 Conditions: Defined as Existing Conditions with an ambient growth rate of 1.5% and traffic from approved projects in the area. • Existing With Project Conditions: Defined as Existing Conditions with the addition of Project traffic. • Cumulative Year 2035 With Project Conditions: Defined as Cumulative Year 2035 Conditions with the addition of Project traffic. Ivy at Danville 8 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2.3: Project Study Intersections Ivy at Danville 9 Traffic Impact Analysis 2.3 Methodology Intersection operations are evaluated using level of service (LOS), which is a measure of the delay experienced by drivers on a roadway facility. LOS A indicates free-flow traffic conditions and generally the best operating conditions. LOS F indicates extremely congested conditions and the worst operating conditions from the driver’s perspective. In this report, LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections was calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 7th Edition, methodology. LOS at signalized intersections is defined in terms of the weighted average control delay for the intersection. Control delay is a measure of the increase in travel time that is experienced due to traffic signal control and is expressed in terms of average control delay per vehicle (in seconds). Control delay is determined based on the intersection geometry and volume, signal cycle length, phasing, and coordination along the arterial corridor. Table 2.1 shows the relationship between control delay and LOS. Table 2.1: Relationship between Delay and LOS at Signalized Intersections LOS Delay (Seconds per Vehicle) A ≤ 10 B >10 – 20 C >20 – 35 D >35 – 55 E >55 – 80 F >80 Unsignalized intersections are categorized as either all-way stop control (AWSC) or two-way stop control (TWSC). LOS at AWSC intersections is determined by the weighted average control delay of the overall intersection. The HCM TWSC intersection methodology calculates LOS based on the delay experienced by drivers on the minor (stop-controlled) approaches to the intersection. For TWSC intersections, LOS is determined for each minor-street movement, as well as the major-street left turns. The relationship between delay and LOS at unsignalized intersections is shown in Table 2.2 , Relationship Between Delay and LOS at an Unsignalized Intersection. Table 2.2 : Relationship Between Delay and LOS at an Unsignalized Intersection LOS Delay (seconds) A 0-10 B >10 – 15 C >15 – 25 D >25 – 35 E >35 – 50 F >50 Ivy at Danville 10 Traffic Impact Analysis 2.4 Significance Criteria Per Goal 14.03 of the Mobility Element within the Danville General Plan (adopted on March 19, 2013), LOS standards for designated Routes of Regional Significance will be consistent with those established by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. On local roads, LOS D will remain the threshold, except in locations (to be specifically identified through the CEQA process) where the Town determines that LOS D cannot be maintained due to traffic originating outside of Danville. The LOS criteria is based on the Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines (dated June 23, 2020). The Guidelines state that identifying improvements to address operational deficiencies would be required under the following circumstances: • Development projects where the addition of project traffic to an intersection(s) results in the degradation of intersection operations from acceptable LOS D or better to unacceptable operations (LOS E or LOS F). Priority Development Areas (PDA) and routes of regional significance tolerate a higher level of congestion and therefore LOS E is considered acceptable operation for PDAs. However, improvements are required if the LOS degrades to F. • Development projects where the addition of project traffic to an intersection(s) operating unacceptably before the addition of project trips results in the exacerbation of unacceptable operations by increasing the average control delay (for signalized and AWSC intersections) or worst movement/approach delay (for side-street stop-controlled intersections) at the intersection by more than 5.0 seconds. Ivy at Danville 11 Traffic Impact Analysis 3 BASELINE CONDITIONS This section discusses the Baseline (without Project) traffic conditions. Baseline conditions are those conditions that exist within the study area under existing conditions as well as future estimated conditions without the traffic from the proposed Project. 3.1 Existing Transportation System and Access As described in Section 2.1, Project Description, regional access to the Project site is provided by Interstate 680 (I-680) and local access is provided by El Cerro Boulevard, Diablo Road, Camino Tassajara, and Danville Boulevard. The characteristics of each regional access roadway per the roadway classifications in the Mobility Element of the Danville General Plan are discussed below: • Interstate 680 (I-680) is a north-south interstate highway in Northern California. It curves around the eastern cities of the San Francisco Bay Area from San Jose at the southern end to I-80 in Fairfield at the northern end. • El Cerro Boulevard (Minor Arterial) is an east-west minor arterial roadway between Danville Boulevard and Diablo Road. The speed limit on El Cerro Boulevard is 30 MPH. • Diablo Road (Major Arterial) is an east-west major arterial roadway that spans between Hartz Avenue and Camino Tassajara. The speed limit on Diablo Road (Major Arterial) varies between 25 MPH and 30 MPH. • Diablo Road (Minor Arterial) is a north-south/east-west minor arterial roadway that spans between Camino Tassajara and Town limits. The speed limit on Diablo Road (Minor Arterial) is 35 MPH. • Camino Tassajara (Major Arterial) is an east-west major arterial roadway that spans between Sycamore Valley Road and Town limits. The speed limit on Camino Tassajara (Major Arterial) is 45 MPH. • Camino Tassajara (Major Collector) is an east-west major collector roadway that spans between Diablo Road and Sycamore Valley Road. The speed limit on Camino Tassajara (Major Collector) is 35 MPH. • Danville Boulevard is a north-south minor arterial roadway that spans between Railroad Avenue and Town limits. The speed limit on Danville Boulevard varies between 25 MPH and 35 MPH. The existing intersection lane configuration and traffic control at study area intersections are shown in Figure 3.1. Ivy at Danville 12 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 3.1: Existing Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic Control. Ivy at Danville 13 Traffic Impact Analysis 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes and Intersection Operations The traffic counts for all eight intersections for the Existing Conditions analysis were collected on October 17, 2024. Traffic volumes were collected between 7 AM and 9 AM, 2PM and 4 PM, and 4 PM and 6 PM. All traffic count sheets are provided in Appendix B. Counts were collected for the following intersections: 1. Project Driveway/Diablo Road 2. El Cerro Boulevard/W. El Pintado Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps 3. El Cerro Boulevard/I-680 Northbound Ramps 4. El Cerro Boulevard/Diablo Road/Ackerman Drive 5. El Cerro Boulevard/Danville Boulevard 6. Diablo Road/Camino Tassajara 7. Diablo Road/I-680 Northbound Ramps 8. Diablo Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps Existing AM, MD, and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study area intersections are shown in Figures 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4, respectively. As described previously in Section 2.3, Methodology, LOS at the study area intersections was determined using the HCM methodology. The existing LOS at the study area intersections is shown in Table 3.1. All LOS calculations are provided in Appendix C. As shown in Table 3.1, all intersections operate at a satisfactory LOS during AM, MD, and PM peak hours under Existing conditions except the following intersections: 1. Project Driveway/Diablo Road (operates at LOS E during AM peak hour) 2. El Cerro Boulevard/W. El Pintado Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps (operates at LOS F during AM peak hour and LOS F during the MD peak hour). Table 3.1: Existing AM, MD, and PM Peak Hour Level of Service Delay 1 LOS 2 Delay 1 LOS 2 Delay 1 LOS 2 1.Project Dwy/Diablo Rd TWSC 48.2 E 27.3 D 32.2 D 2.El Cerro Blvd/W. El Pintado Rd/I-680 SB Ramp Signal 108.2 F 170.4 F 43.9 D 3.El Cerro Blvd/I-680 NB Ramp Signal 20.8 C 19.9 B 18.1 B 4.El Cerro Blvd/Diablo Rd/Ackerman Dr Signal 23.8 C 27.4 C 24.5 C 5.El Cerro Blvd/Danville Blvd Signal 21.9 C 20.1 C 18.7 B 6.Diablo Rd/Camino Tassajara Signal 19.9 B 19.4 B 19.4 B 7.Diablo Road/I-680 NB Ramp Signal 13.0 B 13.8 B 13.0 B 8.Diablo Road/I-680 SB Ramp Signal 19.2 B 26.0 C 17.7 B =Unsatisfactory Level of Service TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control 1 Delay in Seconds 2 Level of Service AM Peak PM PeakIntersectionTraffic Control MD Peak Existing Ivy at Danville 14 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 3.2: Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes Ivy at Danville 15 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 3.3: Existing MD Peak Hour Volumes Ivy at Danville 16 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 3.4: Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes Ivy at Danville 17 Traffic Impact Analysis 3.3 Cumulative Year 2035 Traffic Volumes and Intersection Operations Cumulative Year 2035 traffic volumes were projected by applying a growth rate of 1.5% to traffic volumes under Existing Conditions and by adding traffic from nearby cumulative projects. A peak hour factor of 0.95 was assumed for LOS analysis under Cumulative Year 2035 Without and With Project Conditions. A total of 6 cumulative projects were included in the cumulative trip generation 1. The trip generation for each cumulative project was calculated using trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). The trip generation for the cumulative projects is shown in Table 3.3. The locations of cumulative projects are shown in Figure 3.5. The AM, MD, and PM cumulative projects trip assignment at study area intersections are shown in Figures 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8, respectively. Cumulative Year 2035 AM, MD, and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study area intersection are shown in Figures 3.9, 3.10, and 3.11, respectively. As described previously in Section 2.3, Methodology, LOS at the study area intersections were determined using the HCM methodology. The Cumulative Year 2035 LOS throughout the study area is shown in Table 3.2. A table showing the Cumulative Year 2035 projects including size, location, and status which was provided by the Danville Town staff is provided in Appendix E. All LOS calculations are provided in Appendix C. As shown in Table 3.2, all intersections operate at a satisfactory LOS during AM, MD, and PM peak hours under Cumulative Year 2035 conditions except the following intersections: 1. Project Driveway/Diablo Road (operates at LOS E during AM peak hour, LOS E during PM peak hour) 2. El Cerro Boulevard/W. El Pintado Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps (operates at LOS F during AM peak hour, and LOS F during the MD peak hour) Table 3.2: Cumulative Year 2035 AM, MD, and PM Peak Hour Level of Service 1 It is to be noted that The Town and Country Village cumulative project was included in the trip generation calculation but was not included in the cumulative analysis to provide a conservative analysis since the cumulative project would generate fewer trips than the existing retail land use, as shown in Table 3.3. Delay1 LOS2 Delay1 LOS 2 Delay 1 LOS2 1.Project Dwy/Diablo Rd TWSC 35.3 E 32.5 D 35.7 E 2.El Cerro Blvd/W. El Pintado Rd/I-680 SB Ramp Signal 105.3 F 188.8 F 53.4 D 3.El Cerro Blvd/I-680 NB Ramp Signal 21.8 C 21.0 C 18.6 B 4.El Cerro Blvd/Diablo Rd/Ackerman Dr Signal 25.6 C 25.8 C 23.0 C 5.El Cerro Blvd/Danville Blvd Signal 22.7 C 22.2 C 19.0 B 6.Diablo Rd/Camino Tassajara Signal 20.3 C 21.3 C 22.0 C 7.Diablo Road/I-680 NB Ramp Signal 15.1 B 15.8 B 15.9 B 8.Diablo Road/I-680 SB Ramp Signal 23.0 C 34.5 C 18.7 B =Unsatisfactory Level of Service TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control 1 Delay in Seconds 2 Level of Service Intersection Traffic Control Cumulative Year AM Peak MD Peak PM Peak Ivy at Danville 18 Traffic Impact Analysis Table 3.3: Cumulative Project Trip Generation Land Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Trip Rates Single-Family Detached Housing1 DU 9.43 0.18 0.52 0.70 0.63 0.36 0.99 0.59 0.35 0.94 Senior Adult Housing2 DU 3.24 0.07 0.13 0.20 0.16 0.14 0.30 0.14 0.11 0.25 Multi-Family Housing3 DU 4.54 0.09 0.28 0.37 0.23 0.16 0.39 0.24 0.15 0.39 Strip Retail Plaza (<40k)4 TSF 54.45 1.42 0.94 2.36 3.80 3.80 7.60 3.30 3.30 6.59 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 5 TSF 107.20 5.26 4.31 9.57 7.80 5.88 13.68 5.52 3.53 9.05 Medical-Dental Office Building 6 TSF 36.00 2.45 0.65 3.10 2.21 1.53 3.74 1.18 2.75 3.93 Health/Fitness Club7 TSF 15.40 0.67 0.64 1.31 0.64 0.76 1.40 1.97 1.48 3.45 Hair Salon8 TSF 9.68 0.00 1.21 1.21 0.61 0.61 1.21 0.25 1.20 1.45 Small Office Building 9 TSF 14.39 1.37 0.30 1.67 0.73 1.43 2.16 0.73 1.43 2.16 Single-Family Attached Housing10 DU 7.20 0.15 0.33 0.48 0.38 0.23 0.61 0.32 0.25 0.57 Cumulative Projects 1. Evergreen Estates1 36 DU 339 7 19 25 23 13 36 21 13 34 2. Darby Plaza2 100 DU 324 7 13 20 16 14 30 14 11 25 3. Faz1 37 DU 349 7 19 26 23 13 37 22 13 35 4. 