HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12081992 - H.11A 0 r
t 5
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Vesting Tentative Map for Subdivisions 7575 and 7578
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon
Director of Community Development
DATE: December 8, 1992
SUBJECT: Wiedemann Ranch Residential Community Project:
Approval of Rezoning #2947, Preliminary Development Plan #3005-91, Tentative
Cancellation of Williamson Act Contracts #5-76 and #16-70, Certification of
Environmental Documentation, and Adoption of Findings.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Reaffirm certification of the environmental documentation prepared for this project (Westside
Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and Wiedemann Ranch Residential Community
Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact. Report) as being adequate. The County is the
lead agency for the project. Accept and certify as adequate the addendum to the environmental
documentation attached as Exhibit A.
2. Approve Rezoning #2947-RZ, attached as Exhibit B, as recommended by the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission to rezone a portion of the 1,143 acres of the project site from
Agricultural Preserve (A-4) and General Agricultural (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1) . The
P-1 area is comprised of 482 acres.
3. Approve Preliminary Development Plan #3005-91 dated November 13, 1992, attached as Exhibit C,
for 371 single family dwelling units including three private open space lots, common areas and
other nondevelopment areas.
4. Approve Vesting Tentative Map for subdivisions #7575 and #7578, dated November 13, 1992, (also
Exhibit C) providing respectively for subdivision of 1,052 acres into 337 lots, common open
space and other nondevelopment areas, and 91 acres into 34 ots, common open space and other
nondevelopment areas.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATU
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF tOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON 12/8/92 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
See Addendum for Board action
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT II ) ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
AYES: NOES: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Robert Drake - 646-2091
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED: December 8, 1992
cc: Public Works Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Local Agency Formation Commission THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
East Bay Municipal Utility District An COUNT DMINISTRATOR
East Bay Regional Park District
City of San Ramon BY ,DEPUTY
HCV Pacific Partners
Jeff & Nancy Wiedemann
Susan Christensen
ATTACHMENT TO BOARD ORDER DATED DECEMBER 8, 1992
5. Adopt the Conditions of Approval for Wiedemann Ranch Residential Community Preliminary
Development Plan #3005-91 and Vesting Tentative Maps for subdivisions #7575 and 7578 dated
November 13, 1992, attached as Exhibit D. Adopt as part of these conditions, the Tentative
Regional and Project Trails, Agricultural Lot, Open Space and Scenic Easement Map dated November
13, 1992, and revised November 17, 1992, attached as Exhibit E.
6. Adopt the Findings for Wiedemann Ranch Residential Community Rezoning #2947-RZ, Preliminary
Development Plan #3005-91, and Vesting Tentative Map for subdivisions #7575 and 7578, attached
as Exhibit F.
7. Adopt the Wiedemann Ranch Residential Community Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached .as
Exhibit G.
8. Approve with conditions the tentative cancellations of the Williamson Act contracts dated
February 10, 1976 (Agricultural Preserve #5-76) and January 27, 1970 (Agricultural Preserve
#16-70) , as to the developable portion of the project properties only. Adopt the Findings and
Determinations for Tentative Cancellations of Williamson Act Contracts Agricultural Preserve
#5-76 and Agricultural Preserve #16-70, attached as Exhibit H.
9. Introduced the P-1 zoning ordinance, Exhibit B, giving effect to Rezoning #2947-RZ, waive
reading and set forth the date for adoption of same as January 19, 1993. (In order to provide
a more accurate description of the P-1 zoning than as set forth in the Zoning Map, included as
part of Exhibit B but not in the Zoning Ordinance itself is a P-1 zoning description and
approved tentative subdivision map with the P-1 boundary depicted on it) .
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
On October 27, 1992, the Board held a noticed public hearing on the Wiedemann Ranch Residential
Community Project ("project") , comprised of the rezoning, preliminary development plan and vesting
tentative subdivision map with conditions, and on the request for tentative cancellation of the
two Williamson Act contracts on the project site. The SRVRPC by unanimous vote recommended: 1)
certification of the environmental documentation for the project and Williamson Act contract
cancellations; and 2) approval of the project with Planning Commission recommended conditions of
approval.
After receiving testimony from all members of the public and representatives of interested
agencies who wished to speak, the Board provided comment and direction on the project. Such
direction included: 1) a request that the applicant and property owners continue discussions with
East Bay Regional Park District officials in an attempt to reach mutual agreement on the project
configuration and conditions; 2) continued discussions between the Public Works Department and
the applicant on public works-related project conditions; 3) consideration of other modifications
to the project and conditions suggested by or in response to comments by members of the Board.
By unanimous vote, the Board certified the environmental documentation as adequate and then
declared its intent to approve both the project as generally presented and the tentative
cancellation of the Williamson Act contracts, kept the public hearing open and continued it to
November 17, 1992 to address the matters raised at this first hearing, to provide an opportunity
for any additional testimony, and to make changes to the project and conditions that were
recommended by the SRVRPC.
On November 17, 1992, the Board held its second public hearing on the project and tentative
cancellations of the Williamson Act contracts. The applicant and its representatives reviewed
with the Board changes in the project as provided in the revised Wiedemann Ranch Residential
Community Preliminary Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map dated November 13,
1992. The new map included the revisions to the road standards, configurations and widths
recommended by the Public Works Department to address the project's hillside conditions in a safe
yet sensitive manner consistent with the underlying intent of the SRVRPC. The revised map also
included a relocation of seven lots from the lower portion of "H" Court to address concerns
expressed by the EBRPD regarding their potential visual introduction into the Bishop Ranch Open
Space. The revised map also included a relocation of two lots from the area of the expanded park
I:\vol2\clicnt\21857\boma.mmo
-2-
1\ � I
facilities as recommended by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. These seven lots
and one additional lot where located elsewhere in the project. The one additional lot was
included in the revised map in response to the suggestion by Chair McPeak to provide an incentive
for the developer to make a voluntary contribution to the County-sponsored Homeless Trust Fund.
These nine lots are relocated along already proposed roadways within the project consistent with
the hillside and design standards generally applied to the project and such that no new
environmental impacts have been created. The graphics provided by the applicant demonstrate that
any visual impacts from homes on these new lots will be mitigated consistent with the measures
applied to homes on adjoining lots. Nearby lots are sufficiently wide and large and the project
development area is large enough to relocate these lots without expanding the development area
and while still maintaining the integrity of the remaining open space. Relocation of these lots
as proposed will not adversely affect the hillside design integrity or visual sensitivity of this
project.
A revised Tentative Regional and Project Trails, Agricultural Lot, Open Space and Scenic Easement
Map dated November 13, 1992 and revised November 17, 1992 (Agricultural Lots Map) was proposed
and presented. That map, along with revised EBRPD-related conditions of approval, are acceptable
to the EBRPD and the applicant. Revised public works-related conditions acceptable to the Public
Works Department and the applicant were prepared and presented that comply with the County's
growth management policies and fully mitigate traffic impacts from the project, including its
share of cumulative impacts. With respect to the two off-site improvements which will not receive
direct "fair share" funding from the applicant, that is offset by extra contributions to the other
off-site improvements. Other cumulative development projects that impact those two locations
will be required to fully fund those two remaining off-site improvements. Construction of
improvements at these two remaining locations are not required at this time under the County's
growth management standards. Revised miscellaneous conditions were proposed and presented to
address comments made by members of the Board, including conditions related to trail construction,
energy efficiency, and the timing for payment of development agreement related fees.
To address concerns expressed by Director Flashman from the East Bay Municipal Utilities District
(EBMUD) , an Advisory Note was prepared and presented advising that the Board did not consider the
approval of the project to be a precedent for other projects that may require water from EBMUD.
That would include the Dougherty Valley. The Board also expressed an interest in establishing
a dialogue with EBMUD officials to address the inter-relationship between County land use policies
and decisions and EBMUD water supply policies and decisions and directed staff to arrange for the
necessary meetings. From the County's perspective, one purpose of these discussions is to have
EBMUD develop a Water Management Supply Program that realistically takes into consideration the
County's Urban Limit Line, unlike the current draft WMSP that has assumed in calculating expected
water use that new EBMUD water users will be limited to those located within the Ultimate Service
Boundary adopted by EBMUD (USB) . The USB has been established unilaterally by EBMUD without
taking into account county and city general plan policies and LAFCO spheres of influence.
The Board did not consider it necessary to delay approval of this project pending the outcome of ..
the discussions with EBMUD or completion of and/or implementation of the EBMUD Water Management
Supply Program, because this project will have a negligible effect on the District's water
supplies, either individually or as to its part of any cumulative new water use in the District.
There is no need to assure water use supplies for potential water users outside the USB as part
of this project approval. Substantial projects outside the USB may not move forward unless
adequate new water supplies are available. That is required by our General Plan for projects in
the County. There is nothing to suggest that cities and Alameda County would require any less
for projects in their respective jurisdiction that are anticipated to be served by EBMUD. EBMUD's
cumulative impact approach assumes to the contrary and is therefore flawed in the professional
judgment of the Community Development Department. This project should not be delayed to complete
for a sophisticated and complex cumulative impact analysis in this Project EIR of EBMUD's future
water needs and supplies and potential annexations that have yet to be requested. It has taken
several years and substantial expenditure for EBMUD to do just that in the WMSP Study. Completion
of that study is a least a year away. No substantial new projects are contemplated inside the
USB.
The Board declared its intent to approve the project as revised with the conditions of approval
as revised and presented, directed staff to prepare findings and any necessary related
documentation in support of the project approval, and continued 'the public hearing to December
8, 1992. The Board held the public hearing open to provide the public the opportunity for comment
on the findings and other documentation associated with approval of the project. The project
approval documents have previously been available to the public at the Clerk of the Board or the
Community Development Department.
I:\vol'\cl icnt\2]857\boma.mmo
-3-
The conditions of approval attached as Exhibit D reflect the changes approved by the Board at the
last hearing. The project and conditions of approval as presented are somewhat different from
the recommendation of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. The changes are not such
as to require referral back to the SRVRPC under Government Code Section 65857. Changes to the
project and the concerns they represent were presented to and considered by the Planning
Commissioners or are otherwise insubstantial. For example, at the Planning Commission hearings:
1) requests were made to modify the project design, including "H" Court and eliminate or relocate
units elsewhere in the project; 2) several variations to road widths and grades were considered
including variations comparable to the adopted ones; and 3) different open space and trail
approaches were presented. The addition of one more unit within the same development area is an
insignificant change. The revised map incorporated many of the changes made to the project prior
to or as part of the SRVRPC recommendations. Other changes in the conditions suggested by members
of the Board, (for example, energy efficiency, trail construction by local job opportunity
organization, and the homeless trust fund contribution) represent insignificant changes in the
context of the overall approval. For example, the additional twenty acres to be rezoned P-1 are
the result of the gift of Parcel "I" to the EBRPD and do not reflect an increase in development
area.
The Findings for the Wiedemann Ranch Residential Community Project, attached as Exhibit F include
CEQA, zoning and subdivision findings. No unavoidable significant environmental impacts remain,
but, to the extent that it may be required under the law, a Statement of Overriding Considerations
is included. The evidence to support the overriding considerations is included in the Statement
itself or references therein are made to testimony and evidence in the administrative record,
including the County's Housing Element.
A short EIR addendum has been prepared to include the changes in the project as a result of the
Board hearings as part of the environmental documentation for the project. The addendum ,
attached as Exhibit A, also addresses some of the comments raised in letters submitted to the
Board on or shortly before the October 27th hearings, and it formally incorporates, as part of
SFEIR alternative analysis, the minimization alternative included in the Staff Report to the
SRVRPC. The avoidance alternative is very similar to the RCOD alternative in the FSEIR.
Substantial opportunity to comment on the minimization alternative was available, both in writing
and by way of testimony at public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board.
Certification of the addendum is consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section
15164. Staff recommends that at this time the Board certify it as an adequate addendum and
reaffirm and certify as adequate the environment review for the project.
The Board declared its intent earlier to approve the tentative cancellations of the two Williamson
Act contracts. Findings in support of those cancellations are attached as Exhibit H. The
findings are based on the analysis in the environmental documents, correspondence from the
applicant, testimony before the Board, the Williamson Act exhibit presented to the Board on
October 27, 1992, and the land use limitations in the area as provided for in the Alameda County
General Plan and zoning ordinances, the West Dublin Specific Plan and related documents, and the
Contra Costa County General Plan and zoning ordinances, which planning documents are included as
part of the administrative record.
The Wiedemann Ranch Residential Community Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been
prepared for consideration by the Board. Staff recommends that the Board adopt it at this time
as in compliance with CEQA, specifically Public Resource Code Section 21081.6. Following
adoption, be advised that staff may want to review the program further and may suggest changes
to the program, findings and related project approval documentation for subsequent consideration
by the Board.
The project approval documentation is complete such that the Board may make its decision at this
time to approve the Wiedemann Ranch Residential Community project (rezoning, preliminary
development plan and vesting tentative subdivision map) with its conditions of approval as revised
and the tentative cancellations of the two Williamson Act contracts.
1:\vo I2\c l i c n t\21857\b o m a.m m o
—4—
ADDENDUM TO ITEM H. 11
December 8, 1992
On November 17, 1992, the Board of Supervisors continued to
this date the hearing on the recommendation of the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission on the certification of the
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Wiedemann
Ranch Residential Community project; a request of HCV Pacific
Partners (applicant) and Jeff and Nancy Wiedemann and Susan
Christensen, et al (owners) to rezone 1, 143 acres of land from
Agricultural Preserve (A-4) and General Agricultural (A-2) to
Planned Unit District (P-1) (2947-RZ) ; a request for preliminary
development plan approval (DP 3005-91) for 370 single family
dwelling units/lots including three private open space lots and
common area; a request for vesting tentative map approval
(Subdivision 7575) to subdivide 1, 052 acres into 336 lots
including three private open space parcels; and a request for
approval of Petitions to cancel the restrictions of two
Agricultural Preserve contracts (AP#16-70 and AP#5-76) affecting
approximately 1, 128 acres of land, San Ramon area.
The following persons presented testimony:
Stuart Flashman, 5626 Oceanview Drive, Oakland, on behalf of
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) , commented on the
issue of water supply and water supply management program.
Supervisor McPeak discussed the issue of annexation to the
EBMUD Service area with Mr. Flashman.
Mark Armstrong, Gagen, McCoy, McMahon and Armstrong,
representing Jeff and nancy Wiedemann and HCV Pacific Partners,
commented that he would be willing to work with EBMUD and to
request the Board not to file the Notice of Determination and
allow the statute of limitations to extend out for a longer
period of time .
Martin Vitz, East Bay Regional Park District .
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Schroder commented on a letter from EBMUD
responding to the request to discuss the water issue and he moved
approval of the staff recommendations .
Supervisor Powers seconded the motion.
Supervisor McPeak clarified that the motion included
direction to staff not to file the Notice of Determination and
that the Board declares its intent not to take the final
discretionary action on the annexation proceedings before LAFCO
until the Water Committee has exhausted the discussions with East
Bay Municipal Utility District with this particular project .
The maker and seconder of the motion concurred.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the staff recommendations
are APPROVED; Community Development Department staff is DIRECTED
not to file a Notice of Determination; and the Board DECLARES ITS
INTENT not to take final discretionary action on the annexation
proceedings before LAFCO until the Water Committee has finished
discussions with the East Bay Municipal Utility District on this
project .
R- M, 1lq
EXHIBIT A
ADDENDUM TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE WIEDEMANN RANCH RESIDENTIAL RANCH COMMUNITY PROJECT
This Addendum amends the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report for Wiedemann Ranch Residential Community Project
(SEIR) to include as part of the project description the safety and
other improvements to Norris Canyon Road required by Conditions of
Approval 3 .G. , 49.A. and 49.B. More extensive improvements were
contemplated in the Westside Specific Plan and its EIR. Also
included in the project description are the sound wall improvements
in Condition 41 and the signal at Norris Canyon Road and Bollinger
Canyon Road in Condition 49 .C.
Also included in the project description are the Vesting
Tentative Subdivision Map and Preliminary Development Plan revised
November 13 , 1992 , which reflect changes to the tentative map and
final development plan as originally submitted. Also included in
the project description is the Regional and' Project Trail,
Agricultural Lot, Open Space and Scenic Easement Map dated
November 131 1992 and revised November 17, 1992 , which reflect
changes to the trail and open space program as endorsed by the East
Bay Regional Park District. The changes to these maps reflect
efforts to further mitigate project impacts and to provide for more
sensitive and well-planned hillside design. There are no secondary
environmental impacts associated with these changes or with the
revisions to the Conditions of Approval of the project. The
changes in the project and Conditions of Approval do not raise any
important new issues about significant effects on the environment.
These changes in the project and the Conditions of Approval involve
changes to the SEIR that represent only minor technical changes or
additions to it. These changes in the project description are
consistent with the requirements for an addendum under CEQA
Guideline Section 15164 .
This Addendum incorporates by reference as though fully set
forth herein Sections VIII and IX of the Wiedemann Ranch
Residential Community Staff Report to the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission by the Contra Costa County Community
Development Department dated September 16, 1992 . Those sections
describe and discuss respectively an Avoidance Alternative and a
Minimization Alternative to the Wiedemann Ranch Residential
Community Project. The Avoidance Alternative is substantially the
same as the RCOD Alternative at page 4-15 of the SEIR.
The Minimization Alternative is a redesign of the project
intended primarily to eliminate or relocate residential lots that
could be viewed from different locations in the San Ramon Valley .
community to the east and to travelers along a portion of Norris
Canyon Road to the north.
The Minimization Alternative is a map representation of the
suggested mitigation measures in the SEIR to redesign the project
if the further elimination of homes from views from the several
vantage points identified in the SEIR was deemed by the
decision-makers to be desirable and/or to be required in order to
comply with the hillside protection and related policies in the
General Plan.
The Minimization Alternative is based on an elimination of
units that are collectively identified as visible in the several
viewshed computer projections in the SEIR. The Minimization
Alternative focuses on development in the relatively invisible bowl
behind the cross valley-ridge. It does not provide for a balanced
grading operation on the project site, because it eliminates any
cuts in the area of the cross valley-ridge which are required for
1:\vol2\client\21 f357\add-se i r.124
1
1
fill in the bowl area in order to develop it and still balance the
cut and fill on site. The Minimization Alternative also does not
address the requirements of Public Resource Code § 21085 and CEQA
Guideline 15041 that other feasible, specific mitigation measures
or alternatives be used if available in lieu of an alternative or
mitigation measure that reduces the proposed number of housing
units. Visual and other impacts can be mitigated to a less than
significant level through the project as represented in the SEIR
Mitigation Alternative and in the Vesting Tentative Map and
Preliminary Development Plan dated November 13 , 1992 .
The addition of these two alternatives in the SEIR by way of
this Addendum do not raise important new issues about the
significant effects of the project on the environment. All
potential significant effects of the project had been evaluated in
the previous environmental documents. The addition of these two
alternatives represent only minor technical changes or additions
to the SEIR. There has been a full opportunity to review the
Avoidance Alternative and the Minimization Alternative throughout
the public hearing process before the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The underlying
issues that led to these alternatives were fully addressed during
the SEIR process. There is no need to circulate the SEIR again
with these two additional alternatives formerly included in it.
I:\vo12\client\21857\add-seir.124
2
EXHIBIT B
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
(P-1 Zoning in San Ramon Area: 2947-RZ)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows.
SECTION I. The 1978 Zoning Map of Contra Costa County, updated
by Ordinance No. 78-93 and included as part of the County Ordinance
Code at section 84-2 . 002 , is hereby amended at Pages X-16, Z-13m
and Z-16m to rezone areas on the maps from A-2 and A-4 Zoning
Districts to the P-1 Zoning District, as more specifically set
forth on the Findings Maps approved by the Board of Supervisors
under Rezoning No. 2947-RZ on December 8 , 1992 and fully
incorporated herein by reference. The 1978 Zoning Map of Contra
Costa County shall be amended consistent with the provisions of
section 84-2 . 003 .
SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance becomes effective
thirty (30) days after passage, and within fifteen (15) days after
passage shall be published with the names of the Supervisors voting
for and against it in the San Ramon Valley Contra Costa Times, a
newspaper published in this County.
PASSED on by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of
the Board and County Administrator
By:
Deputy Board Chair
[SEAL]
I:\vol2\clicnt\21857\Exhibit.B
1
EXHIBIT B
P-1 REZONING MAP OF WIEDEMANN RANCZ RER
DENTIAL
COMMUNITY PROJECT FOR REZONING NO•
2*
Cross-hatch reflects deletions to the P-1 area as recommended by
the SRVRPC' made by the Board of Supervisors.
**Double cross-hatch reflects deletion to the P-1 area as
recommended by the SRVRPC made by the Board of Supervisors-
d Zoning Maps shall be modified to
The County Base Map Book an
reflect this change to P-1 from A=2 and A-4.
Findings Map
� �
r 111
A
U�00/tN 0
RRIS GA
P-1
A-4
n 10
0to
>
. .... . ...... .
Area
Rezone From A-4- To—?--t
i, a1U�4c CI Chair of the San Ramon Valley
Planning Commission, Contra costa County, State of California, do hereby
certify that this a true and correct-copy of _P ar-es
"r__ Coll rIJ121's
indicating thereon the decision of the San Ramon valley Regional Planning
Commission in the matter of
Chair of the San �amon Valley Regional
Planning Commission, State of California
ATTEST:
onV
Secretar ar ie San al alley Regional SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS
Planning Commission, Stateof California EXHI�IT B
Findings Map
1 A'4
1
2
A
i
. 1
zo
A•4 \
-�I
A-
7-
Rezone
Rezone From A-�� --To 2- 1 Area
Co—t- c y ' \-\,Chair of the San Ramon Valley
Planning Commissi >ontra Costa County, State of Califomia, do hereby
certify that this a true and correct copy of
indicating thereon the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission in the matter of HV G
Chair of the San t1amon Valley Regional
Planning Commission, State of California
ATTEST:
Secre ar the 'Ramon Valley Regional SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS
Planning Commis n, State of California EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT "B"
P-1 ZONNG DESCRIPTION
ALL OF PARCEL C, AS SHOWN ON MS 108-86, FILED MAY 5, 1988, IN
BOOK 133 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 8, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
RECORDS; ALL OF PARCELS A, B AND C AND PORTION OF PARCEL D AS
SHOWN ON MS 135-74, FILED DECEMBER 5, 1975 IN BOOK 41 OF.
PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 21 AT SAID COUNTY RECORDS; PORTION OF
LOTS 1, 2, AND 3; THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4; AND THE
SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, ALL IN SECTION 21; ALL
SECTIONS ARE IN TOWNSHIP 2, RANGE 1 WEST, MT. DIABLO BASE
AND MERIDIAN.
BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF SAID PARCEL C
(133 PM 8); THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG THE
EASTERN LINE OF SAID PARCEL C (133 PM 8) SOUTH 000 31' 00"
WEST 2188.36 FEET TO TIIE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF SAID PARCEL
C (133 PM 8) SAID CORNER ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHERN LINE OF
SAID PARCEL D (41 PM 21); THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERN LINE,
NORTH 810 22' 40" EAST, 2650 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID
NORTHERN LINE, SOUTH 680 16' 37" EAST, 418.88 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH. 320 16' 09" EAST, 248.28 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 440 41' 01"
EAST, 407.30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 03° 23' 42" WEST, 1288.44 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 230 29' 40" EAST, 105.71 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 240 34'
32" WEST, 321.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 820 50' 38" WEST, 333.80
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 010 08' 37" EAST, 78.28 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
340 58' 30" WEST, 371.32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47° 56' 43" WEST,
506.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 470 53' 27" EAST, 457.27 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 320 51' 04" EAST, 314.96 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 800 53' 05"
EAST, 693.21 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 530 52' 17" EAST, 161.49 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 330 24' 19" EAST, 266.37 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 030 04'
37" WEST, 348.26 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 43° 50' 21" WEST, 493.58
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 730 38' 18" WEST, 321.80 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
880 40' 24" WEST, 296.16 FEET; THENCE NORTH 76° 19' 48" WEST,
706.65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 630 59' 42" WEST, 1957.55 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 460 53' 15" WEST, 463.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 090
34' 01" EAST, 1360.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 510 56' 00" EAST, 142.71
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 370 29' 55" EAST, 95.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH
530 39' 27" EAST, 149.13 FEET; THENCE NORTH 440 15' 33" WEST,
617.23 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 250 00' 59" WEST, 942.01 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 740 52' 00" WEST, 515.12 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70° 02' 19"
WEST, 1560.05 FEET; THENCE NORTH 100 09' 32" EAST, 828.90 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 310 21' 46" EAST, 768.30 FEET TO SAID NORTHERN
LINE OF SAID PARCEL D (41 PM 21) SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE
MOST SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF SAID PARCEL C (133 PM 8);
THENCE ALONG THE WESTERN LINE OF SAID PARCEL C (133 PM 8)
NORTH 110 53' 58" WEST 1668.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERN
CORNER OF SAID PARCEL C (133 PM 8); SAID CORNER ALSO BEING ON
THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORRIS CANYON ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, EASTERLY TO THE WESTERN
EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL C (133 PM 8);
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 890 27' 34" EAST, 860.12
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 482.4 ACRES, MORE
OR LESS.
r--
EXHIBIT "B"
. ^ E`Y` =..�'� .. •`.•'\�,}.\Cit
low
�.;_t ltdl tEl �l�``».�-; � ., �5{. art' ��� U< rt�� '`'� .. •`.:< ••����
VU
MISS
�y,>Rrfi _ .CIt
tj 9:`., �1 ,���S .p;� •`::,��:-\•••t', \� T11)l l� �.,�,�r..�. `r<_ �- r-� t t,i..r/; i..
( , �\`_-\•' .!, l• --.:�� �%"a` \,' ,r..,:'.• _ , .•�/. ,;cam:
\\\,\� 81��,�\.• �., -i/ `\, , I%—
1,: ,ttl ,C•' i:�. +1,• , •� :C 'j.Z�r. c•r: P y \(< -\�,
,,,' { \\L/�%!ar;•::',• \' �! �) ._ �\•\� Nk ��'' v� \ '�� \. C'°`a.G,.l. :� �.j+sty °'.5�..' .,.1. �\\ r'•, ��.\ .,: •-5;_,tljl,�, l}11 l; ( � qq , ;,-fir � •-;�;\: _-rf`�-� �'t:
�- ,�•.1 r �� ,1
Vkl, in_ — �t \�;.. �;;; '�. \\ �.� c�;t :ga.. .tr ,•. - 11,E\ .� __—
�.�/,;��% il•�\\.� 1�'Lti`.;��. �y� `�i t i�`I r,aS`i�<u.,,:_ \ �-�C�:%-' y��1)_ \ <y�'�+!,�.�`\'� �u�,'�t,1•;-___..L.x �'J'<C,h•J ,J' \���1
NN
`\: j T;.,,� )'1\!.r,t- L h C .,', tr� r l� �a' l:, <`,a r•' 8 8 Y� t`.�+: � r�
� 1t/�/l.,•��rl!(--`�;.,�y'�-;Rti 2.:ri.S',�,'.\\ c�9 ,£).�: ;�` `,�t.'Z:.titi�•�} '����" �, ,3�,,,\ k�*�a;:.�,.u�t/�y:�T���„�\;/,), .-�_:''�-•-^\��/
` �l /,.. :.' '�� .<��•*,� �1�! _ G r-t 9 '�' 'itt��n 3.. 9�`�,".7,�'\� `'ti�;Z_��,\��\�
I t,.l'l� t1�.��L�.':-i,�,:\?;a�a��` ;, 'rpt ..-1�'��,�l.�':��i. '�\ ,il� :; 1(( \�� a7 "� ,�c ,_,�t� y .�^ •1'.�. �1...` -_ '.0 \l�, f
,h L7--� ?'{- /;rlsf' \ '°;:`-?.� �=.: ,,��,)Rr•l' f�,,'J��� a'6�`�. 1.:,,.: e t�Qypy(C''7,�s\•',,•.;,? �a. - ,r{j. _.jy� � �-:-._-�,..�'.,;.:
-r:. :rl:-: d1�-.., ,l :-.,� \ .t6_.r•ry•.r_� 'i. G• .,t�..y �\..-.ef• �Y' R} )li'�; ;:E,,�� �'�
/ � �':--�\��r,,u,/.Y:,< ' ,.;�:'�:t•. \ ..s\h.;' ,1 :-_ ,�'i, };.R.1/pi/;' t:l: � �=�4' �„��,.� `�'t 1� t 1�. ��.���
�/�- t'::'/i`A» �\!. ,� �:Irai�.� .�„ - - :•,r 6L ,���.. 1�.-j_;�}.�: ;j`""`.L'.n._. L�, (;x Y k�x �/J 1)i c.�.-'. � <-__c
./_""`- , �”-� .tl... �\!\"' , ,:'•�!i`i�1�� �•c��`-�;1 � � tti. d° •, '���( -'u` {„B�=� L r:. Qr: `.�.�,•t/.. _ t. � ,�
l`� \.;;.>!/•.::\\`� -1�ifi� -= \ ,,• ',E�. 1 t). ;rs r,c,,(''s,:rv.lJ ^ , 4r .�,. 4�--' / l"+"/"' "•�.;� � �`1
/moi; ••�-,,,} ,.�.. ::�";,� 1 'r�. ;.\.L '•\' '1. `` ,, `�':`�! ,, '117t_ _,, ,�•`'C ,( -=;1"� :,/�!i-`�'i�r'.3x`t''' t' ((\
f j•'-i" �. ^t,j" ;:..tet,.- ,.,�'�r'is,\,r \3;. ,L '\�•t R. .1 ', ,:.!_ t L •C 1:/,
%- -;:�\\\/1; ,'� \.:-jp�; -'r, -:.�•-,.._ ��,. �2=, .�� ,• �,.1 Elc' <,�:��➢ ���_;.l i '•%•�"i'' ',:.-�1)�!r•r �
\^..�ltE-' ^� 1•r.� '�.,• 'l, :•i r% 1 �;:. +7• ,/�;c.... \��5
E. !'"41
�"C.=i%moi'
\�-.\\- r ,'1 ��'. ..) :"%.$'1�ifll=� �:L`a .,�• ;t- ':t`, �,:.(�\.;r?�`:`�'-1ty .`�,1, �l'�\.\\\�'�`, 1i.rY�:` .1,jP`i' :'-���c:� ��
/'�'I .���_.-;•s j ja�,,i•,,, t :_�: .�i_-\'' \u t %" `,�,': � tt .•t`: �' - .:1\._ ��,ll� 1�,%: •�' �
l : �il''\�• �, (,����s�*-.
>t f l: >;. _;r .,�,+.I •);, 1. \
lit ..� \'+c. \i:f:;t i:;" .Y�,t'`„\v! \,\':, \ ,t L ,,yv ic.'k',Z' �i �4�• '\\,\ .�.r�i))l i?: ,:;: z�: F, t '\. J
I � � _ J.:)�•T ,''i�i'�[j.`t t�•,�. ;fir. ,�\. r�rt `{\. !�,%^--. :� �.. c' � �I.t,. '4,.:t-�__>'�:� =,,� t ,F .t
) F
`\
l
l_ (}1( --�:.�,..�,�1�� ' ,� .�\' :��`.�::.:-��7.: �t �-. � ; �.,.p�.�,�'t ��' .,r,y {:!'•\l!9'juf`ri' --= -�\��:,�\ \\ �\�` \\
\�>,.,,: ,I � ��
.:�iT�'', ,.,,.-�it��a`_GC,�.. Lyj - �i-(<-:-c \.'.\�(,T��::: C. � .��1..�\T�u�_ e•.�'•\�,`�i
.v.•Z\., "�t'Z( ''�\ .�• .-.'�,�, <;c.�' -e't; '7 •1+-t•. ) ) =�.-��1 xri"t. - r
r1'! ��\�':I! ��I 1 \ lig: <t •'*�{i;v�`.` ,-� � -'�-� C;i. � � ,� .�\�. �-{�,:---
}��Z_$�yfAN I
�::� �::c`.\,J%Y '�:,4�t'., ''t...- r. !,-. ��t ''`tt,�,�, �,'• \�\ '4..moi'.-�«'G'<i\�G
�. '< ' t �11�l,i, •o” 11��` �r1 �, t� 'l :�: r.'�\;t �`{r.: u�\a,; x ,\� �.`ia� +<'-:..�'�'� �_
Mr
X Al
=.�) ((,-'} ��J ` ,i� ''',elf•'/ i:,fl', '4:' .;,; \ 1.,�.:. :.�-. .� :�>��_,�:_-_1=���•��=�: \ `-'--..
`�� `%: — �\.�-,�i� ` \„ , `,,: h.rL y ):,,.,�7;'•%::=�i:l:1\- .`\�rW�, - .-�',t4:'�..t=. _ ,��ll)1 ,�.�_-� -_;f. .�?�.:.:.___,>.\ \--�
..^_;�-.._.' �a--- - ��i(�.�`,. ;lam; jti ,,/� -�- - - ,���''�' - a '1� ��,_•_`''�__�i .,t_r- �:�-' \
•� ��J7 r(.;;i�?.%//i-!'J% _ `�/�'%/--i).>>%)��"',.�•'' C •_
SO A
'0 �-�i�/%.!p' \\\l i %_=�i//�:'/ �-'• LE- ',l< t{'. _ -_ ---:__-`'~.'—�: 1\��t�X\` ;'.t1'� f.i�,:.�(a�`f� (�'r=J���h,,
': ' — .i� •s �'�`�'} _.:c)).111)7,Lot
r
\ \ :• 1
t �•�\ , `' •.\\.�5,:..\�3 �.�::j7:':Z;`�;� 4tiw1;;7�� �.t�-:.fv'';.G`''-%-..'\�\;�"\ -y�°%^t\ i; _'.�
e tt F �' �`a `a9 � t;:. moi"`' '�-```'-�:��,:�•��\ '\�`,.��:=\��\�'\�'�`-E.
t _ t
OX
i+d 1 i id
IUD cn
C-0 �t O
L
�'I .1:._ . r
-
,,.. -
-_�" ..
\ '`..'
;�\ �\.. -\ - .- - _ -
\\. - ^i� i .�. :'
_
�:- -.�
_ �%'�;... ...
1.
� a
'� #. .- .
•r ( Y..
\\% i':-ili 111-'... \` r i! F `....� -
L
-BMJ :;%;:ti- ;i. .- ,
�_. I
. I
1
;•.:<
>\
,; �>/ ;;;" .. •iii; - =�'\ '�''
//// ,;-:ssl((I /:, .
r
1
i. _ ..
,// �� Q— .
1...._ — -
(
I L_.' - �''' -
,
>>� 5 ,
S
1
;I ��' II:_) -- '' I
; '. '� l
l \
�,\\\ I'
:,;
�,,:. ,,.: , ,:
1 �; I,I I �, ! \
:\•\�_�./. Vic..: /.../,.,I:"I;...;:. ,::. I''.,;;,• .� �4: : \ - .
�, �. .\
i:.:
1., r, .",.' .. _
/
� ._
\ ,•
R )k `J , ::..
Lam^ �),; ilii\11IIl i 1►,;;: < I' " r11 .
~ �,//\ �.! Irl/': :..;:',`,'I il,l,..1.;'/,' - '.' W :N ���'l // \ P _ - ;�,`
.1
..
\1 >��.-,,, ),)11„1111111;1 11 :1r . .. .
rte, i;// .� -=g: TT,T ,:o' i T - .
� _ r 1' -T i.1.-
r rNr. _r .
C I-, `.Y,1� ,'�v: �`'.o. _�.V;`:: ,,,ISI!. \' .j� .R �C,.. __ k_” �`+'I I
��_ � _ �>��) ..
- 1
i
i;:, e j
1 I' ` '
�k
.Y:
�•
:g
o.
-
1 X/ �Y y
//
} .:
11 :, bilII., ., ,_ .:r ._ , \ _
� _ 1.
l \ \,
:.
it
.-_ 1 c 1'+' I' - �(
- ",:
T -I.
/ \ ro'. �'.
,/;,
i.h_
1 - �J
_y,. . l;
% \�1
- - i
� -
r-jjg - a - k
- ,.,. __
.\
_ .. ... .,� - N �. - R \
- --- "I; .-J.
\ \. .',
' ^.
�'
"y
.. -
- -- - �::<. +rte -
�,
:.:=
�1'j g/'// , � 7
' - r'`\
- $
\2. \
\' '' '4'. \\.,
\ V
N I'
',
t,r_
N \ \\�
J�':i' {
l ,iC. /
' I.
I J al
,�. :
/.. . i ti.,. I.
\ )!,"I :\ ,,. Al •.. E: s i;''`
\ .:I'�. /� i
._�/. :.
x` i',
111
:)
�,
` \
\ L
';:;
y
~N
1
\\
1 .�. i:.l: /...-
- _
\` <: x -
'. \.
Z '/' - J.
l
f
�:. V
\. t;
I-- ;r
,) ;-- -;;
� .
-i '_ \
'2:
a
i, -
t
�._. J _ t:
_
r
/• - ,`
--- ,. -
1,/l J r�/.r-=::.- \ J.' g A. . 37 w�. .,\ �...%
1'
�-
\ 3 -
R:;
I - �_
l - �' T
_ �:�
)!, —
`'i
�!.
�: y
t ��
''
:I I
`\
\:,
;I
�:;' s -. a
1
�:) ---f
r:
./ .� .. ,�,.(, '1, �.� .�. ., :rv:l, �� _ 'ice •:.'� _ -
::ll -
d YF••\'
L. r -
// /. - :'
I. - ``rV�H •ie 9- 1 1
z
I
/ ,;
�'.' X11,
:..'. .,.;. ./�,.•r/' I Iii . . . ... - `<C`� - ,II 5�"y; r,I..
jl i,/r�.lei , -, - - ":'.- \L; :
, \11 r X111:::':,':./:..:..li.l.:::-. ,. / \. x f.;.zt:��:
/ ..::- —
\ :l. 2' << ter-::::. '-=:a.,:
f �:
1.
W - _-__
'':`\� 3. r, 1. r:. ::.i::_`=
1 III I �/, :•„ \\\11;11;!':r\..::. —�11,, .;;. tom, k �4' :`4'+,
I I I:I I'{..\,. I ::,I—/,,..,i/ i. .,` 111 'III: --�\ /, _ .:\. `, - '� ' /- 1'. '.I
I,I:I..1. - .. _
Iti �' y.
�� .: '-` I' I i 1. // \::: ./�.
:.....,I I:..., .. .. I :;I'll .,'--_ .i' .(F `,�. ���i''.,\-:•b .i/:,•* �,.,,.,,
,11. :, .I Ill. ',)/ :/ ';,�'.• -',,.:�,1-- ...,�,�`�� /..',>'. � .�\,�'•,.\��- ./� 'i�.:. `1`•)�
/ / // -'�< it. _�.. ,/.
v l+\ /( -
%' I \\:` Ill. - - `:. '/.
I l
l r I —
/, Y'
;. /' c
\. /•. 1.q�wj
..
I '
\,: - ` \,
I.
rr
�' 14' ,
i �'.
\ y.`
/,/','
\,.\,
/• 0
`.. •.
/� r-
% -- :\.
I 1.'I'll :�
- 'li / l \
•i,
:
.., -
--- �,, ,/J/, ,, //11 •1' 11:1;11 —:I 1,'..' !- \c`,1 - - .� = ,/, _ _�-.. ... �',II�%=; ',\:.:`•
ti — „/ /// 1 ! ;/, 'll I. IIS I.I.t.: = - —
, _�.... .. / , ..: .. .1 , i. >. .,.. T'-ice::: /..:> _- _ ��z:_.:' \::ti:
1 �. - -
Ur I I _ t; - '/ - \
u
,
.
- j';
_,.. . . ,
III =i: =:z. ..�.... �;: :;::;.�' �'.,'V
I-
I, I
I
-:.\ `i;
11 '.i; ,I• ,�%� N � � '':1� i';\.... : 1',\r- -
/• I = - \1.
.\
u \
I
�. �.: `�-
> I :::- f.
I. .,;` 1. - _ - :11•:1'''': ,
��- , '. 1
-- -
,.,-_
r (
II: . --
/ YY �:<\. �-�: - `�:r:- �... ,- --- '�:. � 1,,,,;11:,,::
-- r. +•.v !,` �: \ -&t• -- -.\- \ r... I/)III ',ll... C
/ � —
11 j�
': )
- >/;s / v 1,` $'1� ) ) ...�� :� i� ^moi. .,�
I 1`:'
9 5- /"I I - ( iI kill i \_�q �" .\ = -4
-. ,r - \�:`:;\ :\ __:ter,;';:/
.\ :fix; _-- /�:\
/_. '.
,,
i/
-.�.
i,
-
- - \` \'.
/..: \; -
" ' /`, / —
\�. �i
;.
. 11
/ : .
.1.
i•:
\\`:C� _ '.I•�'!I:1:,1.11'11=;.��: �:.��.^ \_� ,\ \�..�.s-zz .\\\.c a
�� tl l
_- \
--
C. -/Ila„•:..'...;, ...__.,, _-�.`:-.:' ., - .\\d•� .`..; \,I ..:IIL-<= ::� '- ---- %/• —�.�•... ' \�'•:`:
1
\.
\ -
\: .,
- - — - -
-- l
,,,,. - - _ - / - -
- -- _ ii -
.
l -
$ — 1.
__
•'I - -
Z.
,\\
_ 1. :li _.
d \, 1' 11.,J,\
f - - '/ `- /
§ ,_
• - �. I
1
iTl -- �.\�)\, \ l�
g _ -
�i
H - \
>€ -_. . :\
- — /)
a - ;:• ' --
.s
_ —
1. .; ... ...., - �..\""..
3 ��. -
t_ t _yq / - :\ j -_ I SII /n•• __-_
�: :.
..\ .\ - I I, 'k:/;_5;�._:'� I :'1'11//,: /./ '\;�\,.,
Y e.
(` _I I III %_'._ -� .
• '-': -- _ - \\ « _ �) ),.III __ \.
::;
%
,:
r_ .� `'
--`
- ..
_ %__-+ %; jp;r r-= :\� .Iii 1_
I'% :,III =it .` ..:` -:.t =_:- ,7. ` - - - �`�l/(((I,I.�I.,; �...,`\_• \:/ (I , 1.
\\. -
-:;�J \::.\.. ,:-.moi' li _
)'.�\:'�.."�N'
r
\ \`':`
a `
1
\ .
- -
\ - (.
o .S -
y ,
cal .\`:: - `-/.'• 11 . - - - �. \
`;-
j:RICS - -' \ -
o
y.
/ \” \\` '
e
F Vii.
_i J/'
# ;i/.
i lL \ J
_ ..
,�.• 1 ),
s.. I .. i- , / .: ,. . , , �: , . .
;,
1
r' /,.
1,.
:>:
> .
f I ..;
I `
0 til -N , . _ _ - _ - „moi: __
. . _�
�'ql� -_ - _
,. �..
(r �g , is
,=
Mg04 �.;;:
• C `:`,
P \' ���` -
G ti
\\
14 I
\\`\ \:
F \\\
g 1til 1 \ \\\` - .')l.
w 45 II "=: ` `..
_8 LC A - SIJ/` :.\.' ':\'. .\\\ \1'1 , .---fir\\\\��:.�%-,
> C� VVV
-8 - -
yn0_3. v1 e: ,`
01 0 b" � 4 . .. .. .1 ..\ 11, .".. I ,. i ' . %_I
I11 '^ ;':'.
-I M.0. a ° 6 °oC °NeC O 00 .� V` H I , I
iA
D EE poz EarnpC ~ eon r
t4 � '-n �
N I S o �'��a. ,�' �t'. �i•°pd Ino x y �` o .,
-q
���' �r?f� �c �\ \/,/%� f\ b \' '�'- : 1 _ � '` �\S •;�.��,, =f.)ate'. \�-�'�-'
r�
i�`�. n ,1:�a I' \\������ .1.1l�.1�\, _ Y�ll,l .-�,'\`�• �'\`.\`\I. `\\�r +'\'�• �.':.
\ /._ }•��1�:��\ .\:� �\\\1J yyl; 1 �:� /r..l�� ,.� \��f '/>/;:.- \_ :T ' a' 1 '`,� � ,<1` _ � l� r/Ill, _
�— )' — '� � .•�_y;:� ';r� � / ,1_ i iris, �,,� ,% ,1, , ,',; .�� -., _ � �--'J// ��\\, �;: �r--.'- -- �\.
— — — ;t
_•�.__'^��
_
AN
1 , _ �\' \ ,/, \I\._ �`'\•1 �'��'11'1` 1' 1� l'li, .',! r �� � �A\�.:='�/, j::`--- - - :jai.�..l;:`
9
1�1 ,)
S'/ \
\ 1.�/� - \ .,:.\\ - tib`\'.; •;'(• - �:'�` 'Ir •i'.
\ II -
\
Lir--;.�- 1.����I(,\.,-- � 11(1 ___._=�•',, �\,:' '��:• 'ti. = "��';I)' — I \\:,, I
;��r 11� ,• � 11.r, 1' ,'III = I I'j,, .�t\ ,�/:, .li' ..'i :� � � 1''• I��\�'�`�'�•,\� ,,,~ ��1'
J L
t e
N l•% 1
I
1'
G I
I'
.v % - -t�j...: \�i�,'iS�d I}I�• '.�+'•: :\lr:.,. \` .\l'•'^ - '` �1� „�..��� ,1`�� 1`'1'11
/ =:�• -=�1v� _.\.;.�\.: .t, Q. �,. .'_vY•�: 4 N: ''1. `•\\�`. ) "\'�`v�,` le. fir.`
�� � ����:� �:� �` 5,•-%:_::;'�-.;,.• �J\ ,;li�'`(>:,.;�•' ,.�����J��: _ w� ;;, -y' •\� •.\1\'11111,\
— �II •//^ 'Illl I 1 � ;c�\��\I, �] '�\, g •L�: ;•v 'ltl. ,I `111,\�\�(��.:.(�:�. -�
� ?.r•',1� ,.,,: - 4 .,' �,���.�-� I'r;�l� �9..�e`l.a .�_ �'��'��:.\l�i'�,'I,Iii - -g'- '�k;�`A I I� ':1;;�,\ \`;\S t:\'r -
� �, � �L_i�� I.I:'�L ..,. :g � �i/. "t�•:�1���'✓t=� •i;r•�\>_�: '���� .t. \\�•. �I' _ � `b I I �I1��� l 1111 � I {
it
r.l �� _ ` ;'t Ij ''Y•',/;lr '/�:ti��:. 9�� il,,.'} �'�i'.\�.\�•:\,::j! \�\�f.' I., R 1,\\\ �.\4:..1\'�,
it�u\\\�.\�
—\� � —— ��\<�. \ �4 \: ��i;�,\r:•P� 1 r11 /= � '.Y� ./,:'l;._ �; (. '. llb; ,�I�i' .f`.' �cr. f�:Q `\•L\\�; `
// \ \ \\ �' 1111'•5>,Jl����=:` I �<_ -=\ �:�',�!�� ^,��' - ,/,�,r\� � ,ra--._� _\�;�,
l• �^�\`?:`�:::�Fu\\Pt\ :iA.'''.'�"ri'ry�p';/•i,;;�/;� .C,;�:j/;�� - ;`�;I�.li:.,! �.�•�f �!'\�.-r•`-�"`',III'''•.1`\\'• •Y d, ..,',@\` - �4'- .-f \`��.';\'.