375 W El Pintado2 57 DU 185 4 8 11 9 8 17 8 6 14 5. The Town and Country Village Development 3 200 DU 908 17 57 74 47 31 78 48 30 78 Existing Strip Retail Plaza 4 9.218 TSF -502 -13 -9 -22 -35 -35 -70 -30 -30 -61 Existing High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 5 7.322 TSF -785 -39 -32 -70 -57 -43 -100 -40 -26 -66 Existing Medical-Dental Office Building 6 9.534 TSF -343 -23 -6 -30 -21 -15 -36 -11 -26 -37 Existing Health/Fitness Club 7 17.521 TSF -270 -12 -11 -23 -11 -13 -25 -35 -26 -60 Existing Hair Salon 8 7.531 TSF -73 0 -9 -9 -5 -5 -9 -2 -9 -11 Existing Small Office Building 9 5.121 TSF -74 -7 -2 -9 -4 -7 -11 -4 -7 -11 Existing Vacancy 10.945 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Existing Trips 67.192 TSF -2,046 -94 -68 -162 -133 -118 -251 -122 -125 -247 Net Trips -1,138 -77 -11 -88 -86 -87 -173 -75 -94 -169 6. Borel Residential For Sale Townhomes10 124 DU 893 19 41 60 47 29 76 40 31 71 For Rent Apartments3 46 DU 209 4 13 17 11 7 18 11 7 18 Total 170 DU 1,102 23 54 77 58 36 94 51 38 89 Total Cumulative Trip Generation 1,160 -30 101 71 43 -3 40 41 -14 28 DU=Dwelling Unit TSF=Thousand Square Feet 1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transporation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 210 Single Family Detached Housing. 2 Trip rates from the Institute of Transporation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 252 Senior Adult Housing - Multifamily. 3 Trip rates from the Institute of Transporation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 221 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise). 4 Trip rates from the Institute of Transporation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 822 Strip Retail Plaza (<40k). 5 Trip rates from the Institute of Transporation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant. 6 Trip rates from the Institute of Transporation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 720 Medical-Dental Office Building. 9 Trip rates from the Institute of Transporation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 712 Small Office Building. 10 Trip rates from the Institute of Transporation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 215 Single-Family Attached Housing. AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourMD Peak Hour 7 Trip rates from the Institute of Transporation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 492 Health/Fitness Club. Since ITE manual doesn't provide daily trip rates, the sum of AM, MD, and PM peak hour rates was multipled by 2.5. 8 Trip rates from the Institute of Transporation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 918 Hair Salon. Since ITE manual doesn't provide daily trip rates, the sum of AM, MD, and PM peak hour rates was multipled by 2.5. Ivy at Danville 19 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 3.5: Location of Cumulative Projects Ivy at Danville 20 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 3.6: Cumulative Projects AM Trip Assignment Ivy at Danville 21 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 3.7: Cumulative Projects MD Trip Assignment Ivy at Danville 22 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 3.8: Cumulative Projects PM Trip Assignment Ivy at Danville 23 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 3.9: Cumulative Year 2035 AM Traffic Volumes Ivy at Danville 24 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 3.10: Cumulative Year 2035 MD Traffic Volumes Ivy at Danville 25 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 3.11: Cumulative Year 2035 PM Traffic Volumes Ivy at Danville 26 Traffic Impact Analysis 4 PROPOSED PROJECT 4.1 Project Trip Generation A trip generation analysis was prepared to determine the estimated change in site trip generation that would result from the proposed Project. The Town of Danville staff has requested the Project applicant to provide trip generation survey data from other similar facilities currently in operation by the applicant for the purpose of comparing trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Project trip generation was calculated based on survey data collected at three locations in operation by the applicant with the following steps: 1. Driveway counts were taken at three similar senior assisted living facilities currently operating in Southern California in a suburban setting. The following sites were selected to conduct trip generation surveys: a. Capriana Retirement Living & Assisted Living, 134 beds, located at 460 La Floresta Drive, Brea, CA 92823. b. Oakmont of Fullerton, 101 beds, located at 433 West Bastanchury Road, Fullerton, CA 92835. c. Ivy Park Bradford, 118 beds, located at 1180 Bradford Avenue, Placentia, CA 92870. 2. The driveway counts from these sites were utilized to develop a trips-per-bed ratio for the proposed Project as shown below in Table 4.1. The trip generation survey count data is included in Appendix D. 3. The trips-per-bed ratio rate is compared to the ITE trip generation rate for the Assisted Living use (Land Use Code 254): a. Daily rate of 2.6 trips per bed b. Morning (AM) peak hour rate of 0.18 trips per bed c. Midday (MD) peak hour rate of 0.33 trips per bed d. Afternoon/evening (PM) peak hour rate of 0.24 trips per bed 4. The AM, MD, and PM peak hour vehicle trips and daily vehicle trips are calculated based on the trip rates from the trip generation survey, as it is more conservative than the ITE rates. 5. Table 4.2 shows the trip generation estimate for the proposed Project using the trip generation rates from the trip generation survey and the trip generation for the existing garden store (based on in/out traffic counts collected at the existing garden store driveways on October 30). As shown in Table 4.2, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate approximately 75 daily net trips including 6 net trips during the AM peak hour, 14 net trips during the MD peak hour, and 18 net trips during the PM peak hour. For comparison purposes, existing trips and Project trips based on ITE trip rates are shown in Table 4.3 (i.e., Project Trip Generation Utilizing ITE Trip Rates). As shown in Table 4.3, by utilizing ITE trip rates, the Project would generate 4 lower daily trips, 14 AM peak hour trips, 14 MD peak hour trips, and 9 PM peak hour trips. It is to be noted that the analysis was based on Table 4.2 (i.e., Project Trip Generation Utilizing Survey Results) as it reflects more accurate rates. Ivy at Danville 27 Traffic Impact Analysis Table 4.1: Trip Generation Survey Results Table 4.2: Project Trip Generation Utilizing Survey Results 1 Daily trip rates are based on Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 817 – Nursery (Garden Center). AM, MD, and PM peak hour trip rates are based on counts taken on 10/30/2024. 2 Trip rates are based on traffic counts taken on 10/24/2024 and 10/30/2024. Site No.Driveway #Name Address Number of beds Daily Trips Peak AM Trips Peak MD Trips Peak PM Trips 1 1,2 Oakmont of Fullerton 433 W Bastanchury Rd, Fullerton, CA 92835 101 386 26 42 25 2 3 Ivy Park Bradford 1180 Bradford Ave, Placentia, CA 92870 118 310 24 34 19 3 4,5 Capriana Retirement Living & Assisted Living 460 La Floresta Dr, Brea, CA 92823 134 475 23 52 38 353 1171 73 128 82 3.32 0.21 0.36 0.23 Total Daily Trips per bed AM Trips per bed MD Trips per bed PM Trips per bed Land Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Trip Rates Nursery (Garden Center)1 Acres 108.1 - - - - - - - - - Assisted Living Survey Results2 Beds 3.32 0.13 0.08 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.36 0.09 0.14 0.23 Existing Project Trip Generation Nursery (Garden Center)1 2.68 Acres 290 11 6 17 13 13 26 3 4 7 Total Existing Trip Generation 290 11 6 17 13 13 26 3 4 7 Proposed Project Trip Generation Assisted Living2 110 Beds 365 14 9 23 20 20 40 10 15 25 Total Project Trip Generation 365 14 9 23 20 20 40 10 15 25 Net New Trip Generation 75 3 3 6 7 7 14 7 11 18 AM Peak Hour MD Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Ivy at Danville 28 Traffic Impact Analysis Table 4.3: Project Trip Generation Utilizing ITE Trip Rates 1 Trip rates are based on Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 817 - Nursery (Garden Center). 2 Trip rates are based on Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 254 - Assisted Living. Land Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Trip Rates Nursery (Garden Center)1 Acres 108.1 1.22 1.22 2.43 4.10 4.10 8.37 3.47 3.47 6.94 Assisted Living 2 Beds 2.60 0.11 0.07 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.15 0.24 Existing Project Trip Generation Nursery (Garden Center)1 2.68 Acres 290 3 3 6 11 11 22 9 9 18 Total Existing Trip Generation 290 3 3 6 11 11 22 9 9 18 Proposed Project Trip Generation Assisted Living2 110 Beds 286 12 8 20 16 20 36 10 17 27 Total Project Trip Generation 286 12 8 20 16 20 36 10 17 27 Net New Trip Generation -4 9 5 14 5 9 14 1 8 9 AM Peak Hour MD Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Ivy at Danville 29 Traffic Impact Analysis 4.2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment In order to determine the Project trip distribution, the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics program by the United States Census Bureau (LEHD) was utilized. By linking employer and household data, the LEHD program has built a comprehensive database of longitudinally-linked jobs data. The LEHD program calculates the employer-household data for each census tract. The trip distribution was approved by the Town of Danville staff. Project daily inbound and outbound trip distribution is shown in Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2, respectively. AM, MD, and PM Project trip assignments are shown in Figure 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 respectively. The following Project distributions were utilized in the analysis: • Pertaining to the inbound trip distribution, 42% (southernly distribution) is anticipated to utilize Diablo Road/I-680 Northbound Off-Ramp, whereas 28% (northernly distribution) is anticipated to utilize El Cerro Boulevard/W. El Pintado Road/I-680 Southbound Off-Ramp. • Pertaining to the outbound trip distribution, 42% (southernly distribution) is anticipated to utilize Diablo Road/I-680 Southbound On-Ramp. It is to be noted that pertaining to the northernly trip distribution, 70% was assumed to utilize El Cerro Boulevard/I-680 Northbound On-Ramp whereas 30% was assumed to use Diablo Road/I-680 Northbound On-Ramp. Specifically, 20% (northernly distribution) is anticipated to utilize El Cerro Boulevard/I-680 Northbound On-Ramp and 8% (northernly distribution) is anticipated to utilize Diablo Road/I-680 Northbound On-Ramp. Ivy at Danville 30 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 4.1: Project Inbound Trip Distribution Ivy at Danville 31 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 4.2: Project Outbound Trip Distribution Ivy at Danville 32 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 4.3: Project AM Trip Assignment Ivy at Danville 33 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 4.4: Project MD Trip Assignment Ivy at Danville 34 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 4.5: Project PM Trip Assignment Ivy at Danville 35 Traffic Impact Analysis 4.3 Site Plan Evaluation A site plan evaluation was conducted to ensure feasibility of vehicle ingress, egress, and on-site circulation. The Project driveway is located approximately 180 feet south of the El Cerro Boulevard/Diablo Road intersection. Under With Project conditions, the following number of vehicles are anticipated to ingress: • During AM Peak Hour Right-turn into Project Site: 0 vehicles Left-turn into Project Site: 3 vehicles • During MD Peak Hour Right-turn into Project Site: 3 vehicles Left-turn into Project Site: 4 vehicles • During PM Peak Hour Right-turn into Project Site: 3 vehicles Left-turn into Project Site: 4 vehicles Under With Project conditions, the following number of vehicles are anticipated to egress: • During AM Peak Hour Right-turn out of Project Site: 2 vehicles Left-turn out of Project Site: 1 vehicles • During MD Peak Hour Right-turn out of Project Site: 6 vehicles Left-turn out of Project Site: 1 vehicles • During PM Peak Hour Right-turn out of Project Site: 6 vehicles Left-turn out of Project Site: 5 vehicles Under the worst-case ingress scenario (during MD or PM peak hour), 1 vehicle is anticipated to make a right-turn into the Project’s site every 20 minutes and 1 vehicle is anticipated to make a left-turn into the Project’s site every 15 minutes. Under the worst-case egress scenario (during MD or PM peak hour), 1 vehicle is anticipated to make a right-turn out of the Project’s site every 10 minutes and 1 vehicle is anticipated to make a left-turn out of the Project’s site every 12 minutes. Therefore, queueing deficiencies are not anticipated since under the worst-case scenario, 1 vehicle is anticipated to make a right-turn out of the Project’s site every 10 minutes. The Project site plan provided in Appendix F shows the existing nearby driveways on Diablo Road and their distances to the Project driveway are identified. Turning templates were prepared to ensure feasibility pertaining to ingress, on-site circulation, and egress of passenger cars, fire trucks, and trash trucks. Turning templates for different vehicles and turning movements are provided in Appendix G. Ivy at Danville 36 Traffic Impact Analysis 4.4 Intersection Sight Distance An intersection sight distance analysis has been conducted for the Project driveway to ensure adequate sight distance is provided to vehicles departing the Project driveway intersection. The sight distance analysis was conducted in accordance with the Highway Design Manual, (July 1, 2020). Line of sight for corner sight distance for passenger cars is to be determined from a 3 and 1/2-foot height at the location of the driver of the vehicle in the center of the minor road lane to a 3 and 1/2-foot object height in the center of the approaching outside lane of the major road. The Highway Design Manual states that the minimum corner sight distance at unsignalized intersections should be determined by the following equation: 1.47 ∗𝑉𝑉𝑚𝑚∗𝑇𝑇𝑔𝑔 Where Vm is the design speed (mph) of the major road and Tg is the time gap (seconds) for the minor road vehicle to enter the major road. Tg can be determined from Table 4.4 which is derived from the Highway Design Manual. As derived from Table 4.4, automobiles making a right-turn from a stop require a time gap of 6.5 seconds which yields to 335 feet and automobiles making a left-turn from a stop require a time gap of 7.5 seconds which yields to 386 feet. Detailed intersection sight distance analyses conducted for the Project driveway are provided in Tables 4.5 and 4.6 respectively. Intersection sight distance clear sight triangle layouts prepared for the Project driveway are shown on the Project’s site plan (provided in Appendix F). As shown in Tables 4.5, 4.6, and the Project’s site plan, sight distance would be sufficient to passenger cars making a right-turn and left-turn out of the Project site. It should be noted that it’s recommended that no landscaping above 2.5 feet be planted along the project frontage on Diablo Road on both sides of the driveway to ensure a clear line of sight for outbound traffic. It is to be noted that even though the intersection sight distance of 335 extends north of the El Cerro Boulevard/Diablo Road intersection (located approximately 200 feet north of Project driveway), the driver’s sight would be unobstructed since there will be a clear view of the intersection. Table 4.4: Time Gap for Unsignalized Intersections – Highway Design Manual Topic 405 Notes: Time gaps are for a stopped vehicle to turn left, right or cross a two-lane highway with no median and with minor road grades of 3 percent or less. The table values should be adjusted as follows: (1) For multilane highways—When crossing or making a left-turn onto a two-way major road with more than two lanes, add 0.5 s for passenger cars or 0.7 s for trucks for each additional lane to be crossed. Median widths should be converted to an equivalent number of lanes in applying the 0.5 s and 0.7 s criteria. For example, an 18-foot-wide median is equivalent to 1.5 lanes; this requires an additional 0.75 s for a passenger car to cross or an additional 1.05 s for a truck to cross. (2) For minor road approach grades—If the minor road approach grade is an upgrade that exceeds 3 percent and the rear wheels of the design vehicle are on the grade exceeding 3 percent, add 0.2 s for each percent grade for left-turns and crossing maneuvers; or add 0.1 s for each percent grade for right-turns. For example, a passenger car is turning right from a minor road and at the stop location its rear wheels are on a 4 percent upgrade; this requires an additional 0.4 s for the right-turn. (3) Unique situations may necessitate a different design vehicle for a particular minor road than those listed here (e.g., predominant combination trucks out of a rural driveway). Additionally, for intersections at skewed angles less than 60 degrees, a further adjustment is needed. See the AASHTO “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” for guidance. Ivy at Danville 37 Traffic Impact Analysis Table 4.5: Right-Turn Intersection Sight Distance Analysis Table 4.6: Left-Turn Intersection Sight Distance Analysis Intersection Minor Street Major Street Design Vehicle Default Time Gap 6.5 seconds Minor Road Grade > 3%? Time gap adjustment for slope needed? Minor Road Slope N/A Additional time gap added for slope N/A Major Street Speed 35 mph Intersection Sight Distance 335 feet No Project Dwy Diablo Rd Intersection Sight Distance Calculation Analyzed Movement: Right Turn from Stop Diablo Rd/Project Dwy Passenger Car No Intersection Minor Street Major Street Design Vehicle Default Time Gap 7.5 seconds Number of major highway lanes (sum of both directions)2 lanes Time gap adjustment for multilane highway needed? Number of lanes that are being crossed in excess of the first one 0 Median width 0 Time gap adjustment for multilane highway N/A N/A Minor Road Grade > 3%? Time gap adjustment for slope needed? Minor Road Slope N/A Additional time gap added for slope N/A Major Street Speed 35 mph Intersection Sight Distance 386 feet No Diablo Rd/Project Dwy Passenger Car No Intersection Sight Distance Calculation Analyzed Movement: Left Turn from Stop Project Dwy Diablo Rd No Ivy at Danville 38 Traffic Impact Analysis 5 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS 5.1 Existing With Project Conditions Existing With Project traffic volumes were determined by adding the Project trips to the Existing Conditions traffic volumes. Existing With Project AM, MD, and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study area intersections are shown in Figures 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, respectively. As described previously in Section 2.3, Methodology, LOS at the study area intersections was determined using the HCM methodology. The Existing With Project LOS throughout the study area is shown in Table 5.1. All LOS calculations are provided in Appendix C. As shown in Table 5.1, the following intersections would continue to operate at an unsatisfactory LOS under the Existing With Project Conditions: 1. Project Driveway/Diablo Road (operates at LOS E during AM peak hour) 2. El Cerro Boulevard/W. El Pintado Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps (operates at LOS F during AM peak hour and LOS F during the MD peak hour). However, it should be noted that per the Town’s guidelines, the Project would not be required to provide improvements to the aforementioned deficient intersections since the delay caused by the addition of the Project’s traffic would be less than 5 seconds. Ivy at Danville 39 Traffic Impact Analysis Table 5.1: Existing Without and With Project AM, MD, and PM Peak Hour LOS AM Delay MD Delay PM Delay Delay1 LOS 2 Delay1 LOS 2 Delay 1 LOS 2 Delay 1 LOS 2 Delay 1 LOS 2 Delay 1 LOS 2 Difference Difference Difference 1.Project Dwy/Diablo Rd TWSC 48.2 E 27.3 D 32.2 D 49.2 E 28.3 D 34.6 D 1.0 1.0 2.4 Yes 2.El Cerro Blvd/W. El Pintado Rd/I-680 SB Ramp Signal 108.2 F 170.4 F 43.9 D 108.2 F 170.4 F 44.4 D 0.0 0.0 0.5 Yes 3.El Cerro Blvd/I-680 NB Ramp Signal 20.8 C 19.9 B 18.1 B 20.9 C 19.9 B 18.1 B 0.1 0.0 0.0 No 4.El Cerro Blvd/Diablo Rd/Ackerman Dr Signal 23.8 C 27.4 C 24.5 C 23.8 C 27.4 C 24.5 C 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 5.El Cerro Blvd/Danville Blvd Signal 21.9 C 20.1 C 18.7 B 21.9 C 20.1 C 18.8 B 0.0 0.0 0.1 No 6.Diablo Rd/Camino Tassajara Signal 19.9 B 19.4 B 19.4 B 19.9 B 19.5 B 19.4 B 0.0 0.1 0.0 No 7.Diablo Road/I-680 NB Ramp Signal 13.0 B 13.8 B 13.0 B 13.0 B 14.0 B 13.3 B 0.0 0.2 0.3 No 8.Diablo Road/I-680 SB Ramp Signal 19.2 B 26.0 C 17.7 B 19.2 B 26.3 C 17.8 B 0.0 0.3 0.1 No =Unsatisfactory Level of Service TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control 1 Delay in Seconds 2 Level of Service AM PeakIntersectionTraffic Control DeficientAM Peak PM Peak PM PeakMD Peak Existing Without Project MD Peak Existing With Project Ivy at Danville 40 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 5.1: Existing With Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Ivy at Danville 41 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 5.2: Existing With Project MD Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Ivy at Danville 42 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 5.3: Existing With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Ivy at Danville 43 Traffic Impact Analysis 5.2 Cumulative Year 2035 With Project Conditions Cumulative Year 2035 With Project traffic volumes were determined by adding the Project trips to the Cumulative Year 2035 traffic volumes. Cumulative Year 2035 With Project AM, MD, and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study area intersections are shown in Figures 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6, respectively. As described previously in Section 2.3, Methodology, LOS at the study area intersections was determined using the HCM methodology. The Cumulative Year 2035 With Project LOS throughout the study area is shown in Table 5.2. All LOS calculations are provided in Appendix C. As shown in Table 5.2, the following intersections would continue to operate at an unsatisfactory LOS under the Cumulative Year 2035 With Project Conditions: 1. Project Driveway/Diablo Road (operates at LOS E during AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour) 2. El Cerro Boulevard/W. El Pintado Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps (operates at LOS F during AM and LOS F during the MD peak hour) However, it should be noted that per the Town’s guidelines, the Project would not be required to provide improvements to the aforementioned deficient intersections since the delay caused by the addition of the Project’s traffic would be less than 5 seconds. Ivy at Danville 44 Traffic Impact Analysis Table 5.2: Cumulative Year 2035 With Project AM, MD, and PM Peak Hour LOS AM Delay MD Delay PM Delay Delay1 LOS2 Delay 1 LOS 2 Delay 1 LOS 2 Delay1 LOS2 Delay 1 LOS2 Delay 1 LOS 2 Difference Difference Difference 1.Project Dwy/Diablo Rd TWSC 35.3 E 32.5 D 35.7 E 35.7 E 33.4 D 37.4 E 0.4 0.9 1.7 Yes 2.El Cerro Blvd/W. El Pintado Rd/I-680 SB Ramp Signal 105.3 F 188.8 F 53.4 D 105.3 F 189.1 F 53.8 D 0.0 0.3 0.4 Yes 3.El Cerro Blvd/I-680 NB Ramp Signal 21.8 C 21.0 C 18.6 B 21.8 C 21.0 C 18.7 B 0.0 0.0 0.1 No 4.El Cerro Blvd/Diablo Rd/Ackerman Dr Signal 25.6 C 25.8 C 23.0 C 25.6 C 25.8 C 23.0 C 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 5.El Cerro Blvd/Danville Blvd Signal 22.7 C 22.2 C 19.0 B 22.7 C 22.2 C 19.0 B 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 6.Diablo Rd/Camino Tassajara Signal 20.3 C 21.3 C 22.0 C 20.3 C 21.4 C 22.1 C 0.0 0.1 0.1 No 7.Diablo Road/I-680 NB Ramp Signal 15.1 B 15.8 B 15.9 B 15.2 B 15.9 B 16.1 B 0.1 0.1 0.2 No 8.Diablo Road/I-680 SB Ramp Signal 23.0 C 34.5 C 18.7 B 23.2 C 35.0 C 18.8 B 0.2 0.5 0.1 No =Unsatisfactory Level of Service TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control 1 Delay in Seconds 2 Level of Service Intersection Traffic Control Cumulative Year Without Project Cumulative Year With Project DeficientAM Peak MD Peak PM Peak AM Peak MD Peak PM Peak Ivy at Danville 45 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 5.4: Cumulative Year 2035 With Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Ivy at Danville 46 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 5.5: Cumulative Year 2035 With Project MD Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Ivy at Danville 47 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 5.6: Cumulative Year 2035 With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Ivy at Danville 48 Traffic Impact Analysis 6 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN ANALYSIS In July 2018, the County of Contra Costa adopted an updated version of its Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The update reflects new funding sources for bicycle improvements, new data on bicycle use and safety, and revised goals and priorities. The Countywide Plan includes the following goals: • Expand, improve, and maintain facilities for walking and bicycling. • Improve safety for pedestrians and bicycles. • Encourage more people to walk and bicycle. • Support local efforts to improve conditions for walking and bicycling. • Consider and plan for the needs of pedestrians and bicycles. The Mobility Element within the Town’s General Plan discusses the existing and future planned circulation of the transportation system. Consistent with Goal 13.06 of the Town’s General Plan Mobility Element (“Review all planned road improvement projects to ensure that the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with special needs are considered”), a bike and pedestrian analysis was conducted to ensure that the proposed Project would meet the Town’s General Plan bike and pedestrian design requirements, consistent with the Contra Costa County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, along the Project’s frontages. Figure 6.1 indicates Class I, II, and III bicycle routes within the Town of Danville. The location of these facilities is consistent with the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Figure 6.2 defines the different classes of bicycle routes in Danville. As defined in Figure 6.2: • Class I routes operate within a completely separate right-of-way and are exclusively used by bicycles and pedestrians. • Class II routes, commonly called bike lanes, operate in a striped, restricted lane within the right-of- way of a street. Motor vehicles are prohibited from using this lane, although cross-flows in and out of parking spaces and onto cross-streets are permitted. • Class III routes, or bike routes, operate within moving traffic lanes and are distinguished only by signs or pavement markings. Bicycles share the right-of-way with vehicles. The Project is located at the southwest corner of El Cerro Boulevard and Diablo Road. As shown in Figure 6.1, there is an existing Class II bike facility along El Cerro Boulevard (the Project’s northern frontage) and along Diablo Road (the Project’s eastern frontage). The Project should ensure that the Town’s General Plan Mobility