\,. ,.�:y�\\\\ ��): � %:.i/ ,i'r 1 11''r' 1/Il ' r•\�• (;� :r�. - ,1 ;/l�...�i.'• ,,�-1; �p�- ���",;!;i ,� '� �}�. \J �'
\ \ ���\i.• \ 11')'/i.:,/..JS%:/ /-�r�L(-�iJl -t �\•.,:V+; ( 1�!:' ��"i��'��,�.�� I�.:r��'),:..., _ _ - _ ..;� _ _ `\.
\\?t\\ \\ %/((((�((�\( `-- r:_I� ' 1'2 '`\'` \I ,;�: t•a\�.,\. q7.�';�IY. 'N;, :: _.,moi; .,0 y/� .,, i 1
:) \\
�\. ��
/���R•�\ / 'II�',.:I'I'I�� 1;1,1. �-1_�,�;��'I;�:''��•�- I. �._ >%;� :: �,'�, , ��` �,_. �J/1,(�� ''�-� \\��:i \�:�- \
'L' �... \ :; ..i ��� l� 1,j111.:r;C�-.�`��ii'% �' •/-�� y \''�� \,•�-: '( ;I'I:.1 C`\'�L_ -,.��..
AM A
Tf Ale
/":":._1.. :`\„ / '111 � •r.'y�" - J-- 'i,.` ' t' _ :1\\ ,�.•.i u�\-�,1,'
�J - -_�` -J=t,. y:, ) \\1 •d. \�\•1' ._
;,,ic \C ;FY•�; �— 1 rc, —� Mri•. �r_l,( `_Zr *�1 \, A g A (� '�\I \�\�
� - • 1 Ili :- \
xx,
� �;r'�,,
\\\�\ \� '�`y \`1�r.- �;' rr -/^\��_� :k. ,;\��..:�: �\,r l )J lam' l\ , , /•<` L -��� j
IV i, - \IIS }
gg
VL1_1 ��\
��"'• \. / •,.\ ..I ,/ ���� 1��j:� ll',,;)ii�%�)�:::%'�_ �i /i,,,.�' \. ;:b_ \\..../j(t(11�`1� -���F��•�..\�>./�' �I�i\/
_� �==� ��// `_� 11 III 1 1�/ '-.��" /,I(.I: ;.S'/•'r_ ':�;: �. -/'/I�L_��-, \\'. I I =Flu�.
p _ \\ \ --"/I \.� - I///�•)////� ""'%�\\\\ \\\. i '�\ .,' .�. :�. r ��\'C!ti' - \1�\\IS/rj�17i:!•'di=v.J. �'
Nk
r -
- _ NN
\ -. . `, J �>•�,% � :•�_ •!- •/�I III`,.\;,;:--__ `a�� ;}—\�((.=,� "1• r`�
;ME
_
�1 \' •It's :;:�:: '.l,!�\'�\ . ..�.; i',i�\;�:;-_ �J`\�`�-• ..::.-. ;�1 \��\:C��.\`��� /i\, j
:,�., ��=: :� I`.; .1)\/�_ \, ,•:;-• �___ 1
fit
Ali
FCR
Nx
Nx
01
_ ` ' Fy ''.\�\\(\ I ,/ `\•''.• - ? 1��\\\I\;\\i \\ '\
�S
Ii a
EXHIBIT D
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR WIEDEMANN RANCH RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY,
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN #3005-91 AND VESTING TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAPS #7575 & #7578 DATED NOVEMBER 13, 1992
General
1. Exhibits. Development shall be based on the following
submitted exhibits as modified by the conditions below:
A. Vesting Tentative Map for Subdivisions #7575 and #7578
dated received November 13 , 1992 . This is also the
Preliminary Development Plan.
B. February 8 , 1991 Harlan Tait Associates Geotechnical
Feasibility Investigation.
C. March 30, 1992 Harlan Tait Associates Landslide Repair
Plans.
D. August 27, 1991 Sugnet & Associates Biotic Resource
Assessment and Habitat Mitigation Plan.
E. July 30, 1992 Harlan Tait Associates Geotechnical Report
for Subdivisions 7575 and 7578 .
F. Project Hillside Protection and Development Guidelines
dated September, 1992 .
G. January 8 , 1992 letter from HCV Pacific Partners to San
Ramon Valley Fire Protection District.
H. Regional and Project Trails Agricultural Lots Open Space
and Scenic Easement May dated November 17, 1992 .
2 . Number of Lots, Zoning, Phasing. This project is approved for
a maximum of 371 lots plus the three agricultural lots.
Approximately 482 acres shall be rezoned to Planned Unit
District (P-1) encompassing the proposed residential
development lots, perimeter and internal project common areas.
The remainder of the property will remain in A-4 zoning.
Phased final maps are hereby authorized but not required.
3 . Final Development Plan. Prior to commencement of grading
activity or filing a final map, a final development plan
application shall be submitted and approved. Final
development plan approval shall focus on and be limited to
final design issues to assure compliance with the approved
conditions and mitigation measures for the preliminary
development plan and tentative subdivision map. Final
development plan shall include design level detail comparable
to a final subdivision map and shall be approved by the San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning commission prior to approval
by the Board of Supervisors of the Final Subdivision Map.
Planning Commission review of the final development plan shall
be scheduled within sixty days from the date of submittal of
the design level plans to the Community Development Department
and Public Works Department. The submittal plans shall
provide for:
A. Plan Details. Final landscape plans, final grading plan,
building envelopes (including building setbacks and
separations, and roadway plans) . These plans shall
demonstrate that visual, grading, vegetation and other
impacts have been addressed consistent with the
mitigation measures required of the project and as
1
provided for in the tentative subdivision map and
exhibits identified in Condition #1.
B. Design Guidelines. Final design guidelines enforceable
by the County and concurrent submittal of architectural
plans, site plan, fencing plan and landscape plan for two
lots to demonstrate how the design guidelines are going
to be implemented.
C. Preliminary Detention Basin Plan. The basin shall be
primarily designed for hydrologic and aesthetic purposes
only, and possible passive and active recreation
purposes. The plans shall provide for the following
information:
1) Grading plans at 40 scale indicating location of
existing trees and whether they are proposed to be
saved or removed.
2) Design and location of perimeter fence unless the
fence can be demonstrated not to be appropriate.
3) The basin shall be designed as much as possible to
simulate natural creekside terrain and minimize
removal of trees upstream from the street crossing,
using curvilinear design and providing maximum use
of native trees and shrubs and boulders (naturally
indigenous if at all possible) at the edges. While
striving for high aesthetics, the basin shall also
be designed for low maintenance cost. The basin
shall be designed to satisfy the County's regional
detention basin standards. Prior to Planning
Commission approval of the final development plan,
basin plans shall be submitted to the Public Works
Department for review for compliance with Title 9
of the Subdivision Ordinance and for compliance with
the standards for County detention basins.
Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map
the developer, at its expense, shall cause to be
formed a geologic hazards abatement district (GHAD)
or other entity acceptable to the Public Works
Department for the purpose of taking title to the
basin, performing necessary maintenance work, and
accepting and funding any liability from the basin,
including passive recreational use thereof (see also
Condition 15) . The Board of Supervisors shall not
be the board for the GHAD. The formation
proceedings shall specify and include a mechanism
acceptable to the County for funding, and for
indemnifying and holding harmless the County, its
officers and employees against any liability
resulting from the design, construction, use,
operation or maintenance of the basin. In addition,
prior to recordation of the final subdivision maps,
the developer shall, at its expense, cause to be
established annual assessments, or other funding
mechanism acceptable to the Public Works Department,
for the purpose of assuring the perpetual funding
of necessary maintenance work to the basin. It
shall be provided in the formation of the GHAD and
CC&Rs for the project that the GHAD shall not be
terminated unless the Contra Costa County Flood
Control District approves the termination, and
accepts the ongoing obligation to maintain and
repair the basin and the Public Works Department
approves an alternative funding mechanism for the
other maintenance and repair obligations of the
GHAD. Prior to Planning Commission approval of the
final development plan, the form of entity and
2
specific funding mechanism shall be identified to
the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
D. Creekside Restoration Plan. This plan shall address all
areas where grade changes are required to protect against
erosion and to enhance scenic qualities and wildlife
values.
E. Proiect Gateway Design. This plan shall show frontage
improvements for Norris Canyon Road and its intersection
with "A" Drive, including appropriate improvements as
recommended by the Public Works Department. The plans
shall identify the required dedication area to
accommodate the road widening.
The gateway shall utilize special landscape. Special
landscape treatment shall be proposed at the "A" Drive
entrance. Existing trees shall be identified and whether
they are proposed to be removed or saved. As few trees
as possible shall be removed. The plans shall
demonstrate adequate sight distance at the project
intersection.
F. Project Entrance Design. This plan shall be prepared for
the area bounded by and including "S" Drive, "A" Drive,
San Catanio Creek and the area of Lots 23-34 as shown on
the proposed plans. The plans shall include preliminary
landscape plans and indicate the location of existing
trees. As few existing trees as possible shall be
removed.
G. Preliminary Norris Canyon Road Re-Alignment and Upgrade
Plan. Prior to submittal of the final development plan
for the project, the applicant shall provide directly or
through an assessment district the Norris Canyon Road
safety improvement and roadway redesign study and
improvement plans for safety and planned improvements,
subject to review and approval by the Public Works
Department, which will identify the safety and other
improvements needed on Norris Canyon Road to complete
this traffic improvement. Final improvement plans and
the final width of the right-of-way shall be determined
at the final development plan. Because of the road's
close proximity to the creek and the erosive nature of
the creek, the improvement plans for this requirement
shall be signed and stamped by a licensed geotechnical
engineer.
These plans shall indicate existing right-of-way
location, intersecting property lines, City of San Ramon
boundary line, existing roadbed and nearby topographic
conditions and structures for the section of road between
westerly the end of the road transitions needed at the
project entrance and Bollinger Canyon Road. The
preliminary plan shall indicate the improvements and
right-of-way acquisition that would be needed to widen
the roadway to a 34-foot width, with four-foot shoulders,
to a design speed of 35 miles per hour or as otherwise
acceptable to the Public Works Department, Road
Engineering Division. Those improvements that are
specifically needed to mitigate the safety impacts of
this project shall be expressly identified (see also
Condition 49. ) .
The plans shall also identify the location of soundwalls
(identified as mitigation in the Westside Specific Plan
Program EIR and per Condition 41) which will be needed
to mitigate the noise impact of this project. The design
of the soundwall shall be based on an acoustical analysis
prepared by a qualified professional based on the General
3
Plan projected traffic and planned widening of the
roadway. A cross-section of the wall and any appropriate
landscaping shall be included. The location of the wall
relative to the road right-of-way and nearby structures
and property lines shall be identified.
The plans shall be accompanied by a detailed estimate of
the cost of implementing the plans. Plans may be
provided through an assessment district. A portion of
the costs of preparing the plans shall be credited
towards the project's South County Area of Benefit Fee.
Creditable engineering costs and administration shall not
exceed 12 .5% of the estimated project cost.
H. Street Lighting Plan. This plan shall identify proposed
street lighting plans for the project interior and the
project entrance. Street lighting shall be provided at
major intersections within the subdivision (at the two
entrance points from Norris Canyon Road) . The plans
shall indicate proposed placement of street lights, level
of illumination, design of pole standards. Ornamental
standards are encouraged for any necessary interior
street lights. All street lighting shall utilize down-
focused lights to minimize off-site glow. Prior to
submittal to the Planning Commission, the Public Works
Department, Engineering Services Division shall be
provided an opportunity to review and comment on the
plans.
I. Fire Resistant Landscaping Program. Proposed plans for
fire-resistant landscaping, including provision and
maintenance of fire breaks, shall be submitted following
opportunity for review by the San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District.
J. Revised Community Park Plan. The proposed park plan
shall be revised to include a tennis court with lights,
basketball court, tot lot with functional (flat) lawn
area, clubhouse and competition swimming pool. The plan
shall specify the degree to which the facility satisfies
the County code. In addition, a plan for recreation use
of the detention basin area shall be submitted.
Recreational uses within the detention basin shall be
restricted to the Wiedemann Ranch homeowners association.
No credit for the parkland dedication requirements shall
be given for recreation facilities within the detention
basin area.
K. Water Tank Treatment. Pursuant to the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report, the Planning Commission
shall review and approve plans for the water tanks.
Sufficient information will be submitted to determine
approximate tank dimension capacities, locations,
architectural elevations, colors, landscape plans,
grading and geotechnical reports for the Planning
Commission's review and approval. The information shall
demonstrate that the visual impacts of the water tanks
are adequately mitigated. If it cannot be shown that the
visual impacts of the tanks will be adequately mitigated,
the tanks shall be buried.
L. Additional Requirements for Residential Design
Guidelines. Proposed subdivision landscape plans shall
be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall
be certified for compliance with the County Water
Conservation Ordinance. Use of naturally indigenous
trees and shrubs is encouraged. The applicant shall
provide a suitable instrument guaranteeing to the County
4
the survival of the approved plantings for a period of
at least 24 months following completion of planting.
The plans shall demonstrate by design and selection of
material compliance with Chapter 82-18 of the Zoning
Code, "Sight Obstruction at Intersections". Prior to
submittal to the Planning Commission, the Public Works
Department, Road Engineering Division shall be provided
an opportunity to review and comment on all landscape
plans adjacent to roads and driveway intersections.
M. Restrictive Covenant and Scenic Easement Instrument. A
restrictive covenant and scenic easement instrument shall
be recorded with the final map creating the agricultural
lots (Lots 168, 188 and 223) of Subdivision 7575 and
recorded against the deeds to those properties. The
restrictive covenant and scenic easement instrument shall
incorporate a three-tiered approach in limiting usage of
each lot to agricultural use and one single-family
residence with accessory agricultural structures, as set
forth more fully in Condition 21. The instrument shall
offer to dedicate development rights to the County on the
three lots outside the development sites as set forth in
Condition 21. The instrument shall be enforceable by
both the County and the East Bay Regional Park District
(EBRPD) . The form and content of the restrictive
covenant and scenic easement shall be approved at the
time of final development plan approval, along with a
final regional and project trails, agricultural lots,
open space, and scenic easement map (agricultural lots
map) , consistent with and as set forth more fully in
Conditions 4 and 25.
4 . Final Agricultural Lots Map. The final regional and project
trails, agricultural lots, open space and scenic easement map
(agricultural lots map) shall be substantially consistent with
the plan set forth on the tentative agricultural lots map
dated November 13 , 1992 , revised November 17 , 1992 . Public
open space may be provided by gift; it is not required by this
condition to be dedicated. The tentative agricultural lots
map may be revised at the time of the final development plan
after further consultation with and direction from the EBRPD.
The regional trails shall be constructed in a manner approved
by EBRPD and the private project trails shall be constructed
by the applicant in a manner approved by the Zoning
Administrator. To the extent reasonably feasible, the program
for trail construction shall include the utilization of hand
labor from the East Bay Conservation Corps or a similar work
program. The final agricultural lots map may also include as
an attachment a more detailed map showing proposed uses and
footprints within the three development sites. If not
provided as part of the final agricultural lots map at the
time of final development plan approval, then a separate map
showing uses and building footprints shall be subsequently
approved by the Planning Commission for the development site
of each agricultural lot prior to issuance of a building
permit on that lot. Zoning Administrator approval of final
design in each development site shall be required consistent
with Condition 5. The above information shall be provided to
the EBRPD upon application submittal to the County.
5. Zoning Administrator Review of Individual Lots. At least
thirty (30) days prior to issuance of building permits, the
property owner shall submit architectural plans, site plan,
fencing plan, and landscape plan for each lot to the Zoning
Administrator for review and approval for the following lots:
1) lots identified as potentially visible in Viewsheds #1, 2,
3 and 4 on pages 2-46, 2-49, 2-53 , and 2-56 in the Final SEIR
(Lots 25-82 , 160-167 , 172-204, 219-239, 282-284 , 291-319 [some
5
of these lots are also those potentially visible from Bishop
Ranch Open Space so that viewshed is addressed, too] ) ; 2) the
lots in Subdivision 7578 (in order to address views of them
from Norris Canyon Road [the higher lots above that are
included within one of the other four viewsheds above] ) ; and
3) the development sites in each of the three agricultural
lots. The purpose of such review is to confirm that the
individual home and building site have been designed to
substantially mitigate visibility off-site and to be sensitive
to the topography with minimal grading consistent with the
design guidelines and mitigation measures for the project.
The approved landscape plan shall identify those trees that
are required to be planted to mitigate visibility of the home.
The above information shall be provided to the City of San
Ramon Planning Department at the time of application submittal
to the County.
6. Limitations on Tree Removal. Trees planted as part of the
reforestation program and in common areas, trees planted on
an individual lot to mitigate visibility of the homes and
trees that have been preserved on the project site shall not
be removed unless an application by the Homeowners'
Association Architectural Review Board is first approved by
the Zoning Administrator following a public hearing. On any
of the three agricultural lots, trees shall not be removed
from the third tier scenic easement area unless an application
by the owner is approved by the Zoning Administrator with
simultaneous provision of the information to the EBRPD for
their review and comment. In the second tier agricultural use
area, trees may be removed only for purposes of routine land
management (e.g. dead, fallen or diseased trees) , unless
otherwise first approved by the Zoning Administrator. In the
first tier development sites, tree removal shall be allowed
only as provided for in the final design approval for the
development site in each agricultural lot or as otherwise
subsequently first approved by the Zoning Administrator.
7 . Contingent Approval of Subdivisions. The approval of
Subdivisions 7575 and 7578 is contingent on final approval by
the Board of Supervisors of Rezoning File #2947-RZ and
Preliminary Development Plan #3005-91. The requirements of
the subdivision approval are subordinated to any modifications
to the project rendered by the Board of Supervisors.
Agricultural Preserve Contracts
8. Contingent Precedent to Development. No final map may be
recorded, nor non-agricultural development or grading activity
may commence until the existing restrictions of the
Agricultural Preserve Contract affecting the development area
that has been rezoned P-1 has become null and void either by
expiration or by cancellation action of the Board of
Supervisors.
Urban Service Reorganization
9. Boundary Reorganization Requirement. Urban service boundary
reorganization shall be consummated through the Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) . Prior to filing a final map or
issuance of grading permits, evidence shall be submitted to
the Zoning Administrator that the approximate 482 acre
development site consisting of residential lots, internal and
perimeter project common area has been annexed to the Central
Sanitary District and the East Bay Municipal Utilities
District (EBMUD) verifying that adequate capacity exists
supply consistent with Water Policy Implementation Measure 7-
i to specifically service the project. The area of Lots 168,
188, and 223 (the agricultural lots) of Subdivision 7575 shall
not be included in any utility annexation. See also Advisory
Note L.
6
Geotechnical
10. As-Graded Map. Prior to issuance of building permits on
parcels of this subdivision, submit as-graded reports of the
engineering geologist and the geotechnical engineer to
Community Development and Building Inspection Departments with
an as-graded map showing final plan and grades. The map shall
identify all encountered faults, aquifers, and stratigraphic
(bedrock) units; zones of highly jointed and/or deeply
weathered rock; orientation of bedding and/or other
discontinuities, and the location of any seepage, fill
keyways, and subdrainage material with cleanouts, outlets, and
pickup points; buttress fills with keyway location, any
retaining walls installed, subdrains and their connections,
and other soil improvements installed during grading, all as
surveyed and mapped by a licensed land surveyor or civil
engineer.
11. Grading Bond. A grading bond is required for the work
necessary to carry out the grading plan and Final Development
Plan. Provide sufficient information to estimate the cost of
required soil improvements, or a contractor's estimate.
12 . Recorded Geotechnical Statement. Record a statement to run
with deeds to parcels of the property acknowledging the
geotechnical reports by titles, author (firm) , and dates,
calling attention to recommendations, and noting that the
report is available to prospective buyers from the owner.
13 . Final Geotechnical Review. In accord with the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report for the Wiedemann Ranch
Residential Community Project, the applicant shall adhere to
the following requirements:
A. Prior to final development plan approval geotechnical
criteria for the project shall be submitted for the
review and approval by the Zoning Administrator.
B. If explosives are necessary to aid grading activities,
a special permit shall be obtained from the San Ramon
Valley Fire Protection District (SRVFPD) .
Landslide Repair/Maintenance
14 . Detailed Landslide Repair Plans. Prior to final development
plan approval, submit detailed landslide repair plans
identifying specific landslide repair techniques for each
landslide on the project site as identified in the Landslide
Repair Plans prepared by Harlan Tait Associates to Community
Development and Building Inspection Departments for review and
approval. Pursuant to the Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report, landslide repair techniques for landslides #4, #5,
#15, #16, #19, #46 and #58 shall not be "remove and replace"
but other suitable methods which avoid impacting creek areas.
15. GHAD Formation. Pursuant to the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report, and prior to filing of the first phased final
subdivision map, a geologic hazards abatement district (GHAD)
shall be formed of the project property owners to finance the
maintenance of slopes, drainage terraces, subdrains and
detention basin prior to the filing of the first final map
(see also Condition 3 .C. (3) ) . The three agricultural lots
shall be included in the GHAD. Any private land that may be
deeded to EBRPD shall not be included in the GHAD. The three
agricultural lots shall not be responsible for maintenance or
repair in the P-1 project area. All lot owners shall be
responsible, on a pro rata basis, for the cost of necessary
repairs to the three agricultural lots where GHAD-related
activities impact the P-1 project area or adjacent public
lands. The cost of other repairs and routine maintenance
7
shall be the responsibility of the individual agricultural lot
owner. A covenant shall be included in the CC&Rs for the
properties that precludes dissolving the GHAD without first
obtaining approval from the Board of Supervisors and without
first having maintenance of the detention basin accepted by
the Contra Costa County Flood Control District. Public lands
shall not be included in the GHAD. Holders of public
easements located inside the GHAD shall have no responsibility
under the GHAD. The GHAD shall otherwise be consistent with
the restrictions imposed through Condition 40.
Grading/Tree Preservation Plan
16. Grading/Tree Preservation Plan Submittal Requirements. Submit
a grading/tree preservation plan prior to final development
plan approval providing for:
A. Tree Survey. The plan shall identify all trees with a
trunk circumference of 20 inches or greater with trunks
within 40-feet of areas proposed for grading. Reasonable
efforts shall be made to minimize the loss of or
potential damage to existing trees. The plans shall
identify the trunk circumference, approximate canopy
area, species, and whether the tree is to be preserved
or removed. The plan shall be prepared with the
assistance of a licensed arborist. The plan shall
provide suitable measures to assure protection of trees
during the construction period.
The survey of trees shall provide for a tally of the
number and trunk circumference of trees to be removed.
The aggregate trunk circumferences of trees proposed for
removal shall be totalled.
Also see heritage tree nomination requirement below.
B. Cut and Fill Slopes. Drainage terraces for cut and fill
slopes shall be spaced per grading code requirements.
All cut or fill slopes greater than 30 vertical feet in
height shall be contour-rounded.
C. Botanical Project. The grading shall provide for
balanced cut and fill on-site (i.e. , no import or export
of fill material) .
D. Surface Runoff Requirements. To reduce long-term erosion
and sedimentation impacts on downstream water quality,
grading plans shall be designed such that no surface run-
off shall be directed onto cut or fill slopes. All
graded slopes shall have either brow ditches or berms at
the crest to control surface run-off. These drainage
structures shall be underlain by subdrains. Run-off from
graded surfaces shall be intercepted by closed conduits
and conveyed to adequate storm drainage facilities.