Element bike and pedestrian design standards are met by: • Ensuring that existing Class II bike facilities at the Project’s frontages would remain operational, serving bicyclists post-Project development. • Ensuring that the existing northern driveway of the Project site gets repaved per applicable design code standards, to provide a continuous concrete sidewalk for pedestrians along the eastern Project frontage (along Diablo Road). Ivy at Danville 49 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 6.1: Bike and Pedestrian Routes in Danville Project Site Ivy at Danville 50 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 6.2: Different Bicycle Routes in Danville Ivy at Danville 51 Traffic Impact Analysis 7 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Project Parking Supply and City Parking Requirement The proposed Project provides a total of 60 parking spaces. According to the Town of Danville Municipal Code, Article 1 - General Provisions, Section 32-1.14, Off-Street Parking, one (1) space is required for every three (3) beds. The Project includes a total of 110 beds, which would result in the requirement of 37 parking spaces, as shown in Table 7.1. The proposed Project provides 60 parking spaces (23 more than are required), thus the Project would satisfy the City’s parking requirement of 37 parking spaces Table 7.1: Town of Danville Parking Requirement Project Parking Supply and ITE 6th Editon Parking Rates The proposed Project includes 60 parking spaces. The Project's parking demand was calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Parking Generation, 6th Edition (2023), Land Use Code 254 (Assisted Living), applying a rate of 0.4 spaces per bed. With a total of 110 beds, the required parking is 44 spaces, as shown in Table 7.2 . The proposed project provides 60 parking spaces, 16 more spaces than the ITE-required standard of 44 spaces, meeting the City’s parking requirement. Table 7.2: ITE Parking Requirement - Land Use Code 254 – Assisted Living Parking Demand Analysis Conclusion The proposed Project provides a total of 60 parking spaces. According to the Town of Danville Municipal Code, Article 1 - General Provisions, Section 32-1.14, Off-Street Parking, one (1) space is required for every three (3) beds. The required number of parking spaces is 37 spaces, based on the ratio of one space per three beds. Additionally, based on ITE Parking Generation, 6th Edition (2023), Land Use Land Use Bed Spaces Required Spaces Provided Town of Danville1 Use Assisted Living 1 / 3 Beds 110 37 60 1 Town of Danville Municipal Code, Article 1-General Provisions, Section 32-1.14 Off-Street Parking Parking Ratio Land Use Bed Spaces Required Spaces Provided ITE Rates1 Use Assisted Living 0.4 / 1 Beds 110 44 60 1 Parking rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation , 6th Edition, 2023 - Land Use Code 254 - Assisted Living. Parking Ratio Ivy at Danville 52 Traffic Impact Analysis Code 254 (Assisted Living), which recommends 0.4 parking spaces per bed, the required number of parking spaces is 44 spaces. Therefore, the proposed Project provides 23 additional parking spaces over the City’s required 37 spaces and 16 additional parking spaces over the ITE-required 44 spaces, meeting both the City’s and ITE’s parking standards. Ivy at Danville 53 Traffic Impact Analysis 8 CONCLUSION Existing With Project Intersection Analysis Results All intersections are anticipated to operate at a satisfactory LOS during AM, MD, and PM peak hours under the Existing With Project Conditions except for the following intersections, for which the Project would continue to operate at an unsatisfactory LOS: 1. Project Driveway/Diablo Road (operates at LOS E during AM peak hour) 2. El Cerro Boulevard/W. El Pintado Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps (operates at LOS F during AM peak hour and LOS F during the MD peak hour). However, it should be noted that per the Town’s guidelines, the Project would not be required to provide improvements to the aforementioned deficient intersections since the delay caused by the addition of the Project’s traffic would be less than 5 seconds. Cumulative Year 2035 With Project Intersection Analysis Results All intersections are anticipated to operate at a satisfactory LOS during AM, MD, and PM peak hours under Cumulative Year 2035 With Project C onditions except the following intersections, which would continue to operate at an unsatisfactory LOS: 1. Project Driveway/Diablo Road (operates at LOS E during AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour) 2. El Cerro Boulevard/W. El Pintado Road/I-680 Southbound Ramps (operates at LOS F during AM and LOS F during the MD peak hour) However, it should be noted that per the Town’s guidelines, the Project would not be required to provide improvements to the aforementioned deficient intersections since the delay caused by the addition of the Project’s traffic would be less than 5 seconds. Bike and Pedestrian Analysis Results The Project should ensure that the Town’s General Plan Mobility Element bike and pedestrian design standards are met by: • Ensuring that existing Class II bike facilities at the Project’s frontages would remain operational, serving bicyclists post-Project development. • Ensuring that the existing northern driveway of the Project site gets repaved per applicable design code standards, to provide a continuous concrete sidewalk for pedestrians along the eastern Project frontage (along Diablo Road). Parking Demand Analysis Conclusion The proposed Project provides a total of 60 parking spaces. According to the Town of Danville Municipal Code, Article 1 - General Provisions, Section 32-1.14, Off-Street Parking, one (1) space is required for every three (3) beds. The required parking is 37 spaces, based on the ratio of one space per three beds. Additionally, based on ITE Parking Generation, 6th Edition (2023), Land Use Code 254 (Assisted Living), which recommends 0.4 parking spaces per bed, the required number of parking spaces is 44 spaces. Therefore, the proposed Project provides 23 additional parking spaces over the City’s required Ivy at Danville 54 Traffic Impact Analysis 37 spaces and 16 additional parking spaces over the ITE-required 44 spaces, meeting both the City’s and ITE’s parking standards. Project Improvements The proposed Project would be responsible for the following improvements: • The Project driveway should be delineated with a double yellow centerline striping for a length of at least 30 feet to prevent corner cutting by larger vehicles. • A STOP sign and pavement marking should be installed at the Project driveway. Ivy at Danville Traffic Impact Analysis APPENDIX A – TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT SCOPE OF SERVICES TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 828 DIABLO ROAD DEV24-0009 PROPOSED IVY CARE FACILITY TOWN OF DANVILLE September 18, 2024 Rev. September 23, 2024 A. Project Definition Describe the proposed project, the number of assisted living units and the number of employees per work shift. Include a site plan showing all the access points, internal circulation, and parking. B. Trip Generation Documents am, school pm, and commute pm peak hour and daily project trip generation based on the latest edition of ITE Trip Generation Manual, for Assisted Living land use trip rates and document the findings. The project sponsor shall also provide trip generation survey data from other similar facilities currently in operation by the applicant for the purpose of comparison with the ITE trip rates. C. Trip Distribution Determine trip distribution percentages to/from the project site and assign the trips accordingly to the study intersections in consultation with the Town’s Transportation staff. D. Study Intersections (For Town of Danville 2030 General Plan consistency) The project driveway and listed intersections shall be evaluated from a traffic operations standpoint based on the latest edition of Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) utilizing Synchro, TRAFFIX, or HCS software. New am, midday, and pm peak period intersection turn movement traffic counts shall be collected on a typical weekday (Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday) during a typical week when school is in session, under no adverse weather conditions, at the following intersections: 1) Project Driveway/Diablo Road 2) El Cerro Blvd/W. El Pintado Rd/I-680 southbound ramps 3) El Cerro Blvd/I-680 northbound ramps 4) El Cerro Blvd/Diablo Road/Ackerman Drive 5) El Cerro Boulevard/Danville Blvd 6) Diablo Rd/Camino Tassajara 7) Diablo Road/I-680 northbound ramps 8) Diablo Road/I-680 southbound ramps Daily traffic counts shall be conducted at the following locations for a period of 48 hours. Traffic counts shall be conducted on weekdays (Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday) during a typical week when school is in session and under no adverse weather conditions: ▪ Diablo Road, south of El Cerro Boulevard ▪ Diablo Road east of El Cerro Blvd ▪ El Cerro Boulevard west of Diablo Road The analysis shall document existing, existing plus project, and cumulative year 2035 conditions at the study intersections. E. Site Plan Evaluation The study shall include an assessment of the proposed internal roadway circulation and site access. The close proximity of the proposed project driveway to the intersection of El Cerro Boulevard and Diablo Road shall be studied and turn movements into and out of the site be evaluated from a queuing standpoint. The project site plan shall show existing nearby driveways on Diablo Road and their distances to the project driveway shall be identified. Service and emergency vehicle access and circulation on the site shall also be evaluated. Mitigation measures for site access shall be proposed, if found necessary. A line-of-sight analysis shall also be prepared for the project driveway. F. Bicycle and Pedestrian Analysis The study shall conduct an analysis of bicycle and pedestrian access along Diablo Road and El Cerro Blvd and at/adjacent to the project entrance. Consultant shall analyze and recommend, if necessary, both onsite and adjacent offsite pedestrian and bicycle facilities improvements. G. Parking Analysis A full parking analysis of the project site shall be conducted based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition, for Senior Adult Housing (Land Use Code 254) and the findings documented. H. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis (for CEQA and Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Growth Management Program requirements) The study shall include a complete Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis that is an accordance with the State of California’s Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018) and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Measure J Growth Management Program (GMP) Implementation Guide (2021). The analysis shall include baseline, baseline plus project analysis. If results of baseline plus project scenario co conditions with/without mitigations is found to result in a less than significant impact, then no further analysis is required. If scenario impacts cannot be mitigated cumulative plus project VMT analysis shall be conducted. VMT analysis shall be conducted utilizing the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s most current travel demand model. I. Mitigations The analysis should discuss conclusions regarding the adverse impacts caused by the proposed project on the transportation system, and the recommended mitigations, which must balance the needs of all transportation modes and apply complete streets principles as defined in the Town of Danville 2030 General Plan. The analysis must identify the improvements required to mitigate significant impacts but should consider such mitigation infeasible if an improvement would have an unacceptable impact on other transportation facilities such as pedestrians and bicycles. J. Meetings and Hearings Consultant shall include in the cost proposal one meeting with Town staff, and two public hearings. K. Format & Products Consultant shall prepare and submit three (3) copies of the Administrative Draft Report, and three (3) copies of the Final Report. In addition, the consultant shall provide an editable electronic copy of the Administrative Draft Report during the internal review process as well as an electronic copy of the Final Report. L. Consultant Selection A list of qualified traffic consulting firms is attached. The applicant is recommended to select only from those firms on the attached list. However, if applicant chooses to pick a consultant outside of the provided list, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to verify the picked consultant has the necessary experience conducting traffic studies with similar land uses in the past. Attachment J is a summary of a 209 page Limited Site Investigation. To view the entire document, please visit the Danville Town Talks website by following the link or scanning the QR code below. https://danvilletowntalks.org/private-land-development/news_feed/828-diablo-road ATTACHMENT J John Phillips 15 Betten Court Danville, CA 94526 john_phillips@mac.com 925-786-9831 May 28, 2025 Danville Town Council 201 Front Street Danville, CA 94526 Attn: City Clerk (cityclerk@danville.ca.gov) Cc: Riley Anderson-Barrett, Associate Planner (randersonbarrett@danville.ca.gov) Dear Danville Town Council, I appeal the Planning Commission’s May 27, 2025, approval of DEV24 -0009, a 105-unit assisted living and memory care facility at 828 Diablo Road, due to unaddressed soil contamination risks. At the public hearing, supported by residents, I raised concerns a bout the CEQA Class 32 exemption, citing Section 15300.2(c), which prohibits exemptions if unusual circumstances suggest significant environmental effects. The seller’s Phase I study and Limited Site Investigation found dieldrin and chlordane exceeding DTSC screening levels (0.035 ppm and 0.43 ppm), linked to cancer and neurological issues. Prior soil removal for buried oil/gas containers indicates petroleum hydrocarbon risks (e.g., benzene, linked to leukemia). The investigation, limited to storage areas and a drainage ditch, likely missed lead, arsenic, PFAS, or residual hydrocarbons across the 2.39 -acre site. The seller-conducted Phase I raises impartiality concerns, and reports are not public. Excavation for a three-story, 39-foot building risks releasing toxins, endangering residents and memory care seniors. Despite my prior requests for comprehensive testing and transparency, the approval lacks adequate safeguards. I request the Town Council: 1.Overturn the approval until an independent, comprehensive Phase II ESA tests the entire site for all contaminants, including hydrocarbons. 2.Publicly release the Phase I, Limited Site Investigation, and UST remediation reports. 3.Require a public mitigation plan for excavation, including dust control and groundwater monitoring. Please schedule an appeal hearing and confirm receipt. Thank you for prioritizing community safety. Sincerely, John Phillips Resident behind 828 Diablo Road ATTACHMENT K 1Riley Anderson-Barrett From:john phillips <john_phillips@mac.com>Sent:Tuesday, June 24, 2025 5:44 PMTo:Riley Anderson-BarrettCc:Marie SunseriSubject:Comments for July 1, 2025, Public Hearing on Appeal of DEV24-0009 (828 Diablo Road) Attachments:Site #727935 828 Diablo Rd Former Diablo Nursery.pdfFollow Up Flag:Follow upFlag Status:Flagged ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danvill e and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recog nize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Danville Town Council, I am writing to support my appeal of the Planning Commi ssion’s May 27, 2025, conditional approval of DEV24-0009 (The Ivy), a 105-unit assisted living faci lity at 828 Diablo Road, to be reviewed at the July 1, 2025, public hearing. My appeal centers on unaddressed environmental contamination documented in a 1995 Contra Costa Hazmat report (please see attached), w hich identifies significant soil and potential groundwater contamination, posing health risks to near by residents, including my household, less than 400 feet from the site. O&I Development LLC’s June 13, 2025, response, autho red by Christopher Burt, defends the CEQA Class 32 In-Fill exemption, citing a Phase 1 ESA, Limited Site Investigation, and a planned Soils Management Plan (SMP) to remediate 115 cubic yards of impacted soi l (e.g., dieldrin/chlordane near the Green House). However, this response omits the 1995 report, which I have submitted to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for review. The 1995 findings may reveal contamination beyond the Site Reports’ scope, particularly regarding groundwater, whi ch is not addressed in O&I’s plan. Riley Anderson-Barrett’s prior statement that “fuel and pes ticide containers have been previously removed and remediated” lacks evidence of comprehensive soil o r groundwater cleanup, especially given the 1995 report’s severity. The proposed SMP, while overseen by Terracon Consult ants, is a future action, not a completed remediation. Construction, enabled by density bonus w aivers (e.g., increased building height, reduced setbacks), could disturb contaminants before remediatio n, risking migration to nearby properties. Air monitoring at the site boundary is insufficient to ad dress groundwater or long-term exposure risks to my home. 2 I urge the Town Council to: • Overturn the Planning Commission’s approval due to po tential unaddressed contamination from the 1995 report. • Require a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to as sess all contaminants, including groundwater, against the 1995 findings. • Disclose the 1995 report’s status in Town records, t he SMP draft, and groundwater testing data (print and make available at July 1, 2025 meeting). • Condition any approval on complete remediation, verified by DTSC, before construction begins. Please include this submission in the hearing record. I will attend the July 1 hearing to provide further comments, supported by the 1995 report. Thank you for considering these critical environmental and public health concerns. Sincerely, John Phillips Resident Living behind 828 Diablo Road 107650\18692957v1www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 200 C Irvine, California 92612-5678 P: 949.260.4600 F: 949.260.4699 Christopher Burt 949.260.4606 CBurt@coxcastle.com June 13, 2025 VIA E-MAIL Riley Anderson-Barrett Associate Planner Town of Danville 201 Front Street Danville, CA 94526 Re: 828 Diablo Road Project - Response to Appeal Dear Ms. Anderson-Barrett: This firm represents O&I Development, LLC (“O&I”) in connection with its proposed development of a 105-unit assisted living facility (“The Ivy”) at 828 Diablo Road (the “Project Site”). The Ivy project was approved by the Town of Danville’s (“Town”) Planni ng Commission on May 27, 2025. That approval was appealed to the Town Council by Mr. John Phillips (“Appellant”). The Appellant alleges that The Ivy project presents “unaddressed soil contamination risks” that preclude the finding that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to the Class 32 In -Fill exemption. This letter responds to the allegations of the appeal, which lacks any substantial evidence of a potential impact and is instead based on conjecture and speculation about potential impacts associated with limited contamination. The fact that the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (“Phase 1 ESA”) identified on-site contamination does not preclude a Class 32 exemption finding. The reality is that The Ivy will improve the existing, current site conditions by removing contaminated soils. That remediation will proceed pursuant to strict regulatory requirements and a detailed Soils Management Plan (“SMP”), which will be prepared by O&I and reviewed/approved by the Town. The Ivy project fits squarely within the scope of the Class 32 exemption, which applies to projects on in-fill sites. The fact that there is extremely limited, lingering on-site contamination does not undermine the applicability of Class 32. First, the project does not cause or create the contamination – it is an existing condition reflective of the Project Site’s past/current use as a nursery. The Ivy project would actually implement remediation that will improve the existing soil conditions, a benefit to the community. Second, The Ivy project does not exacerbate the existing contamination such that there could be an impact to the environment or nearby receptors . The project would remediate the site’s limited contamination consistent with stringent regulatory standards governing the removal, handling, and disposal of contaminants. Those requirements would be implemented consistent with O&I’s SMP. Finally, ATTACHMENT L Riley Anderson-Barrett June 13, 2025 Page 2 107650\18692957v1 to ensure that remediation activities would not impact adjacent/nearby residences, The Ivy proposes air monitoring at the Project Site boundary during all remediation activities. Collectively, the project design features that would be implemented by the project will improve the existing Project Site conditions and will ensure that The Ivy project will not result in any impacts. The Planning Commission’s approval and conclusion that the project is exempt from CEQA is supported by substantial evidence in the record . The Appellant’s appeal presents no evidence to the contrary. I. Substantial Evidence Supports the Exemption The Planning Commission properly found that The Ivy is exempt pursuant to the Class 32 In-Fill exemption. An agency’s decision regarding a project’s exemption is presumed valid if supported by substantial evidence. (California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 184.) Here, substantial evidence supports the Planning Commission’s exemption determination, with significant record evidence that the project will not result in impacts to air quality, noise, traffic, biology, or water quality. The Appellant fails to acknowledge that substantial evidence or present any shred of evidence to the contrary. The Appellant’s speculation and conjecture about alleged impacts from contamination – an existing site condition – are unfounded and cannot overcome the record evidence supporting the exemption. (Nassiri v. City of Lafayette (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 910, 929-930 [an appellant’s unsupported speculation and opinion that impacts “could” or “may” result, none of which is supported by study, reports, or facts, do not constitute substantial evidence].) The applicability of the Class 32 exemption “does not depend on whether a project may have a significant effect, but instead depends on if it will have a significant effect.” (Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 269 [emphasis included].) The Planning Commission appropriately found that the project would not have significant effects related to air quality, noise, traffic, biology or water quality, the impact areas specifically identified by the Class 32 exemption. II. No Exception to the Class 32 Exemption Applies If substantial evidence supports an agency’s determination that the project is within the scope of an exemption – as is the case here – the burden shifts to the party challenging the exemption to show that the project is not exempt because it falls within one of the CEQA categorical exemption exceptions. (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105.) Here, the Appellant asserts that the unusual circumstances exception applies, claiming that CEQA prohibits an exemption finding “if unusual circumstances suggest significant environmental effects.” Riley Anderson-Barrett June 13, 2025 Page 3 107650\18692957v1 The Appellant fundamentally misconstrues the unusual circumstances exception (“UCE”) and its applicability to The Ivy. The unusual circumstances exception (“UCE”) provides that a CEQA categorical exemption “may not be used for a project where there is a reasonable possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (Guidelines § 15300.2(c).) However, the exception is narrowly tailored. A challenger asserting the UCE must either (1) identify evidence showi ng the project will have a significant environmental effect (“Test 1”), or (2) show (a) the project is unusual in some respect that distinguishes it from other exempt projects and (b) there is a reasonably possibility of a significant effect due to the unusual circumstance (“Test 2”). (Berkeley Hillside Preservation, supra, 60 Cal.4th at 1097 [emphasis added].) The Appellant fails to present any evidence that The Ivy will result in a significant impact. The Appellant, therefore, cannot satisfy Test 1 above. The Appellant also cannot meet its burden under Test 2, having failed to establish (or even attempt to establis h) that The Ivy project presents unusual circumstances. The Appellant implies that the presence of existing, limited contamination is itself an unusual circumstance. However, that contention is incorrect. Whether a circumstance is unusual is judged relative to the circumstances of an otherwise typically exempt project. (Voices for Rural Living v. El Dorado Irrigation District (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1109; Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 819 [an unusual circumstance means “some feature of the project that distinguishes the project from other features in the exempt class ”].) Here, the project is an infill housing development within a highly developed urban area . The Project Site’s current condition as a plant nursery with limited historic pesticide contamination is not an usual circumstance. It is common throughout the State of California for infill sites to have a history of industrial use and/or residual contamination that must be addressed before redevelopment with residential uses.1 The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), for instance, recognizes that brownfield sites are prime candidates for housing developments.2 The potential for brownfield redevelopment for housing is also recognized the serve the important purpose of cleaning-up contaminated sites.3 (Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 951, 963 [a project did not have any unusual circumstances when it was not remarkably different than other similar projects – courts look to the nature and location of the project].) Moreover, site contamination is generally a common occurrence throughout municipalities relative to historic industrial, agricultural, or other operations that use hazardous materials. The Town of Danville is no different. A position that any on-site contamination constitutes an unusual circumstance is also directly inconsistent with CEQA itself. CEQA already includes an express exception (precluding the use of a categorical exemption) for sites that are listed on the Cortes e List, a compilation of 1 https://www.cclr.org/expert-advice/home-within-range-affordable-housing-on-brownfields. 2 https://dtsc.ca.gov/brownfields/. 