E. Retaining Wall Details. A sample section and color of
proposed retaining walls shall be submitted with the
Final Development Plan application.
F. Tree Replacement Program. The grading/tree preservation
plan shall provide for a tree replacement program and
plan in accord with the proposed reforestation program.
The plan shall require replacement of trees in accord
with the applicants program. The plan shall be
accompanied by an estimate of the cost of materials and
labor to complete the work. The approved plan shall be
installed with the phases of the subdivision infrastruc-
ture and grading. The applicant shall be responsible for
protecting the trees for a period of 36 months after
planting. Ninety days after planting, a landscaped
8
architect shall inspect the plantings and prepare a
report to the Zoning Administrator on the condition of
the new trees. Any failing trees shall be replaced.
A bond shall be required in order to assure compliance
with this tree planting requirement.
Reforestation trees shall be planted by hand. The
reforestation program, including the monitoring and
maintenance program for at least five years consistent
with Condition 17, shall be approved by the Zoning
Administrator. The program shall include provisions to
utilize the East Bay Conservation Corps or a similar work
program to complete and initially maintain the
reforestation program, unless the applicant demonstrates
that including such a work program is not reasonably
feasible.
G. Erosion Control Plan. A construction period erosion
control plan shall be submitted.
H. Haul Routes. To avoid unnecessary scarring of hillsides,
haul routes for grading activity shall be generally
limited to those areas of the site which are proposed to
be graded. Hauling of material through the approved
scenic easement shall be precluded. The grading/tree
preservation plan shall provide delineation of the
perimeter of areas and trees to be preserved by use of
taping and stakes, or other appropriate barriers. These
barriers shall be installed prior to commencement of
grading activity.
I. Tree Preservation Bonding Program. To assure protection
and/or reasonable replacement of exiting trees to be
preserved which are in proximity to subdivision
improvements, the applicant shall post a bond (or other
surety) for the required work with the Community
Development Department. The term of the bond shall
extend at least 16 months beyond the completion of
required subdivision improvements. Prior to posting the
bond, a licensed arborist shall assess the value of the
trees and reasonable compensatory terms in the event that
a tree to be preserved is destroyed or otherwise damaged
by subdivision-related activity. The tree bonding
program shall be subject to the review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator.
17 . Tree Preservation Measures. In accordance with the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, the project
applicant shall adhere to the following requirements:
A. Limits on Heavy Equipment. Heavy equipment shall be
restricted to the minimum area suitable for equipment
operation.
B. Protection From Grading. Tree trunks adjacent to
construction areas shall be protected by fencing or other
barriers to avoid physical damage. Protection shall
extend outside drip lines to prevent trunk and limb
damage and soil compaction.
C. Tree Thinninct. Trees where roots are covered with
impervious surfaces, or roots removed, shall be thinned
to compensate for loss of function.
D. Arborist. A licensed arborist shall monitor construction
activities as required.
9
E. Tree Replacement Ratio. Replacement of all impacted
woodland habitat in a ratio of 3 acres to every acre
impacted.
F. Initial Planting Requirements. Initial planting shall
be higher than necessary to account for a 10% annual
mortality rate (see Biotic Resource Assessment and
Habitat Mitigation Plan) .
G. Reforestation Monitoring. All reforestation areas shall
be monitored for at least five years for mortality,
vigor, height and canopy diameter. Vigor shall be based
upon qualitative comparison of foliage density, leaf
color and turgor, and stem caliber found in like species
in adjacent native habitat.
H. Tree Survival Rate. A 90% annual survival rate shall be
met during the initial 5-year monitoring period. Any
mortality above this rate shall be replanted.
I. Planting and Irrigation Requirements. Saplings and
rooted acorns shall be planted in irregular spacings and
watered with a drip irrigation system. Irrigation shall
continue for a minimum of three growing seasons.
Erosion Control Measures
18. Erosion Control Plan Requirements. Prior to final devleopment
plan approval, the project applicant shall submit to the
Community Development and Building Inspection Departments an
erosion control plan for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. The construction stage erosion control plan
shall provide for the following measures:
A. Grading Season. All grading, excavation and filling
shall be conducted during the dry season (April 15th
through October 15th) only, and all areas of exposed
soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and
subsequent sedimentation. Any modification to the above
schedule will be subject to review by the Grading Section
of the Building Inspection Department.
B. Revegetation/Erosion Control Plan. Prior to final
development plan approval, a revegetation/erosion control
plan shall be prepared. The plan shall emphasize use of
drought tolerant native species that are adaptive to
conditions on the project site. The plan shall provide
that all disturbed areas be hydromulched with a mixture
of 90% annual grass/10% wildflower per the Biotic
Resource Assessment and Habitat Mitigation Plan by
October 15th of each construction season or as determined
appropriate by the grading section of the Building
Inspection Department. The revegetation/erosion control
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Grading
Section of the Building Inspection Department.
C. Temporary Erosion Control Measures. The erosion control
plan shall show the location of proposed temporary
detention basins, silt fences and straw bales. It shall
also contain provisions for:
1) Performing maintenance during the winter rainy
season, as necessary.
2) Regular inspections by the project engineer during
the winter rainy season.
3) Spot inspection during/immediately following severe
storms.
10
Fencing Plan
19. Private Fencing. Privacy fencing shall be allowed only along
the side property lines of each lot where adjacent structures
are within the Development Area defined on each lot. Privacy
fencing shall consist of 1 x 6 boards attached to a 2 x 6 cap
and a 1 x 4 trim supported by 4 x 6 posts on six-foot centers..
Privacy fencing shall be no higher than six feet. Privacy
fencing standards shall be included in the project design
guidelines.
20. Perimeter Fencing. The perimeter of the development area and
Private Open Space Areas of each lot shall be either: unfenced
or restricted to deer fencing. Deer fencing shall consist of
a 2" x 4" welded wire black fabric. Deer fencing shall be six
feet high supported by 4 x 4 wood posts on eight-foot centers.
Fencing standards shall be included in the project design
guidelines.
Open Space and Heritage Tree Nomination
21. Restrictive Covenant and Scenic Easement Instrument. The
applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning
Commission with the final development plan application, a
proposed restrictive covenant and scenic easement instrument
describing the uses and development limitations on
agricultural lots (Lots 168, 188 and 223 of Subdivision 7575) .
The restrictive covenant and scenic easement instrument shall
include a provision that written approval from the EBRPD shall
be required prior to any future subdivision of these parcels
or changes or amendments in the restrictive covenant and
scenic easement instrument and that it is specifically
enforceable by the EBRPD as a third party beneficiary. The
instrument shall be based on the following:
A. First Tier. In the first tier development sites:
(1) A limit of one residence along with ancillary and
agricultural structures (e.g. , detached garage,
guest house, barn, winery, stables) on each lot.
The development sites for these structures shall
be restricted to the specific three areas identified
on the final agricultural lots map. No structure
shall be allowed outside the development sites and
development inside the development sites shall be
reviewed and approved, consistent with Conditions
4, 5 and 21, by the Planning Commission and Zoning
Administrator, with provision of the information to
the EBRPD upon application submittal to the County.
(2) Agricultural and related uses, such as livestock
production, orchards and vineyards, pasturing of
horses or other livestock, and open space land,
trails and fire protection management.
(3) Livestock grazing and open space land, trails and
fire protection management.
B. Second Tier. In the second tier agricultural use areas,
only the use set forth in A(2) above -shall be allowed.
C. Third Tier. In the third tier scenic easement area, only
the uses set forth in A(3) shall be allowed.
The three tiers shall be clearly depicted on the final
agricultural lots map which shall be recorded along with
the restrictive covenant and scenic easement instrument.
11
22 . Parcel "D" Merger. Parcel "D" as shown on the Tentative Map
of Subdivision 7575 shall be merged with Lot 188 .
23 . Heritage Tree Designation. Concurrent with the final
development plan application, the applicant shall apply to the
County for heritage tree designation for trees to be preserved
on the property pursuant to Section 816-4 . 404 of the Zoning
Code. The submittal shall include a nomination request for
tree groves in the approved common open space area and other
significant trees; and shall be accompanied by the
grading/tree preservation plan and tree replacement program
approved by the Zoning Administrator.
The submittal shall by prepared by a licensed arborist and
shall provide detailed information on trees with trunks within
40 feet of proposed grading or other development. The survey
shall include information on trunk circumference, tree
species, and canopy of individual trees. The nomination
proposal shall provide for a suitable marking of designated
heritage trees. The number of trees designated for heritage
status may be increased or diminished from those nominated by
the applicant.
The submittal shall include a proposed notice, upon Board of
Supervisors designation action, to be used to inform
prospective buyers of the heritage tree program, and the
process that must be followed in order to remove or otherwise
damage a tree.
24 . Limitation on Tree Removal. No trees shall be removed from
any of the property prior to approval of the grading/tree
preservation plan without the prior approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
Regional Trail Dedication
25. Final Regional Trail Alignment; Funding for Maintenance. The
final regional trail alignment as set forth on the final
agricultural map shall be determined at the time of final
development plan approval (see also Condition 4) . The
alignment provided for in the tentative agricultural lots map
may be modified following additional review and input by the
EBRPD. All offers of dedication shall be made to the EBRPD
prior to approval of the first phased final subdivision map
in the project. For regional trail and emergency vehicle and
maintenance access (EVMA) alignments inside private property,
trail and EVMA easements shall be offered for dedication to
the EBRPD, or if it does not accept the alignment, then
offered to the County. Other easements on or across public
land or trails may be authorized and their terms defined at
the final development plan and final agricultural lots map
approval. The applicant shall be responsible for making
regional trail and EVMA improvements (on Lot 168 , the
applicants responsibility for EVMA improvements is limited to
the alignment east on the access road to the development site)
in the manner and design approved by EBRPD and dedicating them
by the time the last residential building permit for each
phased subdivision is approved, unless EBRPD otherwise agrees
to extend the time for trail construction and/or acceptance.
A landscaping and lighting district, or another funding
mechanism acceptable to the County, with input from EBRPD,
shall be provided whereby the property owners in the project
(not including the owners of the three agricultural lots)
shall be responsible for financing the cost of maintaining any
public open space within the project site, including the
regional trails. Actual maintenance of their lands and
easements will be provided by the EBRPD.
12
26. Regional Trail to Wiedemann Hill. The regional trail only
from "A" Drive to the top of Wiedemann Hill shall be via an
all-weather surface (i.e. , the existing gravel road) to
provide access for pedestrians. An easement shall be offered
for dedication to the EBRPD. If the EBRPD does not accept
it, then it shall be offered to the County. If it does not
accept it, then it shall be maintained as a project trail
available to the public for such pedestrian access. Trail
improvements shall be constructed by the applicant and
maintained consistent with Condition 25. Due to safety
consideration, vehicle access shall be restricted to service
vehicles related to communication site activities, emergency
vehicles, and owners of the agricultural lot.
27 . Norris Canyon Trail. As part of the final development plan
application, the applicant shall prepare a proposed trail
easement for a trail running parallel to Norris Canyon Road.
The applicant shall provide the Public Works Department, Road
Engineering Section and City of San Ramon Planning Director
and City Engineer an opportunity to review and comment on the
plans. Prior to filing a final map, the applicant shall make
an offer of dedication of the approved trail easement. The
applicant shall have the option of withdrawing the offer of
dedication of the trail easement if the County and/or City has
not constructed the trail improvements within 10 years from
the issuance of the final map for the final phase of the
subdivision. Ownership of easement would revert to the
Homeowner's Association.
Project Common Facilities and Landscaping
28 . Detailed Common Facilities Plans. As part of the final
development plan application, the applicant shall submit
detailed development plans for any common facilities located
within that particular map phase for the review and approval
by the Planning Commission. All approved facilities shall be
completed prior to issuance of building permits within the
phase in which the common facilities are located.
29. Detailed Common Facilities Landscape Plans. Landscape plans
for all common areas shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect. Plans shall be certified for compliance with the
Water Conservation in New Developments Ordinance (No. 90-59) .
Proposed shrubs shall be a minimum 5-gallons in size; proposed
trees shall be a minimum 15-gallons in size. Prior to
approval, the East Bay Municipal Utility District and Public
Works Department, Road Engineering Section, shall be provided
an opportunity to review and comment on the plans.
Landscaping shall be designed so as to minimize landscape
maintenance costs. Approved common area landscaping shall be
installed prior to occupancy of units for each phase of the
subdivision.
Revised Design Guidelines
30. Final Design Guidelines. The proposed design guidelines shall
be revised to provide for the following:
A. Deed Restriction. Design restrictions shall be made
enforceable by the County.
B. Garages. The minimum setback from the road right-of-
way for front-entry garages shall be 18 feet; side-entry
garages shall observe a minimum setback of 12 feet. Any
proposed placement of garages within the specified
setback areas shall be considered on a case-by-case basis
and only where it can be documented that no adverse
sight-distance problems will result (e.g. , end of cul-
de-sacs) . All garage doors shall be designed as
automatic sectional doors.
13
C. Minimum Lot Gradient. All lots shall have a minimum
gradient of 1. 5% to ensure proper drainage. All paved
surfaces shall have a minimum of 1% gradient.
D. Lot Areas. Each lot shall be divided into three areas
as follows:
1) Building Area: Shall be the area on each lot within
which the primary residential structure and
accessory structures can be constructed. This would
include attached garages. The building area shall
also include the primary parking area(s) , fences and
irrigated landscaped areas on each lot.
2) Controlled Development Area: Shall be the area
within which ancillary structures such as pools,
gardens and in some case detached garages can be
constructed. Fire control measures shall be
enforced within this area.
3) Private Open Space Area: Shall be the portion of
each lot within which no development can occur.
The development envelopes shall be established prior
to issuance of building permits and submitted to
Community Development and Building Inspection
Departments.
E. Lot Setbacks. Front yard setbacks of 25 feet, sideyard
setbacks of 15 feet, and backyard setbacks of 25 feet
should be maintained wherever possible. However,
exceptions from the setback standards may be appropriate
due to site constraints and for lots along the south side
of "A" Drive in the vicinity of the cross valley ridge
to reduce off-site visual impact.
F. Creek Setbacks. A 100-foot setback from creeks shall be
maintained by all abutting structures measured from the
centerline of the creek. Scenic easements may be
recorded where appropriate to ensure limitations on
development. The scenic easement shall not take the
place of development rights deeded to the County as
required by Section 914-14 . 012 , "Structures Setback Lines
for Unimproved Earth Channels. "
G. Individual Lot Grading. Individual lot grading shall
employ contour grading concepts. Approval by the
Building Inspection Department shall include grading
permit requirements.
H. 3 : 1 Slopes. All grades or non-structural slopes shall
be 3 : 1 or flatter unless supported by geotechnical
engineering reports.
I. Foundation Design. Buildings shall be designed to work
with the existing topography of the site. Split pads,
stepped footings, pier and grade beam foundations shall
be employed to fit each structure to the slope of each
lot.
J. Roof Forms and Lines. Roof forms and roof lines shall
be designed to break up the mass of the roof. Irregular
roof lines shall be utilized to avoid long, linear
unbroken roof lines.
K. Visual Design Restrictions. Large gabled ends on
downhill elevations, overhanging stilted decks, large
walls in single planes and retaining walls should be
14
avoided. Retaining walls should be broken into smaller
components and terraces where feasible.
L. Maximum Building Heights. Maximum building heights shall
be 35 feet. Height of the houses along the south side of
"A" Drive shall be subject to the review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator.
M. Exterior Colors and Materials. Building colors shall be
earthtones. Bright colors (reds, blues and greens)
shall be avoided. Exterior wall and roof colors and
materials shall utilize medium-to-dark earth-tone colors,
defined as less than 50% light reflectance. A licensed
architect shall certify submitted elevations for ,
compliance with this requirement. Exterior walls shall
be of wood siding, wood shingles, brick or masonry,
natural colored cement plaster, or other similar natural
texture and colors. Roofs shall be flat concrete
shingles, clay tile (earthtones only) or other suitable
roofing material of earthtone colors.
N. Architectural Review Board. In accord with the proposed
CC&Rs, an internal Architectural Review Board shall be
created to review and approve plans in accordance with
the residential design guidelines prior to submittal of
plans to Community Development and Building Inspection
Departments.
O. Design Restrictions Near Cross-Valley Ridge. Lots along
"A" Drive in the vicinity of the cross-valley ridge (Lots
25-58 and 172-183) shall be subject to architectural
review by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to the
requirements of this condition and the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report which identified the
following restrictions on these lots.
1) Possible reduction of structure height to reduce
visual impacts shall be subject to approval of the
Zoning Administrator.
2) Variable sideyard setbacks to reduce massing.
3) Reduced front yard setbacks from the minimum 25
feet.
4) Additional landscape requirements for backyards.
5) Muted roof colors.
Maximum structure height, minimum sideyard setbacks and
minimum front yard setbacks shall be determined as part
of the final development plan approval.
P. Minimum R-15 and R-20 Standards. Front yard, side yard
and rear yard setback standards as defined in the project
design guidelines shall apply (consistent or greater than
R-20 standards) . Where the project design guidelines are
silent, the development provisions of the R-15 Single
Family Residential District (for lots from 15, 000 to
19, 999 square feet) , and R-20 Single Family Residential
(for lots 20, 000 square feet or greater) shall apply.
Fire
31. Fire Safety Development Requirements. Pursuant to the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, the project shall
adhere to the following requirements:
A. Street Gradients. Street gradients shall not exceed 20%
and rough asphalt or grooved pavement used in areas where
15
road gradients would exceed 15%, subject to the review
and approval of the Public Works Department.
B. Fire Protection Management Program. The San Ramon Valley
Fire Protection District's (SRVFPD) weed abatement
criteria shall be incorporated into the subdivision's
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and
project design guidelines to provide a fire protection
management program (see also Condition 37) , and in the
management requirements. for the three agricultural lots
as part of the approved range management plan which will
incorporate fire management. EBRPD shall be consulted
in regard to the appropriate fire protection management
program.
C. SRVFPD Review Prior to Building Permits. Building
permits shall be submitted to the SRVFPD for review prior
to being issued.
D. Buffer Zone Fire Break. The buffer zone around the
development area shall be maintained as a fire break in
accordance with SRVFPD standards.
E. Roofing Materials. All roofing materials shall be class
A, B or better.
F. Automatic Sprinkler Systems. All residences shall be
equipped with automatic fire extinguishing sprinkler
systems.
G. SRVFPD Review Prior to Final Subdivision Map. Fire
hydrant locations, vehicle turnarounds, temporary access
roads, driveway accesses, and smoke detectors plans shall
be submitted to the SRVFPD for review and approval prior
to filing a final subdivision map.
32 . Second Access Road. A second access road extending from "T"
Court south in Subdivision 7575 shall be provided. In
addition, a second 2-lane bridge shall be constructed from "T"
Court north in Subdivision 7578 to Norris Canyon Road. This
second access route shall be constructed to public road
standards consisting of 24 feet of pavement, measured curb-
to-curb with no parking allowed on either side. In addition,
an emergency access gate shall be installed on the second
access road between the subdivisions to limit usage to only
the Fire District. The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection
District shall provide specifications for the gate.
Public Protection
33 . Facility Standard Fee. In accordance with the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report, the project applicant shall pay
a facility standard fee, if appropriate, (equal to the costs
of constructing 155 square feet of department facilities per
1, 000 residents) as determined by the Contra Costa County
Sheriffs Department. The fee shall be paid with the issuance
of individual building permits.
34 . Funding for Augmented Police Services. With the recordation
of a final map, the owner shall participate in the provision
of funding to maintain and augment police services by voting
to approve a special tax for the lots created by this
subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per parcel annual
amount (with appropriate future Consumer Price Index
adjustment) then established at the time of voting by the
Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax
shall be completed prior to the filing of the Final Map. The
property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of
holding the election, payable at the time that the election
is requested by the owner.
16
Alternatively, the applicant may provide evidence that he has
entered into an agreement with the City of San Ramon for
supplemental police services to serve the project.
Transportation Demand Management Program
35. TDM Program. At least 30 days prior to filing a Final Map,
the applicant shall submit two copies of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program in accord with the
requirements of Ordinance No. 92-31. The applicant should
contact the County TDM coordinator in the Community
Development Department at 646-2131 regarding any questions on
the program requirements.
Child Care Ordinance
36. Child Care Program. At least 60 days prior to recording a
final map, the applicant shall submit a demand study for child
care facilities generated from the future project residents
and an appropriate response program in accord with Ordinance
88-1, the Child Care Ordinance. The demand study and response
program shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator. Prior to recording the final map, the
applicant shall submit evidence that he has complied with
whatever program requirements have been imposed.
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's)
37. CC&Rs Review and Approval. Prior to final development plan
approval, a copy of the project's Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department for review and approval. A copy of the
proposed CC&Rs shall be provided to the EBRPD upon submittal
to the County. The document shall provide for maintenance of
common open space, fire break protections, and maintenance of
any internal, private roads. The document shall reference the
approved residential design guidelines, slope and drainage
improvements maintenance plan and fencing plan program.
In accord with the County Child Care Ordinance, the CC&Rs
shall indicate that a child care facility may be located at
any residential unit, or lot, consistent with the existing
laws.
Drainage Crossings
38 . Design of Crossing Structures. Drainage crossing structures
shall be designed in accordance with the Biotic Resource
Assessment and Habitat Mitigation Plan. Prior to filing a
final map, final drainage crossing plans shall be submitted
to the Public Works Department for review and approval.
Aquatic Habitat Plan
39. 3 : 1 Replacement Ratio. All impacted wetlands and "waters of
the United States" shall be replaced in a ratio of 3 acres for
every 1 acre impacted.
40. Additional Permits. Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, the project applicant shall secure all necessary
permits and agreements from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and California Department of Fish and Game. Copies of the
permits from these agencies shall be provided to the Zoning
Administrator
Noise
41. Sound Walls. The applicant shall install sound walls where
needed with the Norris Canyon Road improvements, as determined
17
I
by the County to address sound impacts of current existing
traffic plus this project.
Agricultural
42 . Agricultural Proximity Sales Disclosure Statement. The
project applicant shall include a sales disclosure statement
with each lot stating that they are in close proximity to
existing agricultural activities (including agricultural
activities on Bishop Ranch Regional Open Space) which may
result in nuisance and hazards.
43 . Agricultural Activities Informational Booklet. Prior to the
issuance of building permits for the project, the project
applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department
for review and approval an informational booklet to be
distributed to project residents upon purchase describing the
adjacent agricultural activities, potential hazards and ways
for residents to minimize potential hazards.
Construction Period Restrictions
44 . Time Limits on Construction Activity. Noise generating
construction activity (including playing of loud radios or
music) shall be limited to the hours of 7 : 30 A.M. to 5: 00
P.M. , Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State
and Federal holidays. The restrictions on allowed working
days may be modified on prior written approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
45. Recyclable Construction Materials. The applicant shall
provide for the separation of recyclable construction
material, such as wood waste and inert solids, at the
construction site. Provisions for the separation of
recyclables shall be consistent with the County Source
Reduction and Recycling Element. Any questions on satisfying
this requirement should be directed to the County Recycling
Specialist in the Community Development Department at
646-4198.
46. Notice of Construction Work Commencement. At least one week
prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the
site and mail to the owner of property within 300 feet of the
exterior boundary and to the homeowner associations of nearby
residential projects, 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 noise and litter control, tree protection, construction
traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and 24-hour emergency
number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. The
notice shall be reissued with each phase of major grading and
construction activity.
Copies of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the
Community Development Department. The notice shall be
accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the
parties noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed.
47 . Dust Control/Reclaimed Water. The project shall comply with
the dust control requirements of the Grading Ordinance
including provisions pertaining to water conservation.
Reclaimed water shall be used for dust control unless
determined to be infeasible by the Zoning Administrator.
18
48. Archaeological Resource Requirements. Comply with the
following archaeological resource requirements:
A. Notification if Significant Cultural Materials Located.
If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts,
human burials, or the like are encountered during
construction operations, such operations shall cease
within 10 feet of the find, the Community Development
Department shall be notified within 24-hours and a
qualified archaeologist contacted and retained for
further recommendations. Significant cultural materials
include, but are not limited to, aboriginal human
remains, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone
artifacts, concentrations of fire cracked rock, ash,
charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features such as
privies or building foundations.
B. Mitigation of Cultural Resources. Appropriate mitigation
of the cultural resources may include monitoring of
further construction and/or systematic excavation of the
resources. Any artifacts or samples collected as part
of the initial discovery, monitoring or mitigation phases
shall be properly conserved, catalogued, analyzed,
evaluated and curated along with associated documentation
in a professional manner consistent with current
archaeological standards.
Road, Utility and Drainage Requirements
49. Compliance Requirements. Comply with the following road,
utility and drainage requirements:
A. Conformance with Title 9 ; Exceptions. In accordance with
Section 92-2 . 006 of the County Ordinance Code, this
subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County
Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9) . Any exceptions
therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional
approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance
includes the following requirements:
1) Construct road improvements along Norris Canyon Road
based on a 35 mile per hour design speed, 34-foot
road width with bike lanes and 4-foot all weather
shoulders. The road improvements shall provide left
turn channelization at the project entrances in
accordance with Caltrans standards subject to the
review of the Public Works Department, Road
Engineering Division, and the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator. The applicants Norris
Canyon Road frontage improvements shall not be
credited toward the Countywide Area of Benefit
obligation. Design exceptions shall be evaluated
on a case by case basis by the Public Works
Department at the time of final development plan
approval. This condition does not imply that
exceptions shall be made.
2) Install safety street lighting and annex the
property to County Service Area L-100 for
maintenance of the street lights. Lighting shall
be located only at the project entry intersections
with Norris Canyon Road, at the intersection of "A"
Drive with "S" Drive, at the intersection of "A"
Drive with itself, at the intersection of "A" Drive
with "B" Drive, and the intersection of "A" Drive
with "K" Drive.
3) Construct a paved hammerhead turnaround at the end
of the proposed private road/common driveways.
19
4) Underground all subdivision utility distribution
facilities, including those existing on the Norris
Canyon Road frontage.
5) Convey all storm waters entering or originating
within the subject property, without diversion and
within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a
natural watercourse having definable bed and banks
or to the detention basin facility which conveys
the storm waters to a natural watercourse.
6) Design and construct storm drainage facilities
required by the Ordinance in compliance with
specifications outlined in Division 914 of the
Ordinance and in compliance with design standards
of the Public Works Department.
7) Install, within a dedicated drainage easement, any
portion of the drainage system which conveys run-
off from public streets.
8) Relinquish "development rights, " or convey other
instrument acceptable to the Public Works Director,
over that portion of the site that is within the
structure setback area of the creek. The structure
setback area shall be determined by using the
criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14 , "Right of Way
and Setbacks" of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Due to the nature of the creeks in this area the
structural setback may be determined from a soils
report. The applicant shall submit the soils
geological and geotechnical report for review by
the Public Works Department, Flood Control Division,
showing slope stability, a proposed structural
setback line, and construction methods for buildings
to be located on the adjacent slope. The structure
setback line shall be shown accurately on the final
development plan and the Final Maps. The instrument
dedicating development rights shall provide that the
individual homeowners may apply to the Public Works
Department to place accessory structures within the
setback line (e.g. gazebos) , subject to the review
and approval of the Department.
9) Submit improvement plans prepared by a registered
civil engineer, payment of review and inspection
fees, and security for all improvements required by
the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval
for this subdivision. These plans shall include
any necessary traffic signage and striping plans
for review by the Public Works Department.
10) Submit phased final subdivision maps or one final
map prepared by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
11) Exceptions to public road standards consistent with
the revised standards set forth in Condition 49 . I.
are hereby allowed.
B. Norris Canyon Road Improvements; Time of Construction.
The applicant shall improve the offsite portion of Norris
Canyon Road from the westerly conform back to the
existing Norris Canyon Road roadway to Bollinger Canyon
Road to a 34-foot wide roadway within an adequate right
of way and with necessary slope easements. The
improvements shall include bike lanes and four-foot all
weather rock shoulders along with safety improvements,
capacity improvements, and necessary reconstruction. The
20
improvements shall be designed for a design speed of 35
miles per hour, or, as approved by the Public Works
Department, Road Engineering Division.
The applicant shall be required to construct any
necessary safety improvements prior to construction of
any major public or private facilities (except on-site
balanced grading operations) . and prior to issuance of
building permits in these two subdivisions, unless
otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. The
safety improvements shall include provision of adequate
horizontal clearance, widening to allow trucks to make
the tight turns, and provision of adequate all-weather
shoulders.
Prior to issuance of the 150th building permit for the
two combined subdivisions, the applicant shall construct
capacity improvements along the offsite portion of Norris
Canyon Road. The capacity improvements shall include
widening Norris Canyon Road to its 34-foot road width
with bike lanes and 4-foot all weather shoulders.
The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining on-site
and off-site rights of way, slope easements and other
land rights for the improvements required at each phase
of this development.
C. Signal at Norris Canyon Road and Bollinger Canyon Road.
Install the traffic signal at the Norris Canyon
Road/Bollinger Canyon Road intersection, if it is
warranted based on existing traffic plus approved
projects plus this project at the time of filing of the
first final map. If the signal is not warranted, the
applicant shall contribute its fair share towards the
construction of the signal at a later date.
D. Credit Toward South County Area of Benefit. The cost of
construction of the off-site improvements listed in
Condition 49.B. and 49.C. will be credited toward the fee
payable to the South County subarea of the Countywide
Area of Benefit which shall be calculated at $5276 per
unit.
E. Intent of Off-Site Conditions. The intent of these
Conditions is to require the applicant to construct the
improvements, or to pay a fair share toward their
construction, identified in the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report as traffic mitigation
measures along with the Norris Canyon Road sound barrier.
F. Norris Canyon Road Frontage Dedication. Convey to the
County, by Offer of Dedication, 42 feet of half-width
right-of-way from the centerline of the alignment along
the Subdivision 7578 frontage abutting Norris Canyon
Road, plus any necessary slope easements along the
frontage.
G. Sight Distance Requirements. Provide for adequate sight
distance at the project access intersection with Norris
Canyon Road for a design speed of 35 miles per hour and
all on-site intersections for a design speed of 25 miles
per hour in accordance with CALTRANS standards. This
applies to the intersection of "S" Drive and "A" Drive,
"A" Loop intersection with itself and "A" Loop with "B"
Drive. Site distance for remaining intersections shall
be reviewed and approved at final development plan.
Convey to the County a sight distance easement across
those parcels which are crossed by the line of sight at
all internal intersections. All garages which are
accessed through a sight distance easement shall be set
21
back a minimum of 20 feet from the easement. The
applicant should be aware that the sight distance
easements could affect the buildability of some lots.
H. Relinquishment of Abutter"s Rights. Relinquish abutter's
rights of access along Norris Canyon Road with the
exception of the two proposed access roads.
I. On-Site Road Standards. On-site public roadways shall
be constructed to public road standards with the
following exceptions (exceptions from the Ordinance Code
identified with a double asterisk (**) and provisions) .
These standards shall include: providing for at least
six off-street parking spaces for 66% of the units;
providing adequate corner and stopping site distance for
traffic safety; and, providing 30-foot curb return radii
at all intersections where "No Parking" is required along
an adjacent roadway leg. An exception is allowed from
the County standards to begin the grading hinge point 5-
feet behind the curb face and 3-feet behind the back
sidewalk. The only private roadways in the project are
depicted as such on the vesting tentative map. They
shall be constructed to County private road standards
with adequate parking, subject to review and approval by
the Public Works Department. Private roads shall be
constructed as at least 20-foot roads within 30-foot
access easements.
1) General requirements:
Provide for at least 6 off-street parking spaces
for 66% of the units.
Provide adequate corner and stopping sight distance
for traffic safety.
** Exception from the County standards to begin the
grading hinge point 5 feet behind the curb face and
3 feet behind the back of sidewalk.
2) "A" Drive Entry Road from Norris Canyon Road to "S"
Drive: construct a 16-foot inbound lane and a 28-
foot outbound roadway, within a 64-foot right-of-
way. The outbound roadway shall consist of a 12-
foot left-turn lane and a 16-foot right-turn lane.
Special conditions:
"No Parking".
Additional width will be required for any raised
median island.
3) "A" Drive Entry Road from "S" Drive to the "A" Drive
Loop Road: construct a 28-foot road within a 48-
foot right-of-way with no parking on either side.
However, within Subdivision 7578 where units are
located along the east side of the road, construct
a 34-foot road within a 54-foot right-of-way with
parking allowed along the east side of the road
only. Special conditions:
"No Parking" allowed at 28-foot road cross-section
areas.Provide adequate off-street parking or parking
bays subject to the Public Works Department, Road
Engineering Division review, and review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator.Provide circular
driveways or hammerhead turnarounds at each of the
driveways.
** Ordinance Code exception to allow a 10% maximum
grade (8% required by the Ord. Code) without on-
street parking.
** Ordinance Code exception to allow a reduction in
road and right-of-way width from a 40/60 to a 28/48
22
without on-street parking and to a 34/54 with on-
street parking along the east side of the road and
with adequate corner and stopping sight distance.
4) "A" Drive Loop Road beginning 800 feet south of its
intersection with itself around, clockwise, to its
intersection with itself: construct a 32-foot road
within a 52-foot right-of-way. Special conditions:
"No Parking" allowed on the inside of the loop road.
The maximum grade shall be 15% (Ord. Code) .
Provide at least 6 off-street parking spaces for at
least 50% of the units.
** Ordinance Code exception to allow a reduction in
road and right-of-way width from a 36/56 to a 32/52
without parking on one side of the street and with
adequate corner and stopping sight distance.
5) "A" Drive Loop Road from its intersection southerly
to 800 feet south of its intersection with itself:
construct a 40-foot road within a 60-foot right-
of-way. Special conditions:
Provide adequate off-street parking to allow on-
street parking for the swim and tennis club y
subject to review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. Parking allowed on both sides of
road.
6) "B" Drive from Lot 321 to "C" Court: construct a
28-foot road within a 48-foot right-of-way. Special
conditions:
"No Parking" allowed except in adequate parking
bays.
Provide circular driveways or hammerhead turnarounds
at each of the driveways.
Realign "B" Drive between Lot 321 and 331 to
eliminate small horizontal alignment undulations.
** Ordinance Code exception to allow a 20% grade (15%
required by the Ord. Code) without on-street
parking.
** Ordinance Code exception to allow a reduction in
road and right-of-way width from a 36/56 to a 28/48
without on-street parking and with adequate corner
and stopping sight distance.
7) "B" Drive from the "A" Drive Loop Road to Lot 321:
construct a 32-foot road within a 52-foot right-
of-way. Special conditions:
"No Parking" allowed on the south side of the
street, except in adequate parking bays.
Provide circular driveways or hammerhead turnarounds
at each of the driveways.
8) "K" Drive Entry Road throat area from the "A" Drive
Loop to the "K" Drive Loop Road: construct a 36-
foot road within a 56-foot right-of-way. Parking
allowed on both sides.
9) "S" Drive: construct a 28-foot road within a 48-
foot right-of-way. Special conditions:
"No Parking" allowed.
** Ordinance Code exception to allow a reduction in
road and right-of-way width from a 32/52 to a 28/48
without parking along one side of the street.
23
10) "T" Court North between the "T" Drive Entry Road
and "S" Drive: construct a 32-foot road within a
52-foot right-of-way. Special conditions:
"No Parking" allowed on one side of the street,
except in adequate parking bays.
11) "T" Drive Entry Road from Norris Canyon Road to "T"
Court North: construct a 32-foot road within a 52-
foot right-of-way. Special conditions:
"No Parking" allowed.
12) "B" Drive West of "C" Court; "C" Court; "D" Court;
"E" Court; ''F" Court; "G" Court; "H" Court; "I"
Court; "J" Court; "K" Drive Loop Road; "M" Court;
"N" Court; "T" Court North, south of "S" Drive; and
"T" Court South: construct a 28-foot minimum width
road. Special conditions:
"No Parking" allowed on one side of the street (the
inside of the curve where feasible) , except in
adequate parking bays.
For "K" Drive Loop Road, "No Parking" on the inside
of the loop.
** Ordinance Code exception to allow a reduction in
road and right-of-way width from a 32/52 to a 28/48
without parking on one side of the street and
adequate corner and stopping sight distance.
J. Timing for Construction of Norris Canyon Road/"A" Drive
Safety-Related Improvements. Install safety-related
improvements at the intersection of Norris Canyon Road
and "A" Drive (including traffic signs and
channelization) as approved and at the time required by
the Public Works Department (possibly prior to
construction of any major public or private facilities
and prior to issuance to building permits in these two
subdivisions) .
K. Location of No Parking Signs/Curbside Designations.
Install "No Parking" signs and/or painted "No Parking"
curb designations:
1) Along the west side of "A" Drive from "S" Drive to
its intersection with itself. "No Parking" will
be required on either side of the street along
28-foot road widths. Parking will be allowed on
one side of the street along 32-foot road widths.
2) Along the inside of "A" Drive Loop except within
800 feet from the intersection of "A" Loop with
itself in front of the swim and tennis club.
3) Along both sides of "B" Drive from lot 321 to "C"
Court except in adequate parking bays (at least
7 feet wide) .
4) Along the south side of the curb between Lot 321
and the "A" Drive Loop Road.
5) Along both sides of "S" Drive.
6) Along one side of "T" Court North between the "T"
Drive Entry Road and "S" Drive, except in adequate
parking bays at least 7-feet wide. Along one side
of all other roads greater than 24 feet in width
and not noted otherwise in these Conditions.
7) Along both sides of the "T" Drive Entry Road.
24
8) Along one side of "B" Drive west of "C" Court, "C"
Court, "D" Court, "E" Court, "F" Court, "G" Court,
"H" Court "I" Court, "J" Court, "K" Drive Loop Road,
"M" Court, "N" Court, "T" Court North south of "S"
Drive, "T" Court South except in adequate parking
bays at least 7-feet wide. "No Parking" shall be
allowed on the inside of the "K" Drive Loop Road.
9) Special parking shall be provided along "A" Drive
to accommodate parking for Wiedemann Hill trail
users per Condition 27.
L. Prevention of Storm Drainage Across Sidewalks and
Driveways. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the
property and conveyed in a concentrated manner, from
draining across sidewalks and driveways.
M. Omit.
N. Proof of Right of Entry. Furnish proof to the Public
Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the
acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits
and/or easements for those improvements constructed with
each phase.
O. Acquisition of Off-Site Rights-of-Way and Easements. If,
after good faith negotiations, the applicant is unable
to acquire necessary rights-of-way and easements, he
shall enter into an agreement with the County to complete
the necessary improvements at such time as the County
acquires the necessary interests in accordance with
Section 66462 and 66462 . 5 of the Subdivision Map Act (the
County must make a subsequent independent determination
to exercise its condemnation authority) .
P. Private Roads Maintenance Agreements. Establish
maintenance agreements to insure future maintenance of
the private roads/common driveways and the Emergency
Vehicle Access within the subdivision boundaries.
Q. Redesign of Entry Road. The entry road from Norris
Canyon shall be redesigned from a split double entry to
a single road conventional access to reduce visual
impacts.
R. Extension of "S" Drive. Extend "S" Drive to the westerly
property line of Subdivision 7578 as a 52-foot
right-of-way. No improvements are to be constructed at
this time.
S. Norris Canyon Road Maintenance and Repair Bond and
Survey. The applicant shall post a bond to assure
maintenance and repair of Norris Canyon Road during the
construction period before it is improved in accordance
with these Conditions of Approval. The amount of the
bond shall be based on anticipated repairs, and a road
condition survey taken prior to the initiation of any
construction work, subject to the review of the Public
Works Department, Road Engineering Division, and the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The
road condition survey shall be based on a joint
investigation by the Public Works Department and the
developers representative. When warranted by a
degradation in road condition, or when requested by the
Zoning Administrator, a joint re-evaluation of the road
condition shall be performed with recommended mitigations
to bring the road up to at least its previous standard
subject to the review of the Public Works Department,
25
Road Engineering Division, and the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator.
T. Potential for Formation of New Area of Benefit. Certain
improvements required by the Conditions of Approval for
this development or the County Subdivision Ordinance Code
may become eligible for credit or reimbursement against
area of benefit fees, if an area of benefit is formed for
construction of those improvements. The developer should
contact the Public Works Department to determine what
would be required to form an area of benefit and to
personally determine the extent of any credit or
reimbursement for which he might be eligible. The costs
associated with the formation of the area of benefit
would be an obligation of the applicant.
Environmental Compliance
50. Update to Mitigation Monitoring Program; Mitigation Measures
or Conditions of Approval. The applicant shall submit any
modifications, updates or further details to the approved
mitigation monitoring program for approval by the Zoning
Administrator prior to final development plan approval. As
an additional condition of approval, the applicant shall
timely comply with all mitigation measures set forth in the
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report or otherwise
adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
Development Agreement and Related Fees
51. Light Rail System Feasibility Study; Affordable Housing Trust
Fund; Homeless Trust Fund; Timing for Payment. With the
recordation of the first phased final map, the applicant shall
contribute a lump sum equal to $25 per each of the 371 lots
in the project to a non-profit trust fund to study the
feasibility of a light rail system for Contra Costa County.
With the recordation of each phased final map, the applicant
shall contribute a pro rata amount equal to: 1) $3, 333 per
each lot in that phase as an in-lieu contribution to a County-
established affordable housing trust fund; and 2) per
voluntary contribution by the applicant, an amount equal to
that phase's pro rata share of a total of $150, 000 to the
County-established homeless trust fund. Provided, however,
all contributions shall be paid within five years from date
of recordation of the first phased final map. Said
contributions shall be deposited with the Community
Development Department.
Energy Efficiency
52 . Special Energy Efficiency Requirements. Homes shall be
designed to meet energy efficiency standards of 10% more than
the requirements of Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations currently in effect, unless otherwise approved by
the Zoning Administrator as to glass efficiency standards to
provide architectural design flexibility. In each garage, an
electrical outlet shall be installed and dedicated for
potential use in recharging electrical vehicles.
Indemnification
53 . Indemnification of County by Applicant. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 66474 . 9 , the applicant (including the
subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul,
the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map
application, which action is brought within the time period
26
provided for in Section 66499. 37 . The County will promptly
notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
and cooperate fully in the defense.
27
ADVISORY NOTES
A. The project lies within the 100-year flood boundary as
designated on the Federal Emergency Management Association
Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of
the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and
the County Flood Plain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No..
87-65) as they pertain to future construction of any
structures on this property.
B. This project may be subject to the requirements of the
Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box 47 , Yountville, California
94599, of any proposed construction within this development
that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish
& Game Code.
C. This project may also be subject to the requirements of the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant should notify the
appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine
if a permit is required and if it can be obtained.
D. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements
of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance as adopted by the
Board of Supervisors.
E. Certain improvements required by the Conditions of Approval
for this development or the County Subdivision Ordinance Code
may be eligible for credit or reimbursement against said fee.
The developer should contact the Public Works Department to
personally determine the extent of any credit or reimbursement
for which he might be eligible.
F. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules,
regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) as promulgated by the California
State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its regional
water quality control boards (San Francisco Bay Region II or
Central Valley-Region V) .
G. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District.
H. Comply with the development fee payment requirements of the
San Ramon Valley Unified School District at time of issuance
of building permits.
. I. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services
Department, Environmental Health Section (646-2521) .
J. Comply with the requirements of the Construction Use of
Recycled Water Ordinance (No. 91-24) .
K. The applicant is advised that the tax for the police services
district is currently set by the Board of Supervisors at $200
per parcel annually (with appropriate future Consumer Price
Index [CPI] adjustments) . The annual fee is subject to
modification by the Board of Supervisors in the future. The
current fee for holding the election is $800 and is also
subject to modification in the future. The applicable tax and
fee amounts will be those established by the Board at the time
of voting.
L. LAFCO and the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD)
are advised that the Board of Supervisors, in approving this
project and in petitioning LAFCO for the Norris Canyon Road
Area Boundary Reorganization, with respect to the provision
of water service to the project, has based its actions in part
on the facts that the EBMUD represents the only available
water supply for this area and the amount of water that will
28
i
I
I
be used by this project and in the area of the boundary
reorganization represents substantially less then one percent
of overall current and projected water service demand in
EBMUD. The Board's actions are further based on the fact that
any apparent additional minor annexations to EBMUD will not
cumulatively represent an appreciable percentage of future
projected water demand in EBMUD. The Board also recognizes
that the issue has yet to be resolved whether, prior to water
service being provided by EBMUD to large areas designated for
substantial new urban use that are outside EBMUD's boundaries,
an increase in its water supplies may be required. Approval
of this relatively small project should not be considered as
a precedent, justification, or premature Board support for
other boundary reorganizations that involve annexation to
EBMUD, including such large areas designated for new
substantial urban use. The growth management and service
issues are fundamentally different. Such boundary
reorganizations and projects, including their compliance with
the County's growth management standards, must be considered
on their own merits and facts without regard to the Board's
actions here.
M. The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) is advised that
in approving this project with its three agricultural lots,
the Board of Supervisors has not required dedication of land
but is allowing the opportunity for a gift of private land to
EBRPD by the property owners as outlined in the agricultural
lots map. In not requiring a dedication of land to the EBRPD
and instead allowing an opportunity for a gift of land and
otherwise for continued private ownership in combination with
deed restrictions and scenic easements, the Board recognizes
the unique circumstances of the property and its owners. The
approach used here should not be considered an example or
precedent for other projects in Contra Costa County.
11-23-92
29
�— ��.� •'`-tom^�` \ i : A"'/iJ�
itll/ Illi,;! _-p-.c.:���y�.-'n
�� ,':/' :lit` .. �._�_� fir' J'
\\\ �. :. .k•...I :..-.—.....-�/'.`\ \L ''%%i" J�\' �';,:'. '` - -_o''; _ "'rte l _ '�.'�::. �'� �:\`J
\\�� •t..: ,� ,` \\�i.i vi •;;:i ,;_ ,. II 1 fii\',I %rte: ''/' �� •'rte=�.�:---'�
�\ .: ^ ;.�_= / � ����-_ - �:;: - �`~i,/:-_.;.�"y-�. tom- ��'.•� - = ,t_t�
4
J /. ._ 1,).�:�'�", .� (��=���.� ate'...,., - ° ,.� .'I�� � � - ��,. - ,..,. I•
It � ------
/ % ��•'\:"x.�,, �`•••�\•. \�-„�i'..� .\•'` r I`': I� :i � r �'j ..,,�' �`-, ���,::,, Yy;�.ter.
,
Tj
if
.1'tl � \i, I / � I�(/�C.`-__- 'j \ q ��''',:���'�; '�// 'Y l'-j•1 r� :>'ti:� 'I \ •,��'_ :;;;,:';f• ''hil. �
111 //( 11 .'--- :�;;,:ii�\. -� i.\ '�:\\ �'a. .�a �� •'Y:, - ,. -� \ I..I11 1'y 'I: II.
�iJ • Q:� �. ,�..�, ~� ' _j I� \,\l ''-�\\' is �Ei:ll�
I
I
J :
fey �c'i�•; � .R � , I ` ���t...