3 http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/EH/safety/brownfields.htm . Riley Anderson-Barrett June 13, 2025 Page 4 107650\18692957v1 specific hazardous waste/release sites. (Pub. Res. Code § 15300.2(e) [an exemption shall not be used for a project on a Cortese List site.) To conclude that contamination generally precludes a categorical exemption finding would ignore CEQA’s clear direction and improperly broaden the Cortese List exception. The Project Site is not on the Cortese List. The Appellant simply has not attempted to provide any evidence of an unusual circumstance, a clear failure to fulfill its evidentiary burden. However, even if it could demonstrate that residual contamination is an unusual circumstance , the Appellant has not presented evidence that the project itself may cause an impact because of that unusual circumstance. The fact that the site has residual contamination is not an impact – it is an existing condition. It is well-settled that baseline conditions and the impacts of the existing environment on the project are not environmental impacts under CEQA. CEQA does not require a project to resolve existing environmental problems that will not be made worse by the project. (Watsonville Pilots Ass’n v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1094.) There is no evidence that the project will exacerbate an existing hazard . (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 388 [“…CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present ”].) The Phase 1 ESA prepared for the Project Site and the supplemental Limited Site Investigation (collectively, the “Site Reports”) appropriately characterized the site, identifying evidence of past contamination, cleanup, and limited, residual contamination. Those reports provide substantial evidence that: 1. There was an underground storage tank (“UST”) on-site, but it was removed along with impacted soils, which were then aerated to non-detectable levels. Because the final results revealed non-detectable levels, a no further action was recommended. A no further action (“NFA”) letter through Contra Costa County Department of Environmental Health (“CCCDEH”) was not identified in historical documents on file with the CCCDEH. Terracon identified the absence of a NFA letter as a Business Environmental Risk (“BER”). However, the lack of a closure letter is not evidence of lingering contamination. 2. A 2001 Remediation of Buried Waste Report (“RBW Report”) documented the removal and remediation of buried pesticides in a trench in the northern portion of the topsoil yard, adjacent to the northern exterior of the storage and office building. DTSC oversaw the excavation/removal of soils and confirmation soil samples found that the remediation reduced lindane levels to below San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (“SFBRWQCB”) residential use Environmental Screening Levels (“ESLs”). Terracon also further assessed the vicinity of the former pesticide containment area for petroleum hydrocarbons (gasoline, diesel, motor oil) and volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”). That assessment concluded that soils do not appear impacted in the vicinity of the former pesticide burial area. Riley Anderson-Barrett June 13, 2025 Page 5 107650\18692957v1 3. A 2009 subsurface investigation examined the drainage ditch along the southern portion of the site. The ditch was identified as a possible area of concern due to the site’s long-term use as a plant nursery and the potential for the accumulation of pesticides. The 2009 investigation’s soil samples were primarily non-detect, except for one sample with concentrations below current SFBRWQCB ESLs for residential land use. Terracon conducted additional sampling in 2024, which did not identify any pesticide impacts to the drainage ditch area. 4. A limited area of the site – within and around the Green House footprint – has elevated levels of dieldrin, which exceed SFBRWQCB residential use ESLs. Chlordane, another pesticide, was also identified near the Green House, but in fewer samples. The Site Reports estimated that an area of approximately 115 cubic yards of soil is impacted and recommend excavation and disposal of impacted soils. It also recommends (a) confirmation soil sampling after remediation to verify no soils exceed residential ESLs and (b) an excavation completion report be prepared and retained. The Ivy project will implement the recommendations of the Site Reports as a design feature of the project, which will ultimately improve the existing conditions on the Project Site and ensure that on-site soils do not exceed residential ESLs . Thus, The Ivy project will not exacerbate and existing hazard or cause a new impact . All site remediation will also occur consistent with applicable regulations, including those of the Bay Area Air District regarding excavation, handling, stockpiling, and transport of soils. O&I will also prepare and implement a SMP, which must be reviewed and approved by the Town. A SMP ensures compliance with applicable regulations, protects workers, and ensures proper handling soil, including contaminated soils, during grading and excavation. The SMP will be prepared by Terracon Consultants, Inc., a licensed and experienced environmenta l consultant, which will also oversee all excavation activities. The Appellant raises concerns about existing on-site contamination, but fails to recognize the improved site condition that will result from The Ivy. To achieve that improved condition, the project will remediate the existing conditions of the site by removing the limited impacted soils. Moreover, all remediation will occur consistent with applicable regulations intended to protect public safety and health, to be confirmed and implemented through the SMP with the approval of the Town. III. Conclusion The Town Council is presented with two pertinent questions. First, does “the administrative record contains substantial evidence to support” the agency’s finding that the project would not result in significant effects to air quality, noise, traffic, or water quality? (Nassiri v. City of Lafayette (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 910, 929-930.) The answer is unequivocally yes. And, the Appellant presents no evidence to the contrary, instead offering unsupported Riley Anderson-Barrett June 13, 2025 Page 6 107650\18692957v1 conjecture regarding the on-site conditions and the potential for the project to result in unidentified impacts. That speculation is not substantial evidence. Second, is there substantial evidence that The Ivy project presents an unusual circumstance and, if so, could that unusual circumstance result in an impact ? The answer to both of those questions is no. The presence of limited quantities of contamination on the Project Site is not an unusual circumstance because contamination resulting from past operations is a common feature of many urban in-fill sites. And, even if contamination could be an unusual circumstance (which is cannot), there is no evidence that the on-site contamination could result in a significant environmental impact. The reality is that The Ivy project will benefit the site and the community by remediating an existing environmental condition, and will do so in a manner that ensures no impacts to nearby receptors. For the foregoing reasons, O&I respectfully requests that the Town Council deny the appeal and approve The Ivy project. Sincerely, Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP Christopher Burt Senior Counsel cc: Carissa Savant, O&I Development, LLC Colin Bagwell, O&I Development, LLC 4California Environmental Protection Agency CEQAReview@dtsc.ca.gov From: john phillips <john_phillips@mac.com> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 4:29 PM To: state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov; CEQA@doj.ca.gov; CEQAReview <ceqareview@dtsc.ca.gov>; ellen.delmar@dtsc.ca.gov Cc: Marie Sunseri <cityclerk@danville.ca.gov> Subject: CEQA Exemption Concerns for DEV24-0009, 828 Diablo Road, Danville, CA – Toxic Soil Findings Dear State Clearinghouse, CEQA Review Team, and Attorney General’s Office, I am John Phillips, a resident living directly behind 828 Diablo Road, Danville, CA, writing to express serious concerns about the Town of Danville’s Class 32 CEQA exemption Dear State Clearinghouse, CEQA Review Team, and Attorney General’s Office, I am John Phillips, a resident living directly behind 828 Diablo Road, Danville, CA, writing to express serious concerns about the Town of Danville’s Class 32 CEQA exemption for DEV24-0009, a proposed 105-unit assisted living facility (The Ivy) by O&I Development LLC. The project’s approval ignores significant environmental risks from toxic soil, threatening my family and future memory care residents. The 2024 Terracon Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (attached, Pages 6–10) identifies: •Benzene from a 1986 gasoline UST, with no regulatory closure (cancer risk). •Dieldrin exceeding residential ESLs near my property (cancer, neurological issues). •Lindane from buried pesticide containers, without DTSC closure (cancer risk). •Chlordane detected above safe levels (cancer, neurological issues). •A contaminated drainage ditch risking runoff to my home. These findings constitute “unusual circumstances” under CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c), invalidating the Class 32 exemption. Danville’s approval (May 27, 2025) relies on O&I’s limited, seller-commissioned tests, ignoring Terracon’s recommendation for further investigation (Page 10). Oakmont Management Group, operating The Ivy, faces 2024 lawsuits for neglect, raising doubts about their environmental responsibility. I have taken the following actions: •Filed an appeal with the Danville Town Council (May 28, 2025) for a July 1, 2025, hearing. •Reported the site to DTSC (May 30, 2025, to Ellen DelMar) for a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment. I am concerned that my letters and emails to the City Clerk and Town staff are forwarded to O&I, potentially compromising fair consideration of resident concerns. I request: 1. Review of Danville’s Class 32 exemption for CEQA compliance, given the toxic soil risks. 2. Confirmation of whether a Notice of Exemption was filed for DEV24-0009. 3. Guidance on challenging the exemption under CEQA § 15300.2(c). 4. DTSC’s input on hazardous substances and CEQA requirements (cc: CEQAReview@dtsc.ca.gov).ATTACHMENT M 5Attached are my appeal letter and Terracon ESA excerpts (Pages 6–10). Please advise on next steps to protect our community from these environmental hazards. I am available at 925-786-9831 or john_phillips@mac.com for further discussion. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. Sincerely, John Phillips 15 Betten Court Danville, CA 94526 1Riley Anderson-Barrett From:john phillips <john_phillips@mac.com>Sent:Tuesday, June 17, 2025 2:54 PMTo:ccchazmatCc:DTSC Brownfields Coordinator; California Attorney General; Marie Sunseri; Riley Anderson-BarrettSubject:Re: [EXTERNAL] Request for Investigation: Toxic Soil at 828 Diablo Road, Danville, CA (DEV24-0009)Attachments:Site #727935 828 Diablo Rd Former Diablo Nursery.pdfFollow Up Flag:Follow upFlag Status:Completed ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danvill e and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recog nize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Adam, Thank you for forwarding. I’ve reviewed the 1995 Cont ra Costa Hazmat report, which confirms significant gasoline contamination from a former underground storage tank at the site, with high levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-G) and BTEX compounds in the soil, as well as potential groundwater impacts. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (D TSC) has since responded to the developer and the Town of Danville, outlining mitigation measures t o address these toxic chemicals. Given the DTSC’s involvement I recommend we request a copy of the DTSC’s response to ensure the plan fully addresses the contamination, particularly the potential groundwater impacts noted in the 1995 report. Please let me know if there are any further actions we should consider as a community. Best regards, John Phillips 15 Betten CT Danville, CA 94526 2 On Jun 17, 2025, at 1:47 PM, ccchazmat <ccchazmat@cchealth.org> wrote: Good afternoon, Per your request, please find the attached records regarding the 828 Diablo Rd., Danville. Kind Regards, Adam Springer, Assistant Director Hazardous Materials Programs Phone: 925-655-3200 From: john phillips <john_phillips@mac.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 1:47 PM To: ccchazmat <ccchazmat@cchealth.org> Cc: Nicole.Yuen@dtsc.ca.gov <Nicole.Yuen@dtsc.ca.gov>; info@calepa.ca.gov <info@calepa.ca.gov>; state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov <state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov>; CEQA@doj.ca.gov <CEQA@doj.ca.gov>; Marie Sunseri <cityclerk@danville.ca.gov>; Riley Anderson-Barrett <randersonbarrett@danville.ca.gov> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Request for Investigation: Toxic Soil at 828 Diablo Road, Danville, CA (DEV24-0009) This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Report Suspicious 3 Dear Mr. Springer, Thank you for your response and for clarifying Contra Costa Health’s authority over the 550-gallon underground storage tank (UST) and the 1995 referral to the State Water Resources Control Board. The neighbors and I appreciate your willingness to engage if development proceeds. We respectfully request: 1. Confirmation of the 1995 referral details (e.g., case number, Waterboard contact). 2. Proactive investigation of the UST’s benzene risk before development, given Terracon’s findings (Page 6). 