_=f ` � �. ;ti\ .i!�I�i� - !ii' - � i��'. `'. �.;'�1:•;;._ '-I�.:::� I-i'I'(�'__; ...— al III�II/��`'`•''� ��.
I:, 1. •\ �:� ,.. ��: ..
\� 4
V- \
I -
,u(., � - ����\ (V.`\, �' _4 w n \ ,,'.1�_ IH” n�l:• _�6 ''�'''� s ���\' --" i�/_' \ \\\ I I
��
_�_ f � �%�.7''�-- �\ � �' ( �� � +jl • -.�': `!�� "�.$ rte` p � 1''�''I I I �.
�\ . \\�\� :.`; \�'','"H:ji0�;i:,i// J_%;•-_- Jill, fi .
r` / 4�' p��;.•' '` $„@ _
lll %' � - -+��� :\\•;':: ,Ire- - 1 �
)I ��,._ \.-�,� �ISI l,�il�;:- •'�.. �.\.: :'.I, �' �� � `�', 1;?�,� --,R; '��Ysh. �\ � \
l \�/,,./ ��\. �. :l\\/.,,�l\�`'. \>\\ r ,�_� '."`.fir .r _ :� ;�,,\�,�`. -.� :;•
E-1
� (P,
� , . ;\cam.. I l`• -�, -� � _��.�} _� � �
��Jl Ill . �` �:�1 �' \, \,•\ \; .II' �� �`
'�.; \. __ -�.-__ •, :\�`\ II.'.�' `''.';;”--fit \ � �.
IN OR
i1 .. :\\. ' sem✓ \ ^' \r \ _ �`J
pig
Go o
z n
.\\\`� \
W N azo � I �N \��\,\� \
til
� a o
EXHIBIT F
FINDINGS RELATED TO CERTIFICATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR
WIEDEMANN RANCH RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY PROJECT
(Exhibit F-1)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PART 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Project Description/Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. . Prior Environmental Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Determination to Utilize SEIR. . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Scope of SEIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Description of Record. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F. General Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PART 2 . FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Guide to the CEQA Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Board Incorporation by Reference and
Adoption of All Mitigation Measures
and Findings Made by City of San Ramon
in Resolution No. 89-188 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Mitigation of Potentially
Significant Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Additional Impacts and
Mitigation Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Significant Unavoidable or
Irreversible Adverse Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F. Cumulative Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
G. Significant Irreversible Changes. . . . . . . . . . . .
H. Growth-Inducing Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I. Relationship Between Short-Term
Use and Long-Term Productivity. . . . . . . . . . . .
J. Project Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
K. Statement of Overriding Considerations. . . .
L. Consistency with the General Plan. . . . . . . . .
i
Exhibit F-1
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
FINDINGS RELATED TO CERTIFICATION OF
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
WIEDEMANN RANCH RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY PROJECT
December 8, 1992
This Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Contra
Costa, California (the "County") hereby adopts and makes the
following resolutions and findings (the "Findings") relating to
its approval of the Wiedemann Ranch Residential Community Project
(the "Project") and certification of a supplemental environmental
impact report (the "SEIR") and addendum prepared for the Board's
consideration of the Project and the acceptance as adequate the
complete environmental documentation for the Project, including the
Westside Specific Plan Final EIR.
PART 1
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I. Introduction
To assist the reader in understanding the course of events leading
to this Board's approval of the Project and certification of the
SEIR, and in understanding the format and content of these
Findings, set forth below is a brief history of the Project, prior
environmental review, and the County's procedures leading to
preparation of the SEIR and adoption of these Findings.
A. Project Description/Location
1. Description
The Project site consists of two parcels (subdivisions 7575 and
7578) , totaling 1, 143 . 5 acres. Subdivision 7575 encompasses
approximately 1, 052 acres; Subdivision 7578 is approximately 91
acres.
The current use of the Project area is for cattle grazing. The
current zoning is Agricultural Preserve (A-4) . Consistent with
such zoning, each parcel has a Williamson Act contract with the
County. Notices of Nonrenewal for such contracts have been filed
with the owners.
The Project will allow development with 371 single-family
residential lots and associated infrastructure. The Project
includes a 8.8 acre community park with approximately 172 acres
left as common open space. The remaining 673 acres will be
preserved as privately-owned, deed restricted agricultural land and
public open space. This 673 acres will be divided into three
agricultural parcels (averaging approximately 200 acres each) with
one "development site" within each parcel and Parcel "I" that is
expected to be offered to the East Bay Regional Park District.
The Project's residential development will consist of single-
family lots of varying sizes. Each lot will be divided into three
areas as follows: the "Building Areas" within which the
construction of the primary residential structure and garages will
take place; the "Controlled Development Areas" within which pools,
gardens, fencing and other ancillary structures could be developed;
and "Private Open Space Areas" within each lot where no development
could take place. The Private Open Space Area within each lot will
provide a buffer between residential development on the lots and
deed restricted agricultural and open space on the rest of the
property.
1
In February, 1991, the Project applicant filed applications with
the County for rezoning, final development plan and subdivision
applications for 371 units. Subsequently, the Project property
owners filed petitions to cancel the existing Williamson Act
contracts on the two Project properties.
2 . Location
The Project is located approximately 2 . 5 miles to the southwest of
downtown San Ramon along the south side of Norris Canyon Road. The
Project is located within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa
County and within the sphere of influence of San Ramon.
3. Discretionary Approvals
The Project requires the following discretionary approvals by the
County: rezoning from A-4 to Planned Unit District (P-1) ;
Preliminary and Final Development Plan approval; Vesting Tentative
Map; amendments to existing Wiedemann Ranch Development Agreements;
cancellation of the Williamson Act contracts and related approvals.
The Project also requires approvals from the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) for annexations. The Final Development Plan
application has been withdrawn and will be subsequently processed.
B. Prior Environmental Review
Development of the Project area has been considered and evaluated
the Program EIR on the Westside Specific Plan certified by the City
of San Ramon in October, 1989 (the "WSP EIR") and relied on as part
of the environmental documentation for this Project. The EIR on
the Contra Costa County General Plan certified by this Board in
January, 1991 (the "General Plan EIR") has been incorporated by
reference into the FSEIR as an informational document only as
allowed pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
1. Westside Specific Plan EIR
The Project is located within the sphere of influence of the City
of San Ramon. San Ramon's General Plan, adopted in November, 1986,
contained general policies for the eventual development of the
"Westside subarea", which includes the Project area, and designated
such area for residential development. Policy 2 . 4H of San Ramon's
General Plan required the preparation of a specific plan for
undeveloped land prior to consideration of zoning proposals or
development for the Westside subarea. The Specific Plan for
Westside San Ramon (WSP) was adopted in November, 1989 .
The WSP assessed future development in two subareas: (1) the Norris
Canyon Road Area, which includes the Project area; and (2) the San
Ramon Valley Boulevard Area, which includes property adjacent to
San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Interstate 680.
The WSP EIR was prepared, adopted, and certified as the
environmental review document for the WSP. The WSP EIR
specifically analyzed environmental impacts and set forth
mitigation measures for development of a residential project
consisting of approximately 450 homes in the Project area.
2 . General Plan EIR
In January, 1991, the Board adopted the Contra Costa County General
Plan 1990-2005 (the "County General Plan") . The County General
Plan designated the Project site for Single Family Residential -
Low Density, and Agricultural lands. Concurrently, the Board
certified the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR specifically
references the WSP EIR, and further considers and assesses
residential development of the Project area. The General Plan EIR
assumed development of 528 units on the Project site in its
analysis of potential impacts, including cumulative impacts and
growth inducing impacts.
2
C. Determination to Utilize SEIR
The Project applications were submitted in February, 1991. The
Project as proposed by the applicant was designed to accumulate
most of the applicable mitigation measures and design criteria set
forth in the WSP EIR.
The Project was designed to reduce impacts at least to the extent
envisioned in the WSP EIR, if not more so.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines at
§15162 require that where an EIR has previously been prepared,
additional environmental review is necessary where changes are
proposed in the project, changes in circumstances have occurred,
or new information becomes available showing significant impacts.
(§15162 (a) (1) - (3) )
The County prepared an Initial Study to determine the extent of
further environmental review required for the Project. The Initial
Study was thus drafted to determine if new significant impacts,
(i.e. , impacts not previously studied and addressed in the WSP EIR)
would result from the Project.
The County staff determined that preparation of a supplemental EIR
(SEIR) was appropriate, pursuant to CEQA at Public Resource Code
(PRC) §21166, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines at §15163 .
Consistent with such statute and Guidelines, staff determined that
only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the
previous environmental document (WSP EIR) adequately apply to the
Project, and that the SEIR would be prepared.
On December 13 , 1991, County staff issued a Notice of Preparation
for the SEIR. The Notice of Preparation outlined the scope of the
SEIR, and attached an Expanded Initial Study of Environmental
Issues (the "Expanded Initial Study") for the Project.
Staff, through its Expanded Initial study and responses to comments
based thereon, identified three (3) issues which were not fully
discussed and addressed in the WSP EIR, and which could give rise
to new potentially significant impacts. The three issues are as
follows:
Land Use - The WSP EIR did not evaluate the Project's
consistency with the goals, policies and development
guidelines of the later-adopted (County) General Plan. The
SEIR thus evaluates the Project's consistency with the
policies of all General Plan Elements.
. Aesthetics - As part of the Project approval process,
the applicant submitted a new comprehensive viewshed analysis.
The SEIR provides further environmental review of such new
information.
Traffic - As part of the Project approval process, the
applicant submitted a traffic analysis prepared in accordance
with the provisions of the Contra Costa County's
Transportation Authority Growth Management Program (Measure
C) , and the City of San Ramon's Ordinance 164 , Guidelines for
Implementation of the Traffic and Circulation Element of the
General Plan. These documents were not adopted until after
adoption of the WSP EIR, necessitating further review in the
SEIR.
D. Scope of SEIR
The Expanded Initial Study confirmed that the County would be the
Lead Agency and would utilize the WSP EIR as the Program EIR, which
when combined with the SEIR will provide the environmental
documentation required by CEQA.
3
1. Categories Which Contain Potentially Significant
Impacts
As stated, staff determined that potentially significant impacts
notaddressed in the WSP EIR fall within three areas: Land Use,
Aesthetics, and Traffic (traffic was added after preparation of the
draft SEIR was underway) . Thus, in the SEIR, full environmental
review is accorded for these areas, i.e. , all potentially
significant impacts with regard to the Project are identified, and
mitigation measures required to reduce such impacts to
insignificant levels are identified.
2. Issues Previously Addressed/New Mitigation
Measures
The Expanded Initial Study also identified certain Project impacts
that staff felt warranted further discussion in the SEIR. These
impacts are within the following categories: Animal life; Drainage;
Plant Life; Noise; Fire Hazard/Emergency Access; Earth/Geology; and
Water.
The Expanded Initial Study confirmed that impacts in the above
categories were previously, fully addressed in the WSP EIR, and
mitigated to insignificant levels pursuant to mitigation measures
listed in the WSP EIR. Staff decided that, although CEQA does not
require that such Project impacts be addressed in the SEIR, the
public would be better informed if discussion of such impacts were
included in the SEIR.
Staff further noted that the Project adopts mitigation measures
beyond those required by the WSP EIR; thus discussion of these
impacts enables identification and adoption of such further
mitigation measures.
E. Scope of These Findings
CEQA Guidelines at 15091 require that a project's significant
environmental impacts identified in an EIR must be addressed by
one of three findings, as set forth at 15091 (a) - (c) . The EIR in
this matter consists of the WSP EIR and the SEIR. To ensure that
all Project impacts are identified, and necessary Findings made,
these Findings will: (1) list the Project impacts and mitigation
measures identified in the WSP EIR, and set forth the corresponding
required Findings; and (2) list the Project impacts and mitigation
measures identified in the SEIR, and set forth the corresponding
required Findings.
The SEIR mitigation measures have been modified by the Board in
some instances to more accurately reflect specific conditions or
changes in project design. In each instance the revised mitigation
measure provides the same or better mitigation and substantially
mitigates any significant environmental impacts.
F. Description of the Record
For the purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the record before this
Board relating to the Project includes, without limitation, the
following:
1. The County General Plan, and the General Plan EIR;
2 . The San Ramon General Plan, the Westside Specific
Plan, and the WSP EIR;
3 . The FSEIR;
4 . All documents submitted as part of the Project
application, and all studies, reports, and materials
accompanying or referenced in such application; and
4
5. All documentary and oral . evidence received and
reviewed, including at public hearings, relating to
the Project, and to the adoption of the SEIR, the
County General Plan and zoning ordinances, the
General Plan EIR, the San Ramon General Plan, the
Westside Specific Plan, the WSP EIR, the Alameda
County General Plan and zoning ordinances, the West
Dublin Specific Plan, and all related documents,
including the list of documents included here as
Attachment 1.
G. General Considerations
1. Reliance on the Record. Each and all of the
findings and determinations contained herein are based upon. the
competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written,
contained in the entire record relating to the Project. The
findings and determinations constitute the independent findings
and determinations of this Board in all respects and are supported
by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
2. Nature of Findings. Any finding made by this Board
shall be deemed made regardless of where it appears in this
document. All of the language included in this document
constitutes Findings by this Board, whether or not any particular
sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. This Board
intends that these Findings be considered as an integrated whole
and, whether or not any part of these Findings fails to cross-
reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these
Findings, that any Finding required or permitted to be made by this
Board with respect to any particular subject matter of
the Project shall be deemed made it is appears in any portion of
these Findings.
3. Limitations. The Board's analysis and evaluation
of the Project is based on the best information currently
available.
4. summaries of Facts, Impacts, Mitigation Measures,
Alternatives, and Other Matters. All summaries of information
related to the Project are based on the referenced environmental
documents and/or other evidence in the record. The absence of any
particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a
particular Finding is not based in part on that fact. Moreover,
the summaries set forth below, including, without limitation,
summaries of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives, are
only summaries. This document includes only as much detail as may
be necessary to show the basis for the findings set forth below.
Cross-references to the WSP EIR, the SEIR, the WSP, and the County
General Plan have been made where helpful, and the reader should
refer directly to those documents, the other referenced documents,
and other evidence in the record for more precise information
regarding the facts on which the summary is based.
S. Adoption of Mitigation Measures. These Findings
are based upon the numerous mitigation measures to be required in
the Project as recommended by the WSP EIR/SEIR as modified by the
Board, or as already having been incorporated into the Project.
This Board is hereby adopting and incorporating into the Project
those mitigation measures recommended in the WSP EIR/SEIR as
modified which have not already been incorporated into the Project
(with the exception of those mitigation measures that are rejected
by the Board or found to be within the responsibility of another
agency as more fully set forth below) . This Board finds that all
of the mitigation measures now or previously incorporated into the
Project are desirable and feasible and shall be implemented in
connection with the Project in accordance with the adopted
mitigation monitoring program.
5
6. Specific and General Mitigation. The WSP EIR and
SEIR generally identify, for each potentially significant impact
of the Project, one or more corresponding mitigation measures to
lessen or avoid such impact. For ease of reference to those
documents, this document is organized in a similar manner.
However, this Board recognizes that many ofthe mitigation measures
described below or in the WSP EIR/SEIR as modified may lessen or
avoid identified impacts other than those for which they are
specifically proposed.
In light of the above, this Board finds that (a) each mitigation
measure adopted by this Board or already incorporated into the
Project may avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant
impacts other than the impact to which such mitigation measure is
corresponded in the WSP EIR/SEIR or below and (b) each significant
impact identified by the WSP EIR/SEIR is mitigated both by its
corresponding mitigation measures to the extent set forth in such
documents or below ("Specific Mitigation") and by other, non-
corresponding mitigation measures adopted by this Board or already
incorporated into the Project ("General Mitigation") . These
Findings shall be applicable wherever supported by the evidence in
the record regardless of whether a specific finding of an instance
of such General Mitigation is made. However, the Findings of
Specific Mitigation made below are independent of, and in no way
depend on, the existence of any instance of General Mitigation
except to the extent that a court may find any Finding of Specific
Mitigation to be inadequate or unsupported by the evidence in the
record.
PART 2
FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT (CEOA)
I. Introduction
These findings (Findings) are made pursuant to the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as set forth at
Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21000 et see .
A. Guide to the CEQA Findings
These CEQA Findings (Part 2 of this document) are set forth
in Sections A - R, as follows:
Section A consists of this Guide to the CEQA Findings.
Section B consists of the Boards incorporation by reference
and adoption of all mitigation measures and findings made by the
City of San Ramon as part of its certification of the WSP EIR in
Resolution No. 89-188 .
Section C consists of identification of potentially
significant impacts in the areas of Land Use, Aesthetics, and
Traffic. These potentially significant impacts were not fully
discussed and addressed in the WSP EIR, and are thus addressed in
the SEIR.
With regard to each identified potentially significant impact
in Section C, the following format is followed: First, mitigation
measures are identified and proposed to lessen or
avoid those impacts, including those mitigation measures which have
already been incorporated into the Project; second, facts are set
forth which explain use of the mitigation measures to reduce the
identified impacts and otherwise justify the ultimate finding made
and; third, with respect to each identified impact, one of the
three findings required by CEQA Guidelines (§15091 (a) (1) -(3) ) is
made.
6
Section D consists of a discussion of further issues and
impacts which are raised by the Project. Staff determined that
these impacts were identified, addressed, and mitigated by measures
set forth in the WSP EIR. With regard to these issues/impacts, the
Expanded Initial Study and the SEIR do not raise additional
significant impacts. However, the SEIR does raise additional
mitigation measures beyond those identified in the WSP EIR which
will further mitigate the impacts. To facilitate identification
and discussion of these new mitigation measures, and to ensure. that
all impacts have been identified, the same format as referenced for
Section C will be followed.
With regard to both Sections C and D, above, the impacts and
mitigation measures set forth in the WSP EIR are set forth first,
with appropriate, corresponding Findings by the County Board
pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15091.
Section E sets forth Findings with regard to the Project's
significant unavoidable or irreversible adverse impacts. These
impacts are discussed in the SEIR at p. 3-87 .
Section F sets forth Findings with regard to the Project's
cumulative impacts. These impacts are discussed in the SEIR at
p. 3-88 .
Section G sets forth Findings with regard to the Project's
significant irreversible changes. These impacts are discussed in
the SEIR at p. 3-88 .
Section H sets forth Findings with regard to the Project's
growth inducing impacts. These impacts are discussed in the SEIR
at p. 3-89.
Section I sets forth Findings with regard to the relationship
between short-term uses and long-term productivity. These issues
are discussed in the SEIR at p. 3-94 .
Section J sets forth Findings with regard to the Project
alternatives. These alternatives are set forth in the SEIR at p. 4-
1.
Section K sets forth the Statement of Overriding
Considerations. The Board has adopted this Statement even though
no unavoidable significant impacts remain and therefore it is
unnecessary under CEQA. This statement has been adopted in the
event it is determined subsequently that one was required.
Section L addresses the Project's consistency with the Contra
Costa County General Plan.
B. Board Incorporation by Reference and Adoption of
Mitigation Measures and Findings Made By City of San Ramon in
Resolution No. 89-188
The WSP EIR includes discussion of the impacts of a
residential project in the Project area. The WSP EIR specifically
lists impacts which relate to the Project, and mitigation measures,
regarding such impacts and mitigation measures. The City of San
Ramon set forth such impacts and mitigation measures, and made
specific findings thereon, in its Resolution No. 89-188 , adopted
on October 24 , 1989.
This Board hereby:
(1) incorporates by reference such Resolution;
(2) adopts as its own such Resolution in its entirety;
and
7
(3) specifically adopts as its own all mitigation
measures and findings made by the City of San Ramon
in such Resolution, except as may be modified or
amended in these Findings to reflect the fact hat
the Board is considering this Project only,not the
WSP, including the Findings that for this Project
all unavoidable impacts have been mitigated to a
level of insignificance.
The Expanded Initial Study set forth three findings to be made
with regard to project approval and utilization of the WSP
EIR/SEIR. Consistent with the history and procedures set forth
above, and with the remaining Findings set forth in this Part 2 ,
the Board hereby makes the following three Findings:
(1) The 1989 WSP EIR has been prepared and certified as
adequate by the City of San Ramon, is adequate under
CEQA, including PRC §21166 and Guideline 515163 , and
is being relied on by the County decision making
bodies as the new Lead Agency to consider this
Project;
(2) The SEIR, including its responses to comments, is
complete and adequate under CEQA, including PRC
§21166 and Guidelines §§15163 , 15090 and 15091; and
(3) The only impacts requiring environmental review in
a supplemental environmental document under
Guidelines §15163 are identified and discussed in
the SEIR.
C. Mitigation of Potentially Significant Impacts
Land Use
Land Use Impacts/Mitigation Measures Identified in the WSP EIR
1. WSP Impact: The City of San Ramon General Plan requires that
slopes over 20 percent be dedicated as Open Space, while the
Specific Plan allows limited development on slopes up to 30
percent. This General Plan policy is implemented by the RCOD
ordinance.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation:
4 . 1-2 : Grant variances as needed from RCOD
4 . 1-2 Revise the WSP
b. - Facts: The San Ramon General Plan allows grading to
create building sites of less than 20 percent, provided
that: creeks are retained; wooded slopes visible from
San Ramon Valley Boulevard are retained; graded land
forms are natural; and all woodland is replaced at a 1. 5
to 1 ration. The WSP policies are consistent with these
provisions, and the Project is based upon the Specific
Plan criteria and satisfies these provisions. The WSP,
and the Project, includes features which will avoid or
substantially lessen the effects identified in the WSP
EIR. The Project minimizes grading in the creation of
building sites. Wherever possible, natural contours are
to be retained vs. a "padded" development. The majority
of existing waterways are respected to preserve tree
cover and riparian corridors. Significant ridgelines are
preserved and protected from development. Graded areas
will be contoured to match adjacent undisturbed areas.
Woodlands are proposed to be replaced at a 3 : 1 ratio (net
5 year survival rate assured) . See also condition 17 .
8
The Project is within the County jurisdiction. The San
Ramon does not have jurisdiction and 'neither its General
Plan with the Save Our Hills provisions nor the San Ramon
RCOD applies to this site. This Project is inconsistent
with the new San Ramon General Plan. The development of
this Project, or anything comparable to it, would not be
possible if compliance with San Ramon's General Plan were
required, even though it is consistent with the County's
General Plan.
C. Findings: The Project need not be consistent with
the San Ramon General Plan nor the RCOD. Further,
Project validity does not depend on consistency of
the WSP with the San Ramon General Plan. The
Project is a sensitive hillside development that
incorporates the presentation of substantial open
space, That the Project does not comply with the
San Ramon General Plan is not a significant impact
that must be mitigated.
2 . WSP Impact: Proposed development under the Specific Plan
would be inconsistent with the Contra Costa County General
Plan.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation:
Upon annexation, the land will be subject to San Ramon
Policies. No mitigation necessary
b. Facts: The County General Plan was adopted on January
29, 1991, after the adoption of the WSP. The County
General Plan reflects the proposed project site as Single
Family Residential. The Project will be approved under
County jurisdiction, and may never by annexed into the
City of San Ramon. The Project is consistent with the
General Plan.
c. Findings: As shown below, the Project is consistent with
the County General Plan. The impact is insignificant and
no mitigation is required.
3. WSP Impact: Development consistent with the Specific Plan
would not be consistent with the agricultural zoning districts
currently applied to the Westside.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation:
4 . 1-4 : Rezone the area consistent with Specific Plan
policies.
b. Facts: The City of San Ramon rezoned the plan area on
November 14 , 1989, consistent with the WSP. The Project
includes rezoning from A-4 to P-1.
C. Findings: The Project is consistent with the WSP zoning
districts; although it need not be because it is being
approved by the County. The Project is consistent with
the County zoning districts as approved herein. The
impact is insignificant and no mitigation is required.
4. WSP Impact: Proposed development under the Specific Plan
would in some areas not be in conformance with the Resource
Conservation Overlay District (RCOD) .
a. WSP EIR Mitigation:
4 . 1-5 Grant variances as needed.
9
4 . 1-6 Revise the Specific Plan to eliminate development
in violation of RCOD.
b. Facts: The RCOD is discussed below as one of the Project
Alternatives. This is essentially the Save Our Hills
Initiative, alternative and avoidance alternative, too.
See Facts set forth under WSP Impact 1, above.
C. Findings: The Project is not consistent with the RCOD
criteria, although it need not be for purposes of
approval by the County because it is not under the
jurisdiction of the RCOD. As a County project, the
impact is not significant and need not be mitigated.
Land Use ImpactsLMitigation Measures Identified in the SEIR
The SEIR sets forth impacts of the Project with regard to Land Use
issues, and corresponding mitigation measures, at pp. 2-1 to 2-20.
5. Impact: The proposed project would result in the conversion
of approximately 280 acres of the 1, 145 acre project from
agricultural use to low density, large lot single-family
residential uses (i.e. , lots, roads, infrastructure) .
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
The Project as proposed and approved provides for
the great majority of lands to be preserved in
perpetuity as open space.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are necessary.
b. Facts: The County General Plan designates the Project
area as single-family residential, low density. The
County General Plan provides the opportunity for
development of approximately 528 units in the Project
area.
Contra Costa County voters on November 6, 1990 adopted
the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan
("Measure C - 1990") . The 64/35 Land Preservation Plan
requires that urban development in the County shall be
limited to no more than 35% of the land in the County.
At least 65% of all land must be preserved for
agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks and other non-
urban uses. To ensure enforcement of the 65/35 standard,
and provide for managed growth, the County established
an Urban Limit Line (ULL) , which is incorporated into the
County's General Plan. The ULL establishes those areas
within which urban development would be allowed, subject
to the goals, policies and implementation measures of the
County General Plan. No urban development can be
designated beyond the ULL.
The Project is consistent with these General Plan
standards. First, the development area of the Project
property is wholly within the ULL. Second, the limited
area proposed for development (288 acres) constitutes
. Olio of the remaining 23 , 982 acres in the County that
may be developed and still maintain the 65/35 County-
wide standard (see Table 3-3 on page 3-18 of the County
General Plan) . Third, the Project has been planned to
reinforce the open space goals inherent in these
standards. Development of the Project will permanently
restrict the greater portion of the property to permanent
open space use. Of the 1, 143 acres of Project property,
10
approximately 854 acres or 75% will be permanently
restricted to agriculture and open space use. With
regard to such 854 acres, parks and common open space of
the project comprise 181 acres, of which 172 acres would
be common open space within the project. The remaining
681 acres will be privately-owned and deed restricted to
agricultural/open space uses. Cattle grazing will
continue on the 673 acres of open space.
Further, of the Project's 511 acres located within the
ULL, 231 acres will remain as open space. Thus, within
the ULL, 45% of the Project site is designated for open
space.
Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire
record before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts relating to conversion of lands
from agricultural use to residential use have been
avoided or substantially lessened by the Project as
approved. The great majority of Project property
will be kept as open space. The Project as approved
will have no significant impact relating to such
conversion.
The Project is consistent with the County General
Plan designation of the Project area as single-
family residential, and with the County General Plan
ULL.
No additional mitigation measures are necessary with
regard to conversion of the Project area lands to
residential use to reduce the impact to a level of
insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
There are no feasible measures to mitigate this
impact any further, and to the extent required by
law, the Board finds that the environmental,
economic, social, and other benefits of the Project
override any remaining impacts relating to
conversion of 288 acres to residential use, as more
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, below.
6. Impact: The proposed residences would be located adjacent to
agricultural uses which would result in land use compatibility
impacts.
a. Mitigation•
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
Measures have been incorporated into the Project
which avoid any insignificant impacts from
residences constructed adjacent to agricultural
uses. The Project has been designed to include
buffer areas between the proposed residential uses
and the existing agricultural and open space uses.
Each lot will include private open space ares within
which no development would be allowed. See also
Williamson Act Findings, Exhibit H.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are necessary.
11
b. Facts: The Project has been designed to include buffer
areas between the proposed residential uses and the
existing agricultural and open space uses. These buffers
would include a fifty foot wide band around the perimeter
of the development area within which no development or
agricultural uses would be allowed. This buffer also
provides a fire break.
In addition to the outer buffer, each lot within the
proposed project will be divided into three separate
areas: (i) the Building Area within which the primary
structure should be built; (ii) the Controlled
Development Area within which ancillary structures (i.e. ,
pools, sheds, gardens) could be built; and (3) the
Private Open Space Area within which development would
not be allowed. The provision of these buffers would
significantly reduce the potential land use conflicts
associated with Project development. An agricultural use
disclosure statement will be recorded on each new lot and
informational booklets will be distributed to new buyers
to make sure buyers are informed of and prepared for
these agricultural uses.
The proposed development would be in the vicinity of the
existing communication facilities atop Wiedemann . Hill.
However, the closest residential lot would be more than
1, 000 feet from the communication facilities, and
approximately 400 vertical feet lower than the
facilities.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, this Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts relating to compatibility of
the residential development with adjacent
agricultural uses and communication facilities have
been avoided or substantially lessened by the
Project as approved. The Projects design, which
includes individual lot open space, and creation of
buffer areas, reduces any impacts to insignificant
levels.
No additional mitigation measures are necessary.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b (2) on page 11.
7. Impact: The Project would require rezoning of the Project
site from the current A-4 zoning to P-1.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project
The Project as approved provides for rezoning to P-
1 for 482 acres, while leaving the vast majority of
the property as open space.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are necessary.
b. Facts: The County General Plan land use designation for
the site is single-family residential, low density
(SL) . Rezoning the developed area of the site to P-1
will allow such area to become consistent with the County
General Plan.
12
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, this Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts from rezoning only 482 acres of
Project property to P-1, while retaining 661 acres
in open space, have been avoided or substantially
lessened by the Project as approved.
The rezoning to P-1 is consistent with the County
General Plan.
No additional mitigation measures are necessary to
reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
8. Impact: The Project should be generally consistent with the
policies of the County General Plan Elements; specifically
the Land Use Element and the Housing Element.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
No additional mitigation measures are necessary with
regard to the Land Use and Housing Elements.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
The Project's consistency with other General Plan
Elements are discussed under other, corresponding
sections of these Findings. (See discussion under
Facts, below. )
b. Facts: The County General Plan contains nine "Elements"
as generally required by state law. The two County
General Plan Elements addressed under this (Land Use)
Section are the Land Use Element and the Housing Element.
(1) Land Use: The land use designation for the proposed
development area is for single-family low density
residential (SL) uses. The proposed project is for
single-family low density and open space.
The County's Land Use Policies most applicable to
new development on the Project site are: (i) the
provision of adequate public services and utilities
(Growth Management Standards) (Policies 3-5, 3-6) ;
(ii) whether or not the new development is within
the - Urban Limit Line (Policy 3-11) ; and (iii)
providing adequate buffers and/or preservation of
prime agricultural land Policies 3-11, 3-12) (see
County General Plan at pp. 3-44 , 3-45) . Discussion
of adequate public services and utilities in
relationship to the County's Growth Management
Standards is set forth in the SEIR at Chapter 3 .2
and discussed in these Findings at under Section D,
below. Discussion of the Project's consistency with
the County General Plan ULL is set forth in this
Land Use Section at Impact 5, above. Discussion of
adequate buffers is set forth in this Land Use
Section at Impact 6, above. Discussion of
preservation of prime agricultural land is set forth
in the SEIR at Chapter 3 . 5 and discussed in these
Findings under Section D, below.
(2) Housing Element: The Project is generally
consistent with the County's Housing Element because
13
the Project is . generally consistent with the
County's General Plan Land Use Map which designates
the site as SL - Single-Family Low Density.
However, the Project would result in the development
of fewer homes on the site than envisioned in the
Housing Element (371 proposed vs. 528 estimated
units in the Housing Element for this site and the
adjoining Freitas site) . This loss of future
housing opportunity would not be considered a
significant impact because the County has
significant amounts of vacant land designated for
development of single family low density housing.
In addition, the Project would contribute an "in
lieu" affordable housing fee of $3 , 333 per approved
residential home. Base on 371 units this fee would
generate approximately $1, 236, 000 for use by the
County in developing additional affordable housing.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before the Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project is consistent with the County General
Plan and with Land Use and Housing Elements set
forth therein. The Project impacts relating to any
inconsistency with the County General Plan,
including without limitation its Elements, policies,
and goals, have been avoided or substantially
lessened by the Project as approved.
(a) Land Use: The Project is consistent with the
County's Land Use Element. The Project is
consistent with the County's land use
designation for the site. The Project is
consistent with the County's 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan because the development site
is entirely within the County Urban Limit Line.
The Project is consistent with County goals and
policies regarding open space. The Project
will permanently restrict approximately 854
acres of the 1, 143 site (75%) to open space,
park and agricultural uses. Further, a buffer
will be provided around the development area
between the residential development and
agricultural land. The Project site is not
considered prime agricultural land.
(b) Housing Element: The Project is consistent
with the County General Plan's Housing Element.
The Project is consistent with the County
General Plan's Land Use Map.
(2) Remaining Impacts
No additional mitigation measures are necessary to
reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
See Section C. 5.b. (2) on page 11.
Aesthetics
Aesthetics . Impacts/Mitigation Measures Identified in the WSP EIR
9. WSP Impact: The Westside will be the first major hillside to
be developed on the west side of the freeway in San Ramon, and
may have significant visual impacts on San Ramon Valley
Boulevard, Norris Canyon Road, and open spaces such as the
Bishop Ranch Regional Open Space, resulting from the grading
of steep hillsides and the sitting and construction of roads
14
and storage tanks, as well as residential and commercial
activities. This is a potentially significant impact.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation:
The WSP and the WSP EIR set forth guidelines and
standards which would mitigate potential visual impacts
of development in the Norris Canyon Area. These
guidelines are set forth in such documents as 4 .4-1
through 4 .4-10 (see summary in Appendix C of SEIR, at
pp. l-2) .
b. Facts: The City of San Ramon found the impacts may not
be substantially mitigated with a project utilizing these
guidelines and standards. The City further adopted a
statement of overriding considerations to the effect that
the need for housing near growing regional employment
centers outweighs this potentially significant impact.
The Project has incorporated the guidelines and standards
set forth at 4 .4-1 through 4 .4-10 and provided for more
detailed project design and guidelines to reduce visual
impacts even further.
As part of the SEIR process, a visual analysis of the
Project was submitted by Computer Applications for Design
Professionals (CAPD) . An analysis of this detail and
sophistication was not done in the WSP EIR. The SEIR
utilized this analysis and set forth four additional
mitigation measures for the Project (see discussion and
Findings under Aesthetics Impact 1 identified in the
SEIR, below) .
C. Findings:
The Project has generally incorporated the guidelines
and standards set forth at 4 . 4-1 through 4 . 4-10. The
Board has further adopted four additional mitigation
measures set forth under Aesthetics Impact 1 set forth
below. With these mitigation measures, the Project
design and its Conditions of Approval the impact is
avoided or substantially lessened.
10. WSP Impact: Development in the cross-valley ridge and
adjacent "backside" of a major ridge could have a visual
effect. No further mitigation is necessary to reduce this
impact to a level of insignificance. See also Findings for
Impact 14 . , below, incorporated herein by reference.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation:
The WSP and the WSP EIR set forth mitigation criteria at
4 .4-11 to address this impact (see Appendix C at p. 3) .
b. Facts: The Specific Plan incorporates the above
mitigation criteria as guidelines, which will reduce
potential visual impacts from development on the cross-
valley ridge and adjacent "backside" of a major ridge.
The City found that use of such criteria partially
mitigated the impact; the City further adopted a
statement of overriding considerations.
The Project incorporates the criteria found in 4 .4-11 by
following such standards wherever appropriate on the
Project.
The SEIR further proposes additional mitigation measures
with regard to architectural review to reduce impacts of
visibility from cross-valley ridge development (see SEIR
Impacts Aesthetics Impact 3 , below) . These mitigation
15
measures have further been incorporated into the Project.
The Project has been redesigned and additional conditions
imposed to further mitigate this impact. For reasons set
forth under SEIR Impacts Aesthetics Impact 3 , the subject
impacts have been avoided or substantially lessened. No
further mitigation is necessary to reduce this impact to
a level of insignificance. See also Findings for Impact
14 below, incorporated herein by reference.
C. Findings•
The Project has incorporated the criteria set forth at
4 .4-11, and the mitigation measures set forth under SEIR
Impacts Aesthetics Impact 3 , below. For reasons . set
forth under SEIR Impacts Aesthetics Impact 3 , the subject
impacts have been avoided or substantially lessened. No
further mitigation is necessary to reduce this impact to
a level of insignificance. See also Findings for Impact
14 below, incorporated herein by reference.
11. WSP Impact: Development in upland areas adjacent to stream
corridors, on steep slopes, or where complicated cross slopes
exist could result in visual impacts.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation:
The WSP and WSP EIR set forth mitigation measures at 4 .4-
13 through 4 .4-16 (see Appendix C, p. 4)
b. Facts•
The Specific Plan incorporates the above mitigation as
guidelines for development. The City Council found this
impact partially mitigated, and further adopted a
statement of overriding consideration.
The Project includes these mitigation measures in its
basic design. The Project substantially avoids
development in upland areas adjacent to stream corridors,
or where cross slopes exist. With regard to development
on steep slopes, see SEIR Impacts Aesthetics Impact 6,
below.
C. Findings:
The Project has incorporated the referenced mitigation
measure in its basic design. The Project avoids visual
impact associated with development areas adjacent to
stream corridors and where cross slopes by reducing
development in those areas. Development on slopes over
26% is minimized and performed sensitively as set forth
in SEIR Impacts Aesthetics Impact 6, below. The impacts
thus have been avoided or substantially reduced. No
further mitigation is necessary to reduce this impact to
a level of insignificance. See also Findings for Impact
14 below, incorporated herein by reference.
12. WSP Impact: Norris Canyon Road is a scenic rural road, and
designated as such in adjacent Alameda County The Westside
Specific Plan calls for widening of the street. . .this widening
may result in significant impacts on the narrow canyon, and
in terms of its character as a rural road.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation:
The WSP and WSP EIR provide for mitigation measures
4 .4-17 through 4 . 4-19 (see Appendix C of the SEIR at
p.4) .
16
i
I
b. Facts: The findings for the WSP EIR found the visual
impact of widening Norris Canyon Road to 32 feet to be
"not fully mitigated". The City of San Ramon adopted a
statement of overriding consideration stating that the
benefits of improving driver comfort and safety along
Norris Canyon Road substantially outweigh the impact
identified in the WSP EIR.
The proposed improvements for Norris Canyon Road to
increase the total pavement width to 34' will have the
significant beneficial effect of improving the driving
ease and safety of the existing rural road. At the same
time, Norris Canyon Road will not lose its rural
character because road improvements are restricted by
the existing underlying R.O.W. Potential improvements
are also restricted by the location of San Catanio Creek
along some portions of the south side of the existing j
road and steep slope banks along some portions of the
north side of the existing road. The Project submittals
contain roadway sections that detail how the potential
widening adheres to the development concept for Norris
Canyon Road as reviewed in the WSP EIR. These submittals
confirm that impacts on the roadway area will be minor. ,
The updated Traffic Study prepared by Korve Engineering
verifies that potential improvements to Norris Canyon
Road are base primarily on driver convenience and not
capacity limitations of the current two lane road.
However, the Public Work Department has determined that
at least some capacity improvements are required. The
cost of road improvements to Norris Canyon Road will be
borne by the applicant because sufficient funding is not
likely available elsewhere and even though its
improvement at this time is not required by the County's
growth management standards.
C. Findings•
The impacts on the canyon and effect on the rural
character of Norris Canyon Road are avoided or
substantially lessened. Mitigation measures 4 .4-17
through 4 . 4-19 have been incorporated into the basic
design of the improvements, which can be addressed on
a individualized basis at the time of final development
plan approval to substantially mitigate environmental and
aesthetics effects of those road improvements. The
conditional improvements can be constructed in a manner
that will improve road safety and still retain a rural
character of the road and without adversely impacting the
roadway canyon area.
No additional mitigation measures are necessary to reduce
this impact to a level of insignificance. See Also
Section C. 5.b. (2) on page 11, incorporated herein by
reference.
13. WSP Impact: Although no water tanks may be needed for the San
Ramon Valley Boulevard area, it is likely that three new water
tanks may be required to serve development in the Norris
Canyon Road area. These tanks could be visible from Norris
Canyon and other vantage points in the project vicinity.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation:
The WSP and WSP EIR set forth mitigation measures for
tank visibility impacts as 4 . 4-20 through 4 .4-22 . (See
SEIR at Appendix C, pp. 4-5)
b. . Facts: The WSP contains policies to assure proper
sitting, landscaping and color palettes to mitigate any
17
potential impacts. The Project adheres to these
policies, and thereby substantially incorporates this
mitigation. The San Ramon City Council adopted a
statement of overriding considerations, confirming that
the benefits of providing a reliable water supply for
development along Norris Canyon Road outweighs the
potential visibility of water tanks from other vantage
points.
The Project utility plan is more detailed than that
provided for in the WSP and reflects potential locations
for the required water tanks. The tanks are smaller than
contemplated in the WSP EIR. These sites are proposed
to minimize off-site views, while the use of earth tone
colors, berming and landscaping further reduce visual
off-site impacts.
C. Findings:
The Project incorporates and improves on the referenced
mitigation measures. The impact of tank visibility is
avoided or substantially lessened. See also Findings for
Impact 17, incorporated herein by reference.
Aesthetics Impacts/Mitigation Measures Identified in the SEIR
The impacts of the Project with regard to aesthetics issues are
set forth in the SEIR at pages 2-21 to 2-74 .
14. Impact: The proposed development, (371 single family
residences, 8. 8 acre community park and associated
infrastructure) would change local topography and remove
native vegetation through site grading and cut and fill
necessary to constructthe project. The local visual
character of the portion of the site proposed for development
would be changed from a mixture of oak woodlands and grassland
savannah to a meandering residential subdivision.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project
(a) Mitigation measures set forth in the WSP EIR
at 4 .4-1 through 4 . 4-10 are incorporated into
the Project design.
(See further discussion under Facts, below. )
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) The applicant shall prepare and submit detailed
landscape plans to the County for review and
approval prior to approval of the project's
final subdivision map. The plans should
identify the location, type and size of all
trees to be planted. All plants should be
native species to provide visual integrity and
water conservation. See also Condition 3 .L. ,
28 and 29 .
(b) Construction period monitoring during
construction should occur to document
compliance with the proposed Design Guidelines
and related commitments that would mitigate
visual impacts. See also Condition 16 A-I.
(c) The proposed Design Guidelines and all related
measures should be reviewed by County Staff and
should be made into formal conditions of
approval. See also Condition 30 A-P.
18
(d) Careful consideration should be given to the
design features of the 3 agricultural lots.
Specific design considerations should include
low profile structures, use of muted earth tone
colors, control of exterior lighting and
screening that uses existing vegetation and
introduced landscaping that is indigenous to
California. See also Condition 5.
b. Facts: As stated above, the WSP EIR identified general
visual impacts with regard to residential development in
the Project area, and set forth "guidelines and
standards" which would help to mitigate the potential
visual impacts at 4 . 4-1 through 4 . 4-10. (See SEIR at p.
2-31, 2-32 , and-Appendix C) . These measures have been
integrated into the Project.
A visual analysis of the Project was submitted on behalf
of the applicants by Computer Applications for Design
Professionals (CAPD) . The visual analysis utilized the
same local view points as set forth in the WSP, plus
vantage points from Bishop Ranch Regional Open Space
(BROS) and Norris Canyon Road. The visual analysis
included both a viewshed analysis and visual simulations
of the project.
The SEIR further lists four additional mitigation
measures, which are set forth at (a) - (d) , above.
The incorporation of the WSP EIR mitigation measures,
and the additional SEIR mitigation measures Project
design and Conditions of Approval will ensure that
impacts are significantly reduced or avoided. Major
features of the Project include clustering the
development within 288 acres of the 1, 143 acre site,
extensive landscape plans, reforestation plans, stepped
home designs and retaining the great majority of property
in open space.
Areas of open space are interspersed between homes and
the large lots reduce massing of residences. Grading is
greatly reduced from that contemplated in the WSP EIR.
The Project includes tree replacement in visually
strategic locations at an ultimate ratio of at least 3 : 1.
The visual character of a portion of the site would
change. However, given the site's topographic features
and location, only portions of the developed area are
visible from any off-site vantage point. The visibility
of the Project and proposed development varies greatly
depending on viewing location. No single location
provides a complete view of the entire development. As
identified in the visual analysis, the project is most
visible from Norris Canyon Road and the BROS (both
locations are adjacent to the Project) . From points
within the San Ramon Valley, the project would be less
visible as a result of intervening ridges which shield
the majority of the site west and north of the cross-
valley ridge.
The Project site is located within the County's ULL and
is designated for residential uses. The SEIR confirms
that mere "visibility" of homes is not in itself an
adverse visual impact, particularly in areas designated
for residential use. The significance of the visual
impacts depends greatly on many factors, including
distance, shielding by vegetation and topography,
architectural design, etc. The integrity of the open
space qualities of the ridgeline and its lower hillsides
19
not substantially preserved through the development
approach used here. The mitigation measures the site
topography, Project design and significant open space
preservation will ensure that visual impacts are
minimized to a level of insignificance.
The SEIR sets forth examples of development which could
create potentially adverse visual impacts: construction
on top of a major ridge which alters the visible
topography of the ridge; creation of a scar on an open
hillside; or development which significantly alters the
aesthetic character of a public natural preserve or open
space. This Project avoids such impacts.
Finally, the SEIR confirms that the primary concern with
regard to a hillside development is to place lots and
homes in such a manner "so they blend in with the
surrounding topography rather than changing the
topography to allow for the development". The Project,
with the mitigation measures as proposed, addresses this
concern.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before the Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Board adopts mitigation measures set forth at
(a) - (d) , above. With such mitigation measures,
Project design, and site topography and Conditions
of Approval and with incorporation of the WSP EIR
mitigation measures into the Project, the Project
visual impacts as set forth above have been avoided
or substantially lessened. Given the sites
topographic features and location, combined with
these measures, only portions of the developed area
will be visible, and such visibility is made
insignificant.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) on page 11, incorporated herein
by referenced and applied to any remaining impacts
relating to visual impacts.
15. Impact: Norris Canyon Road is designated a scenic roadway.
A major portion of the project site is within the viewshed of
Norris Canyon Road. This viewshed falls within the designated
scenic corridor of Norris Canyon Roadway. The change in view
for motorists travelling along Norris Canyon Road would be
considered substantial in terms of the scenic resources along
Norris Canyon Road. The primary visual change in this area
would be the construction of the split entry roadway, new
pavement and the homes in the foreground. Improvements to
Norris Canyon Road itself ere addressed in Findings for impact
12 . The Westside Specific Plan development set back from the
road is being followed by the project. These changes would
disrupt current views of open space along this 2500 foot
section of Norris Canyon Road. The remainder of the viewshed
from Norris Canyon Road may also be disrupted.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
20
(a) Redesign project entrance road from a split
double entrance to a single road (in-split)
conventional access. This measure will reduce
the visual impact of the proposed large
entrance road and be more in character with the
rural setting along Norris Canyon Road. See
also Condition 3 .E. , 3 .F. , and 49 .Q.