3. Coordination with the State Waterboard (ustcleanup@waterboards.ca.gov) and DTSC (Nicole.Yuen@dtsc.ca.gov) to support a Phase II ESA. 4. Any UST-related records from CCH’s files for my July 1 appeal. Thank you for your continued attention to this urgent matter. Sincerely, John Phillips 15 Betten Court Danville, CA 94526 On Jun 3, 2025, at 12:53 PM, ccchazmat <ccchazmat@cchealth.org> wrote: Good afternoon, Thank you for providing this information regarding 82 8 Diablo Road. Contra Costa Health's Hazardous Materials Programs does not overs ee cleanup for contaminated sites; however, we do have authority related to underground storage tanks. We sent this case to the State Waterboard back in 1995 since they are the regulatory agency that oversees cleanup in most cases. If this site gets developed, it will be an opportuni ty for our department to get involved concerning the possible underground storage tank, if it still exists on the site. We can work with the property owner to permit the proper removal and investigation of the UST and refer any nec essary cleanup oversight to the correct state agency. Regards, Adam Springer Assistant Director, Hazardous Materials Programs Hazardous Materials Programs Phone: 925-655-3200 <Outlook-k4gajblr.png> <Outlook-wf5etnp0.png> [facebook.com] <Outlook-bz3bcjor.png> [twitter.com] <Outlook-wbyzy3rn.png>[linkedin.com] <Outlook-i3cw21d0.png> [instagram.com] From: john phillips <john_phillips@mac.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 8:50 AM 4To: ccchazmat <ccchazmat@cchealth.org> Cc: Nicole.Yuen@dtsc.ca.gov <Nicole.Yuen@dtsc.ca.gov>; info@calepa.ca.gov <info@calepa.ca.gov>; state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov<state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov>; CEQA@doj.ca.gov <CEQA@doj.ca.gov>; Marie Sunseri <cityclerk@danville.ca.gov>; Riley Anderson-Barrett <randersonbarrett@danville.ca.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Request for Investigation: Toxic Soil at 828 Diablo Road, Danville, CA (DEV24-0009) This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Report Suspicious Dear Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Programs, I am John Phillips, a resident at [Your Address], Danville, CA 94526, living directly behind 828 Diablo Road. Following guidance from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) on June 2, 2025, I am contacting you to request an urgent investigation into toxic soil contamination at 828 Diablo Road, the site of a proposed 105-unit assisted living facility (DEV24-0009, The Ivy) by O&I Development LLC. The 2024 Terracon Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA, attached, Pages 6–10) documents hazardous substances posing significant health risks to my family, neighbors, and future memory care residents. I seek your assistance to ensure site mitigation before construction proceeds. The Terracon ESA identifies: • Benzene from a 550-gallon underground storage tank (UST), with no regulatory closure, posing cancer risks (Page 6). • Dieldrin at 0.591 ppm, exceeding the DTSC residential ESL of 0.035 ppm, linked to cancer and neurological harm (Page 8). • Lindane from buried pesticide containers, without DTSC closure, presenting cancer risks (Page 7). • Chlordane above the DTSC ESL of 0.525 ppm, associated with cancer and neurological disorders (Page 7). • A contaminated drainage ditch risking runoff to adjacent properties, including my home (Page 9). These Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) and Business Environmental Risk (BER) indicate potential hazardous material releases requiring immediate investigation. The Town of Danville approved the project on May 27, 2025, using a Class 32 CEQA exemption, ignoring these “unusual circumstances” under CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c). Excavation could release toxins into our homes, HVAC systems, and yards, endangering public health. My actions include: • Filing an appeal with the Danville Town Council (May 28, 2025) for a July 1, 2025, 5:00 PM hearing. • Submitting a DTSC complaint (May 30, 2025, followed up with Nicole Yuen on June 3, 2025). • Filing a CalEPA complaint (June 2, 2025, attached). • Contacting CEQA authorities (June 3, 2025, OPR, Attorney General). • Mobilizing 151 neighbors via a mailing campaign and flyer distribution (by June 10, 2025, flyer attached). • Meeting with 15 residents on June 1, 2025, despite concerns about the July 1 hearing’s proximity to July 4. O&I’s limited, seller-commissioned tests (Terracon Page 1) and Oakmont Management Group’s 2024 lawsuits for neglect undermine confidence in their environmental stewardship. I request Contra Costa County HazMat to: 1. Initiate an investigation into the soil contamination at 828 Diablo Road, focusing on benzene, dieldrin, lindane, and chlordane. 2. Coordinate with DTSC (Nicole Yuen, Nicole.Yuen@dtsc.ca.gov) to conduct a Phase II ESA or Preliminary Endangerment Assessment. 53. Recommend mitigation measures (e.g., soil remediation, dust control, groundwater monitoring) to Danville before construction. 4. Confirm receipt of this email and provide a case number or next steps. Supporting Documents and URLs: • Terracon Phase I ESA Excerpts (Pages 6–10): Attached, detailing RECs and BER (available at www.danville.ca.gov/149/Development-Services [danville.ca.gov], search DEV24-0009). • Appeal Letter (May 28, 2025): Attached, outlining CEQA violations and health risks. • CalEPA Complaint (June 2, 2025): Attached, requesting DTSC coordination. • Community Flyer: Attached, summarizing risks and community action. • Danville Project Page: www.danville.ca.gov/149/Development-Services [danville.ca.gov] (search DEV24-0009 for public records). • DTSC Brownfields Program: www.dtsc.ca.gov/sitecleanup [dtsc.ca.gov] (overview of site mitigation processes). I am available at 925-786-9831 for discussion. Please contact me to confirm receipt and discuss the investigation timeline, as the July 1 hearing is critical. Thank you for your urgent attention to protecting our community. Sincerely, John Phillips 15 Betten Court Danville, CA 94526 1Riley Anderson-Barrett From:Amy Heinzer <amy.lofrano@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 19, 2025 8:39 PM To:Riley Anderson-BarrettCc:RandySubject:827 Diablo road Follow Up Flag:Follow upFlag Status:Flagged***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on 1Riley Anderson-Barrett From:russ bernard <ber911@hotmail.com>Sent:Monday, June 23, 2025 2:47 PMTo:Riley Anderson-BarrettSubject:828 Diablo Rd.Follow Up Flag:Follow upFlag Status:Flagged ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danvill e and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recog nize the sender and know the content is safe. Riley Anderson-Barrett Associate Planner Town of Danville, We learned shortly after the sale of the Sloat Garden Center on Diablo Rd that the buyer was planning to build a non-residential, high-density project. We have recently learned that the Danville Planning Commission approved this project even with the knowledge of a Recognized Environmental Condition of dangerous toxins being present on this property. It is serious enough that our residential neighborhood will suffer the added traffic, the traffic hazards, and the loss of the small-town charm that this commercial project will bring, but the toxins that are present pose significant risks to our health and safety. To proceed with this project without further testing and a cleanup plan would be irresponsible, unthinkable, and considered by some to be malfeasance. Respectfully, Russ & Claudia Bernard 893 Dolphin Dr. 1Riley Anderson-Barrett From:Ryan Bantz <rbantz@hoaservices.net>Sent:Monday, June 23, 2025 10:14 AMTo:Riley Anderson-BarrettCc:828diablo@gmail.comSubject:Request for Further Environmental Testing and Cleanup Plan – 828 Diablo RoadFollow Up Flag:Follow upFlag Status:Flagged ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danvill e and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recog nize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members and Planning Commission, 1Riley Anderson-Barrett From:Marie SunseriSent:Sunday, June 22, 2025 7:37 PMTo:Rob Ewing; Riley Anderson-Barrett; Diane Friedmann; David CromptonSubject:Fw: Environmental and Safety Risk at 828 Diablo Road, Danville (DEV24-009, The Ivy)Follow Up Flag:Follow upFlag Status:Flagged Marie Sunseri, MMC City Clerk Town of Danville 500 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526 925-314-3401 Hours: Mon-Thurs 7:30 AM-5:00 PM Friday 7:30-11:00 AM cityclerk@danville.ca.gov Serving the Danville community since 1991 Mission Statement: The Danville City Clerk is dedicated to serving the public with integrity and professionalism by promoting government transparency, inspiring community engagement, and ensuring regulatory compliance. From: dhruv suri <suri.dhruv@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2025 6:56:18 PM To: Marie Sunseri <cityclerk@danville.ca.gov> Cc: anumita suri <anumita.ghosh@gmail.com> Subject: Environmental and Safety Risk at 828 Diablo Road, Danville (DEV24-009, The Ivy) ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danvill e and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recog nize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Danville Town Council, We (Anumita Ghosh and dhruv Suri) are owners of 21 Bet ten Ct, Danville and our house is right behind 828 Diablo Road. We have been given an understanding that there has been an appeal by one of our neighbors which highlights the presence of toxic substances exceeding the DTSC screening levels and subsequent request for Phase II ESA testing. 2The hearing for the same is scheduled for 1st July 20 25. Unfortunately due to our already planned holiday we would not be able to attend the Council meeting on 1st July. However please treat this email as our support toward the appeal by our neighbors to overturn the approval until an independent Phase II ESA tests the entire site. We also request you to release all the environmental reports and make residents aware of possible risks associated with the Toxins in t he site. We also urge that a plan is shared with all on how we propose to remove the toxic soil and durin g the process how safety of the nearby residents is taken into account. In case of any queries please feel free to call me at 669-214-0420. Regards Dhruv Suri Owner - 21 Betten Ct 1Riley Anderson-Barrett From:Yuen, Nicole@DTSC <Nicole.Yuen@dtsc.ca.gov> Sent:Tuesday, June 24, 2025 4:06 PM To:Riley Anderson-Barrett; Cabrera Paz, Marlene@DTSC Cc:Marie Sunseri; CEQAReview; Carissa Savant; Hughes, Marikka@DTSC; Colin Bagwell; David CromptonSubject:RE: 828 Diablo Road - Voluntary Cleanup Program Invitation & Request for Agency Oversight Application Follow Up Flag:Follow upFlag Status:Flagged***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danville and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Riley, Given the proposed sensitive uses at the site and surrounding residential properties, DTSC recommends that the City require, as a condition of approving the development application, that O&I submit a Request for Agency Oversight Application and perform the remediation under DTSC’s oversight to ensure that the site is cleaned up appropriately and to applicable standards. However, it is up to the City to determine whether to impose such a condition. Nicole Yuen, MS, EIT (she/her/hers) Hazardous Substances Engineer || Berkeley Brownfields Coordinator 2 Hi Marlene & Nicole, To clarify the letter from O&I, the Town is awaiting your response to determine if O&I is required to receive oversight from DTSC. If no oversight is required, the Town would retain a third-party to overview the remediation. Best, Riley Anderson-Barrett Associate Planner Town of Danville | 500 La Gonda Way | Danville, CA 94526 (925) 314-3314 randersonbarrett@danville.ca.gov | www.danville.ca.gov #LiveLocallyDanville From: Carissa Savant <csavant@oandidevelopment.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 11:30 AM To: Cabrera Paz, Marlene@DTSC <Marlene.CabreraPaz@dtsc.ca.gov> Cc: Marie Sunseri <cityclerk@danville.ca.gov>; Riley Anderson-Barrett <randersonbarrett@danville.ca.gov>; CEQAReview <ceqareview@dtsc.ca.gov>; Yuen, Nicole@DTSC <Nicole.Yuen@dtsc.ca.gov>; Hughes, Marikka@DTSC <Marikka.Hughes@dtsc.ca.gov>; Colin Bagwell <cbagwell@oandidevelopment.com> Subject: RE: 828 Diablo Road - Voluntary Cleanup Program Invitation & Request for Agency Oversight Application Importance: High ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danvill e and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recog nize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, Marlene & Nicole, Thank you for your below email. Please find attached our response letter to the Voluntary Cleanup Program Invitation and Request for Agency Oversight Application. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kindly, Carissa Carissa Savant VP of Development O&I Development 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1900 Irvine, CA 92614 O: (949) 744-5200 | C: (949) 878-8160 3 From: Cabrera Paz, Marlene@DTSC <Marlene.CabreraPaz@dtsc.ca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2025 4:42 PM To: Carissa Savant <csavant@oakmontmg.com> Cc: cityclerk@danville.ca.gov; randersonbarrett@danville.ca.gov; pbrooks@coxcastle.com; John_Phillips@mac.com; CEQAReview <ceqareview@dtsc.ca.gov>; Yuen, Nicole@DTSC <Nicole.Yuen@dtsc.ca.gov>; Hughes, Marikka@DTSC <Marikka.Hughes@dtsc.ca.gov> Subject: 828 Diablo Road - Voluntary Cleanup Program Invitation & Request for Agency Oversight Application [EXTERNAL] Good afternoon, Please see the attached 828 Diablo Road - Voluntary Cleanup Program Invitation and Request for Agency Oversight Application. You may contact DTSC's Brownfields Coordinator Nicole Yuen if you have any questions. Thank you. Marlene Cabrera Paz Office Technician Site Mitigation and Restoration Program 510-529-7051 marlene.cabrerapaz@dtsc.ca.gov Department of Toxic Substances Control 700 Heinz Avenue, Berkeley, California 94710-2721 California Environmental Protection Agency 1Riley Anderson-Barrett From:CEQAReview <ceqareview@dtsc.ca.gov>Sent:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 7:36 AMTo:Carissa SavantCc:Planning; Marie Sunseri; Kereazis, Dave@DTSC; De Pont, Rebecca@DTSC; Riley Anderson-Barrett; Colin Bagwell; Yuen, Nicole@DTSCSubject:RE: CEQA Exemption Concerns for DEV24-0009, 828 Diablo Road, Danville, CA – Toxic Soil Findings ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danvill e and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recog nize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Morning Carissa, DTSC apricates your prompt response and detailed information. We will review and reach out if we have any additional questions. Thanks, CEQA Unit HWMP-Permitting Department of Toxic Substances Control California Environmental Protection Agency CEQAReview@dtsc.ca.gov From: Carissa Savant <csavant@oandidevelopment.com> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 2:53 PM To: CEQAReview <ceqareview@dtsc.ca.gov> Cc: planning@danville.ca.gov; cityclerk@danville.ca.gov; Kereazis, Dave@DTSC <Dave.Kereazis@dtsc.ca.gov>; De Pont, Rebecca@DTSC <Rebecca.DePont@dtsc.ca.gov>; Riley Anderson-Barrett <randersonbarrett@danville.ca.gov>; Colin Bagwell <cbagwell@oandidevelopment.com>; Carissa Savant <csavant@oandidevelopment.com> Subject: RE: CEQA Exemption Concerns for DEV24-0009, 828 Diablo Road, Danville, CA – Toxic Soil Findings Importance: High Dear CEQA Unit, Thank you for your inquiry regarding the Ivy at Danville project and for your commitment to environmental protection. In response to your request, please see the following information from the applicant regarding DTSC correspondence Dear CEQA Unit, Thank you for your inquiry regarding the Ivy at Danville project and for your commitment to environmental protection. In response to your request, please see the following information from the applicant regarding DTSC correspondence and the environmental investigation: 2As part of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Terracon submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to DTSC via the public records email (pubreqact@dtsc.ca.gov). DTSC responded with the attached letter, indicating that no records were identified for the site. A follow-up communication on May 16, 2024, believed to have occurred by phone advised that records were available for in-person review at DTSC’s Berkeley File Room. On May 22, 2024, Terracon visited the Berkeley office and reviewed the available documents. The files on record matched those previously provided to Terracon by the property owner and included documentation related to the excavation and remediation of buried pesticide containers. These efforts were originally outlined in a 2001 report prepared by Steamborn. For your reference, Part A of that report is attached. Terracon noted that the prior confirmation sampling efforts were limited in scope, including absence of petroleum and volatile organic compound analysis. Based on this, Terracon recommended additional subsurface sampling. That additional testing was conducted as part of the Limited Site Investigation (LSI), and no environmental impacts were identified in the vicinity of the former container area. See the attached LSI. We hope this information is helpful in addressing your questions. Please feel free to reach out if additional clarification or documentation is needed. Kindly, Carissa Carissa Savant VP of Development O&I Development 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1900 Irvine, CA 92614 O: (949) 744-5200 | C: (949) 878-8160 From: Riley Anderson-Barrett <randersonbarrett@danville.ca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 4:49 PM To: Carissa Savant <csavant@oandidevelopment.com> Subject: FW: CEQA Exemption Concerns for DEV24-0009, 828 Diablo Road, Danville, CA – Toxic Soil Findings [EXTERNAL] Hi Carissa, FYI, another agency response. Best, 3 Riley Anderson-Barrett Associate Planner Town of Danville | 500 La Gonda Way | Danville, CA 94526 (925) 314-3314 randersonbarrett@danville.ca.gov | www.danville.ca.gov #LiveLocallyDanville From: CEQAReview <ceqareview@dtsc.ca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 4:44 PM To: Planning <planning@danville.ca.gov>; Marie Sunseri <cityclerk@danville.ca.gov> Cc: De Pont, Rebecca@DTSC <Rebecca.DePont@dtsc.ca.gov>; Kereazis, Dave@DTSC <Dave.Kereazis@dtsc.ca.gov> Subject: FW: CEQA Exemption Concerns for DEV24-0009, 828 Diablo Road, Danville, CA – Toxic Soil Findings ***CAUTION*** THIS EMAIL WAS NOT SENT FROM DANVILLE STAFF This email originated from outside of the Town of Danvill e and was not sent from a Town Staff member! Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recog nize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon, The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received and reviewed the inquiry below, the attached Phase I ESA and Appeal Letter from a residence of Danville, John Phillips for project: Ivy at Danville (Project) located at 828 Diablo Road, Danville CA. The Phase I states that DTSC was involved with this Project site and we would like to know what correspondences your City has had with DTSC in regards to this Project. Below are some statements from the attached Phase I ESA that we would like additional details and/or correspondences to. • Former Buried Pesticide Containers: Based on the minimal soil sample collected in the bottom of the excavation (one) and that DTSC has not commented on the report or issued a closure letter for the site, the former buried pesticide containers represents a REC. • On March 12 and 13, 2001, Steamborn excavated the containers which were first encountered at a depth of approximately 2.5 to 3 feet bgs, which was overseen by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). • On May 16, 2024, Terracon received a response from the agency indicating records identified for the site and would need to be reviewed in-person. On May 22, 2024, Terracon mobilized to the agency and reviewed records relating to the site regarding the prior reports provided by the client and previously discussed in Section 3.7. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. CEQA Unit HWMP-Permitting Department of Toxic Substances Control 3 Park Plaza Suite 1920 | Irvine | CA | 92614 June 24, 2025 Marlene Cabrera Paz and Nicole Yuen Department of Toxic Substances Control 700 Heinz Avenue Berkeley, CA 94710 RE: Response to June 11, 2025 DTSC Invitation to Voluntary Cleanup Program 828 Diablo Road, Danville, California 94526 Dear Marlene and Nicole, Thank you for your June 11, 2025 letter and for forwarding the Voluntary Cleanup Program Invitation and Request for Agency Oversight Application for 828 Diablo Road. We appreciate DTSC’s review of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and the Limited Site Investigation prepared by Terracon, and we acknowledge the identified concentrations of dieldrin and the related recommendations for remediation. At this time, the Town of Danville has elected to proceed by engaging a qualified third-party environmental professional to oversee the remediation process. In coordination with our consultant, Terracon, we are preparing a detailed Work Plan, Soil Management Plan, and confirmation sampling approach. The Town will conduct an RFP process to select the third-party reviewer and retain the selected company to evaluate the plan and maintain oversight throughout the remediation. The Town has indicated that it will directly retain the third-party reviewer providing oversight and that the consultant must meet certain professional and industry standards, including a California Registered Environmental Professional (PG, PE, or CIH). Given the localized and defined nature of the soil contamination, we believe this approach is both appropriate and effective to ensure compliance with applicable environmental standards, while advancing the remediation work efficiently. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding the Town of Danville’s determination to provide oversight as outlined above. Sincerely, Carissa Savant Vice President of Development O&I Development cc: Town of Danville Printed on Recycled Paper https://dtsc.ca.gov/ June 11, 2025 Carissa Savant Vice President of Development Park IV Group, LLC, c/o O&I Development, LLC 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1920 Irvine, California 92614 csavant@oakmontmg.com INVITATION TO VOLUNTARY CLEANUP PROGRAM FOR 828 DIABLO ROAD, DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 Dear Carissa Savant: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has recently learned about the proposed development of an assisted living facility, comprised of 105 units, at 828 Diablo Road, Danville, 94526 (Site). DTSC has reviewed the following reports provided on the Town of Danville’s website: • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I), prepared by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon), and dated May 28, 2024 • Limited Site Investigation (Limited Site Investigation), prepared by Terracon, and dated September 11, 2024 The Limited Site Investigation presents the results of two limited sampling events that took place at the Site in July 2024 and August 2024. According to the Limited Site Investigation, dieldrin was detected in soil samples at concentrations exceeding the residential and commercial/industrial human health risk screening levels established by the DTSC Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO). The concentrations indicated remediation is warranted. Carissa Savant June 11, 2025 Page 2 Historical records indicate that the Site was developed for agricultural use by the late 1950s, used as a nursery and storage yard by the early 1980s, and developed with the extant commercial buildings by the mid-1990s. A variety of landscaping and gardening related companies have operated at the Site since 1970. Previous environmental reports referenced in the Phase I show that a 550-gallon gasoline underground storage tank (UST) was reportedly removed from the Site in 1986; no removal documentation is available. In 1995, Atrim Engineering & Construction, Inc. excavated approximately 131 cubic yards of soil and gravel from the area of the former UST to address soil with concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes exceeding applicable screening levels. Closure documentation from Contra Costa Environmental Health Department or San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) was not found during a records search by Terracon. In 2001, Steamborn prepared a Remediation of Buried Waste Report (RBW Report), documenting the removal and remediation of buried containers of pesticides. While DTSC was copied on the RBW Report, there is no record of a comment or closure letter from DTSC. In the Limited Site Investigation prepared by Terracon, soil samples were found to contain concentrations of dieldrin ranging from 0.064 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to 2.3 mg/kg, exceeding the HERO Note 3 screening levels of 0.034 mg/kg for residential use and 0.12 mg/kg for commercial/industrial use. Terracon estimated approximately 115 cubic yards of dieldrin-impacted soil (using a fluffing factor of 20%) needed to be excavated from the Site. Based on the former presence of a UST with no documented closure, excavation of buried pesticide containers and soil with no documented closure, and soil remaining onsite with dieldrin concentrations exceeding applicable screening levels, DTSC believes that further remediation is necessary to protect public health. RWQCB or DTSC can provide oversight of the necessary remediation through their respective site mitigation programs. Attached is an application for RWQCB’s Site Cleanup Program. Please return a completed and signed application to RWQCB’s Case Intake Team at RB2-CaseIntakeTeam@waterboards.ca.gov. If DTSC oversight is preferred, an application for DTSC oversight can be submitted through DTSC’s Fluxx portal at https://dtsc.fluxx.io/user_sessions/new. Carissa Savant June 11, 2025 Page 3 If RWQCB or DTSC does not receive the signed application within 10 working days (by June 26, 2025), DTSC may issue an Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Determination and Order for the past release of hazardous substances at 828 Diablo Road. Non-compliance with such an order will result in DTSC pursuing cost recovery for all response costs incurred at the Site and potential penalties for each day of non- compliance and punitive damages. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Brownfields Coordinator Nicole Yuen at (510) 540-3881 or by email at Nicole.Yuen@dtsc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Marikka Hughes, PG Branch Chief Site Mitigation and Restoration Program – Bay Area Branch Department of Toxic Substances Control Marikka.Hughes@dtsc.ca.gov Enclosure cc: Marie Sunseri City Clerk Town of Danville cityclerk@danville.ca.gov Riley Anderson-Barret Associate Planner Town of Danville randersonbarrett@danville.ca.gov Preston Brooks Cox Castle pbrooks@coxcastle.com Carissa Savant June 11, 2025 Page 4 John Phillips John_Phillips@mac.com CEQA Unit DTSC ceqareview@dtsc.ca.gov Nicole Yuen, EIT DTSC Nicole.Yuen@dtsc.ca.gov