(b) If additional mitigation is deemed necessary
to address County scenic corridor policies
related to Norris Canyon Road, alternative
mitigation could be considered which could
include redesigning the project to further
minimize tree removal, grading, and the
visibility of homes.
b. Facts: The SEIR sets forth two additional mitigation
measures at (a) and (b) , above. Mitigation measure (a)
has been incorporated into the Project. The redesigned
Project entrance road from a split double entrance to a
single road access significantly reduces the visual
impact of the entrance from Norris Canyon Road. While
some new homes would be visible from Norris Canyon Road,
the great remainder of the developed area will be
screened by on-site topography and vegetative cover.
New homes will be clustered and separated visually by
open space areas and thick woodland drainages which would
remain after completion of the Project. Design review
of each home and lot development plan within the Norris
Canyon Road Viewshed is required.
With regard generally to views of the Project from Norris
Canyon Road, the change in view would occur generally
only in the location of the Project site. The road
segment affected by the Project is relatively short.
Mitigation measure (b) , which proposes redesign of the
project to further minimize tree removal, grading, and
visibility, is unnecessary, and infeasible. The Project
has been redesigned to minimize tree removal, grading,
and visibility to its current state. With regard to tree
removal: the proposed Design Guidelines and reforestation
plan are adequate in reducing the impact. With regard
to grading, the proposed grading and landscaping plans
greatly reduce grading from that recommended in the WSP
EIR. With regard to visibility, the new visual analysis
demonstrates that with incorporation of mitigation
measures referenced in these Findings (regarding
landscaping, grading, use of earth tones, vegetation,
etc. ) visibility is reduced to a minimal extent.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before the Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Board adopts the mitigation measure (a) above.
With such mitigation measure and related Conditions
of Approval, the Project visual impacts on Norris
Canyon road are avoided or substantially lessened.
The Project entrance road shall be redesigned to a
single road, conventional access. The Norris Canyon
Road segment affected visually by the Project is
relatively short. Incorporation of mitigation
measures in these Findings regarding landscaping,
grading, use of earth tones, vegetation, design
review etc. , will ensure that visibility is reduced.
Mitigation measure (b) , which proposes redesign of
the project to further reduce tree removal, grading,
21
and visibility, is rejected as infeasible
inappropriate under Public Resources Code Section
21085 and CEQA Guidelines 15041, and not required
under the County General Plan. The Project has been
redesigned to minimize these impacts to the greatest
extent possible. Other mitigation measures with
regard to landscaping, reforestation, and grading
have been incorporated into the Project to lessen
these impacts.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) on page 11, incorporated herein
by reference as to this impact.
16. Impact: The view to the west from Bishop Ranch Regional Open
Space (BROS) would be substantially . changed by the proposed
project. . This change would include construction period
disruption, grading of the cross-valley ridge and the
construction of the homes visible from BROS vantage points
and certain off-site locations.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) The lots along the south side of "A" Drive in
the vicinity of the cross-valley ridge should
be subject to Architectural Review by the
Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of
building permits for these lots. Architectural
review should focus on the following design
concepts to reduce visual impacts:
1) To reduce the height of structures, it
may be appropriate to limit some of the
homes on these lots to one story.
2) Variable sideyard setback variances should
be considered to reduce massing and break-
up the visual appearance of homes in this
area.
3) Consider moving homes closer to the street
(reduce front yard setback requirements)
to allow more backyard area to reduce
visual appearance.
4) Consider additional landscape requirements
for backyards, including the use of tall
growing trees and shrubs (native species)
to shield homes in this area.
5) Require home and roof colors to be muted
so the homes blend in with existing native
vegetation. See also Condition 5 and
30.0.
b. Facts: The WSP EIR set forth visual mitigation measures
to reduce impacts on the cross-valley ridge at 4 .4-11.
The Project incorporates many of the features of this
mitigation measure. The WSP EIR findings state that the
visual impacts of development in such area, at least at
the specific plan level of detail do not appear to be
substantially mitigated.
22
The SEIR set forth the architectural review standards
listed above at (a) 1) through (a) 5) . These standards
are included in the Project Conditions of Approval.
These standards will reduce the visual appearance of the
homes.
The view to the west from the BROS would be changed by
the Project. This change would include construction
period disruption including grading of the cross-valley
ridge. However, grading of the cross-valley ridge would
be less than envisioned by the Westside Specific Plan
(Project grading lowers level by 50 feet, vs. 90 feet
proposed in WSP) . The BROS vantage points with viewsheds
to the west would be affected, but views to the north,
east, south and southwest would not be affected.
However, this change would be off-set to some degree by
trail access to new vantage points with views from higher
elevations. These new views would include new areas and
would provide improved views of Mt. Diablo and the San
Ramon Valley. "H" Court has been revised. Park District
concerns have been addressed by changes to the Project
and conditions.
c. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before the Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Board finds that WSP EIR mitigation measure 4. 4-
11 has been incorporated into the Project. The
Board further adopts the mitigation measures at (a)
1) through (a) 5) , above. With such mitigation
measures and the applicable Conditions of Approval,
the Project design and site topography, the Project
visual impacts relating to view changes from BROS
and construction period disruption will be avoided
or substantially lessened.
No additional mitigation measures are required to
reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
Removal of units would be inconsistent with PRC
Section 21085 and CEQA Guidelines 15041 and is not
required under the County General Plan.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , page 11, incorporated herein
by reference as to this impact.
17. Impact: The proposed project would include four (4) above
ground water tanks. The tanks would be 15 to 18 feet in
height and would represent another development feature in the
landscape. It is important to note that these tanks would be
substantially smaller than the existing tanks on the hillside
facing the San Ramon Valley.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Mitigation Measures Incorporated Into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) Design the water tanks in a manner such that
their visibility is minimized. The use of a
color or colors that blend into the individual
sites and landscape screens should be required.
See also Condition 3 .K.
23
b. Facts: The WSP EIR set forth mitigation measures to
reduce visual impacts associated with the placement of
water towers on the Project site at 4 .4-20 through
4 . 4-22 . The mitigation measure at 4 . 4-20 requires
location of water tanks in consideration of minimizing
visibility from Norris Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley
Boulevard. This measure has been incorporated into the
project. The remaining two mitigation measures are set
forth in mitigation measure (a) , above.
By designing the water tanks to minimize visibility, and
using colors blending into individual sites, and use of
landscape screens, any impact from such tanks is avoided
or substantially lessened.
c. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before the Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Board adopts mitigation measure (a) , set forth
above. The Project visual impacts from construction
of the water towers will be avoided or substantially
lessened with such mitigation measure. The
incorporated WSP EIR mitigation measures, and
applicable Conditions of Approval.
No additional mitigation is required to reduce this
impact to a level of insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section 5.C.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference as to this impact.
18. Impact: The project would include street lighting and
lighting associated with individual residences. The specific
design and placement of street lighting and lighting
associated with each residence are not fully identified in the
proposed Design Guidelines, but the formation of the Wiedemann
Ranch Architectural Review Board is charged with overseeing
this potential impact issue.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project
(None)
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) Street lighting for the project should utilize
down-focus lights to minimize "glow". See also
Condition 3 .H.
b. Facts: Use of down-focus lights will minimize any "glow"
to insignificant levels.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before the Board, the Board find that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Board adopts mitigation measure (a) set forth
above. The Project impacts from increased "glow"
will be avoided or substantially lessened with this
mitigation measure and the applicable Conditions of
Approval. Design of individual homes and lighting
with visual sensitivity and this glare sensitivity
will be reviewed with the added purpose of reducing
24
reflection. No additional mitigation measures are
necessary to reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference as to this impact.
19. Impact: Contra Costa County General Plan Policy (GP Policy
9-11 and others) refers to protecting slopes of 26% and
higher. The proposed project includes development on slopes
over 26%.
a. Mitigation Measures:
(1) Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
The Project design guidelines should be included in
the Conditions of Approval. See Condition 30.
b. Facts: The Project site contains varied, hilly
topography. The Project would thus result in grading in
areas over 26% slope. The Contra Costa County General
Plan's Open Space Element, at the Scenic Resource
Section, contains Policies regarding protection of scenic
resources. The SEIR identified the Policies affecting
aesthetics as follows:
(1) Development on 26% slopes (Policy 9-11) . Policy 9-
11 is summarized as follows:
High quality engineering of slopes shall be
required to avoid soil erosion, downstream
flooding, slope failure, loss of vegetative
cover, high maintenance costs, property
damages, and damages to visual quality. ,
Particularly vulnerable areas should be avoided
for urban development. Slopes of 26% or more
shall be protected and are generally not
desirable for conventional cut-and-fill pad
development. Development on open hillsides and
significant ridgelines shall be restricted.
The Staff Report at Figure 3 depicts the location
of areas on the side less than and greater than 26%
slope. Figure 14 of the Staff Report depicts the
areas over 26% where grading activities would occur.
General Plan Policy 9-11, above, confirms that
grading in areas over 26% is not precluded, but
should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Consistent with the direction of the Board at its
February, 1992 hillside workshop, (those proceedings
including the staff report, exhibits and the
transcripts, are included as part of the
administrative record) , each project must be
evaluated to determine the amount of slope
protection required. The analysis in the staff
report for that workshop confirms that the hillside
policies do not prohibit development on open
hillsides or slopes over 26% and instead generally
require limited sensitive hillside development.
Opponents to the Project who objected to it on the
25
ground that it did not comply with this policy have
misinterpreted it. Protection of hillsides does not
mean prohibition of hillside development. As
interpreted by the Community Development Department
and the Board, it means sensitively designed
development in combination with open space and with
cut and fill grading limited in scope and area.
The Project is consistent with Policy 9-11. The
Project proposes no development on significant
ridgelines. Development on open hillsides will be
restricted to a relatively small area. The Project
design will ensure protection of slopes over 260.
The Project will minimize the use of conventional
cut and fill pad development. Development will be
tailored to each lot.
Further, the Project includes detailed site specific
Design Guidelines, which were reviewed in the SEIR.
The Design Guidelines include guidelines and
recommendations regarding development on each lot
within the Project. The Design Guidelines contain
specific development specifications and construction
recommendations, and will ensure that the Project
is sensitively developed and consistent with the
County's hillside protection standards.
(2) Other General Plan Policies: Other General Plan
Policies pertaining to aesthetics addressed in the
SEIR are as follows and as more specifically
produced in the project approval and its Conditions
of Approval:
Restore natural contours and vegetation after
grading. (Policy 9-12) : The Project landscaping,
vegetation, and reforestation plans will ensure this
Policy is followed.
Provide public facilities for outdoor recreation.
(Policy 9-13) : The Project provides for a 8.8 acre
park area consistent with this Policy.
Avoid extreme topographic modification/cluster and
utilize planned unit development approaches. (Policy
9-14) : The Project avoids filling in canyons or
removing hilltops substantially. The Project
greatly reduces the grading contemplated in the WSP
EIR. The Project clusters homes in a relatively
small development area. The Project utilizes the
planned unit approach. The only major cut on the
site other than for roadways and infrastructure is
in the area of the Cross-Valley ridge. Due to its
location and the topography, the visual impacts are
limited and can be mitigated by design. A roadway
in that area and therefore the cut is necessary to
provide circulation and good emergency access. The
area of substantial fill is located in the largely
invisible interior bowl. This cut and fill. is
unavoidable and not precluded by this policy.
New water tanks should be screened. (Policy 9-16) .
The Project reduces visual impacts of the water
tanks. (Policy 9-16) (See discussion under Impact
4, above. )
Construction of structure on top of major scenic
ridges or within 50 feet of the ridgeline shall be
discouraged. (Policy 9-18) The Project does not
propose development on top of Wiedemann Hill. The
project avoids construction within 50 feet of major
scenic ridges.
26
For hillside development, structures shall be
located sensitively to available natural resources
and constraints. (Policy 9-19) The Project design
and the Design Guidelines ensure sensitive
development.
Hilltops, ridges, rock outcroppings, mature stands
of trees and other natural features shall be
considered for preservation. (Policy 9-20) The
Project protects hilltops, ridges, rock outcroppings
and, to the extent reasonably feasible, most mature
stands of trees. The Design Guidelines ensure
continued protection at the development stages.
New development shall be encouraged to generally
conform with natural contours to avoid excessive
grading. (Policy 9-21) The Project submittals show
conformance with natural contours, grading for
infrastructures and minimized use of conventional
flat pads.
New land uses below a major scenic ridge shall be
reviewed with emphasis on protecting the visual
dualities of the ridge. (Policy 9-22) The Project
protects the visual qualities of the major scenic
ridge. the open space integrity of the hillsides
below has been preserved in the context of the
entire area. Development areas are clustered but
with large lots. Design of the individual lots and
homes will be subject to careful review and
approval. No development is proposed for Wiedemann
Hill.
Physical and visual access to established scenic
routes shall be protected. (Policy 9-27) The
Project includes access to scenic routes and trails
as requested by the East Bay Regional Parks
District. Visual impacts of the Project from Norris
Canyon Road are minimized by redesigning the Project
entrance, and design control over homes and lots
visible from there. Moreover, the Project is
visible only for a short moment driving along Norris
Canyon Road.
C. Findings: Based upon the SEIR and the entire record
before the Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project, is consistent with the General Plan
Policies regarding development on slopes greater
than 26% (Policy 9-11) . The Project, with the
proposed design guidelines, avoids or substantially
lessens the impacts associated with development on
slopes greater than 26%.
The Project is consistent with the remaining General
Plan Policies regarding aesthetics (Policies 9-12 ,
9-13 , 914 , 9-16, 9-18, 9-19, 9-20, 9-21, 9-22 , and
9-27) , for the reasons set forth above.
No additional mitigation measures are necessary to
reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
Elimination of homes is rejected as unnecessary to
meet the General Plan policies and is any
inappropriate mitigation measure under PRC Section
21085 and CEQA Guidelines 15041.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , page 11, incorporated herein
by reference as to this impact.
27
Traffic
Traffic Impacts/Mitigation Measures Identified in the WSP SEIR
20. WSP Impact: Without development of Westside, the future base
volume on Norris Canyon road, east of Bollinger Canyon Road,
would carry 6, 600 daily vehicles. Taken together with the
development of Westside, volumes of up to 7 , 400 vehicles per
day could be anticipated on this roadway. This is a
significant impact.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures:
The WSP and WSP EIR set forth mitigation measure 4 . 5-1
to mitigate this impact. Such measure generally
recommends modifying the Norris Canyon/Bollinger Canyon
intersection to restrict through movements and selected
turn movements on Norris Canyon, while allowing
pedestrians, bicycles and emergency vehicles to cross.
b. Facts: The City of San Ramon rejected the above
mitigation measure as infeasible, because it could
involve barricading Norris Canyon Road in some manner,
causing increase in noise, pollution, and in congestion
at other intersections. The City adopted a statement of
overriding considerations, confirming that the benefits
of minimizing vehicle traffic outweigh the stated impact.
As part of the SEIR process, Korve Engineers, focusing
on this project only and an updated cumulative impact
analysis, completed a Traffic Impact Study for Wiedemann
Ranch Residential Community, April, 1992 (Traffic Impact
Study) . The Traffic Impact study and SEIR propose three
additional mitigation measures to reduce future impacts
on Norris Canyon Road (see SEIR Traffic Impact 2 and
corresponding mitigation measures set forth below. ) The
Traffic Impact study confirmed that although increased
traffic on Norris Canyon Road resulting from the Project
would not warrant the road to be widened immediately, the
road may need to widened in the future. The mitigation
measures thus require the Project to contribute its fair
share of the costs for such widening. The Project will
in fact be responsible for its entire cost.
C. Findings: The Project impacts on Norris Canyon Road have
been avoided or substantially lessened by incorporation
into the Project of the mitigation measures the Project
Conditions of Approval set forth at SEIR Traffic Impact
2 of these Findings and, for the reasons set forth under
Facts of that section. See also Section C. 5 .b(2) on page
11, incorporated herein by reference as to this impact.
21. WSP Impact: The proposed project would contribute to
cumulative impacts at the San Ramon Valley Boulevard/Norris
Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard/Bollinger Canyon
Road intersections. Even without traffic associated with the
proposed Westside Specific Plan, these intersections would
experience cumulative impacts and would operate at LOS F and
LOS E, respectively. These are significant impacts.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures:
The WSP EIR set forth mitigation measure 4 . 5-2 , generally
requiring restriping the westbound approach on Norris
Canyon Road at San Ramon Valley Boulevard and modifying
the traffic signal phasing; and mitigation measure 4 . 5-3 ,
requiring the northbound leg of San Ramon Valley
Boulevard at San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Bollinger
Canyon Road (see SEIR at Appendix C, p. 5) .
28
b. Facts: The City of San Ramon found as part of the WSP
EIR findings that the above road improvements "will be
implemented when warranted by future development", and
that improvements will be funded through traffic
mitigation fees. Subsequently, the above referenced
Project Traffic Impact Study specifically studied these
intersections with regard to potential Project impacts.
The Traffic Impact Study confirmed that the Project has
an insignificant effect on these intersections. The
Traffic Impact Study did not recommend these specific
mitigation measures for this Project; however the Project
is required to pay its fair share for traffic
improvements as set forth in the Findings below. In
fact, the Project may be responsible to construct the
signal at Norris Canyon/Bollinger Canyon if warranted by
a future, updated study.
C. Findings: The Project impacts on the intersections set
forth above are insignificant. To the extent the Project
has any impact on these intersections, such impact has
been avoided or substantially lessened by mitigation
measures set forth in these Findings below. See also
Section C. 5.b(2) on page 11, incorporated herein by
reference as to this impact.
Traffic Impacts/Mitigation Measures Identified in the SEIR
The impacts of the Project with regard to traffic issues are set
forth in the SEIR at pages 2-75 to 3-1.
22. Impact: Access to the proposed project would be via Norris
Canyon Road. The existing access to the project site is
inadequate and a new intersection is proposed.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) The Project entrance from Norris Canyon Road
should provide for a westbound left turn into
the Project. The left turn lane will allow
Project traffic to be removed from the
westbound through lane and permit the through
movement to continue while Project inbound
traffic is waiting for an acceptable gap in
eastbound through traffic. The left turn lane
should be designed to provide for storage of
up to four vehicles (100 feet) with a
transition taper adequate for a 35 mph posted
speed (10: 1) . A deceleration distance may also
be necessary for the left turn lane. See the
standards set forth in the Conditions of
Approval. See also Conditions 49 .A. 1.
b. Facts•
(1) Background: Measure C - 1988 , approved by County
voters in November, 1988, is entitled the "Contra
Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth
Management Program" (Growth Management Program) .
The Growth Management Program requires local
agencies to adopt certain traffic level of service
(LOS) standards. The County's Growth Management
Element specifically adopts the LOS traffic
standards and keys such standards to County areas.
The applicant's consultant, Korve Engineering, Inc. ,
prepared the above-referenced Traffic Impact Study
29
specifically for the Project in accordance with Measure
C, above, and with the City of San Ramon's Ordinance 164 .
The study area for the Traffic Impact Study was
determined through written comments and meetings with
the County, CalTrans, and the City of San Ramon. The
study area intersections and roadway links include the
following intersection locations:
Norris Canyon Road and Bollinger Canyon Road
Norris Canyon Road and Twin Creeks Drive
Norris Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Bollinger Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Bollinger Canyon Road and I-680 ramp terminal (2)
Crow Canyon Road and Bollinger Canyon Road
Crow Canyon Road and Twin Creeks Drive
Crow Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Crow Canyon Road and I-680 ramp terminal (2)
In addition, the study includes on-ramps and off-ramps
at the Crow Canyon road interchange with I-680 and the
Bollinger Canyon Road interchange with I-680.
The SEIR thus utilizes the Traffic Impact Study to
analyze Project impacts with regard to Measure C
requirements.
(2) Project entrance: The mitigation measure requires
that the Project entrance provide for a westbound
left turn lane with storage of up to four vehicles
(100 feet) with a transition taper. These measures
have been incorporated into the standards for the
intersection as part of the Project design and its
Conditions of Approval. With incorporation of this
measure, the entrance is adequate.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impact of an inadequate entrance has
been avoided or substantially lessened by the
Project with the requirement of adding a left turn
lane as described herein; such addition will allow
for a safe and effective entrance. No additional
mitigation measures are necessary.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference as to this impact.
23. Impact: The Westside Specific Plan recommended the widening
of Norris Canyon Road. The proposed project would increase
the number of vehicles per day on Norris Canyon Road to 5, 505
from the existing 1, 800. While this change would not warrant
the roadway to be widened, the project would contribute to the
need for future widening.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See Discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) The project applicant prior to filing the final
subdivision maps, should prepare as geometric
analysis (horizontal and vertical alignment)
of the segment of Norris Canyon Road east of
30
the project site to Bollinger Canyon Road. See
also Condition 49 .B.
(b) The project should provide, as a condition of
approval, its fair share of the cost of
improving Norris Canyon Road to a two-lane
roadway with adequate shoulders and removal of
the existing curves with a centerline radius
of less than 400 feet. The roadway should be
striped for bike lanes on both sides as noted
in the Westside Specific Plan. see also
Condition 49.B.
(c) Prior to filing a final subdivision map, the
project applicant should be required to post
a bond that assures the repair of any damage
to Norris Canyon Road that could be caused by
construction-related traffic. See also
Condition 49 .S.
b. Facts: Each of these mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the Project by inclusion as conditions
of approval. The Traffic Impact Study confirmed that
potential improvements to Norris Canyon Road are based
primarily on driver safety and convenience and not
capacity limitations of the current two lane road. The
applicant will construct these improvements at its sole
cost subject to potential reimbursement from future
projects that impact Norris Canyon Road. Through these
conditions of approval, the Project commits to pay at
least its fair share of these costs, if not more, and
meets the traffic growth management standards in the
General Plan.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, this Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts resulting from increased traffic
on Norris Canyon Road and the required road
improvements have been avoided or substantially
lessened by requiring the applicant to construct it
from the project intersection to San Ramon. No
further mitigation is necessary.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b. (2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference for this impact.
24. Impact: Short-term (1997) traffic projections along with
project-generated traffic will warrant the installation of a
signal at Norris Canyon and Bollinger Canyon Road. This
intersection will need to be monitored as the project is
constructed and occupied to determine when signal warrants are
met.
a. Mitigation•
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) When signal warrants are met based on traffic
volume survey, the four-way stop controlled
intersection should be signalized. The Project
should provide its fair share of the cost of
the signal. See also Condition 49 .C.
31
b. Facts: The Traffic Impact Study identified the future
need for a signal at Norris Canyon Road and Bollinger
Canyon Road. The conditions of approval for the Project
incorporate the above mitigation measure, requiring the
Project to pay at least its fair share of the cost of the
signal when warrants are met. This will ensure that
funding is available when the signal becomes necessary.
If existing, approved and project traffic requires its
installation, the applicant will construct it, thereby
meeting the General Plan traffic growth management
standards.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts on the unsignaled intersection
of Norris Canyon and Bollinger Canyon Road have been
avoided or substantially lessened by the Project as
approved. The Project conditions of approval will
ensure the Project pays at least its fair share of
the costs when signal warrants are met, and that
funding is available when the signal becomes
necessary. No additional mitigation is required to
reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) on page 11, incorporated herein
by reference for this impact.
25. Impact: The Norris Canyon/Twin Creeks Drive intersection
currently operates at capacity during the AM peak hour.
Traffic conditions here are caused by the one lane northbound
approach which must provide for left, through and right turn
movements.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) The provision of a northbound left turn lane
will improve the existing operations to LOS A.
This improvement can be achieved by restriping
the existing 36-foot curb-to-curb width to
accommodate the left turn lane. Parking should
be prohibited for the section of Twin Creeks
Drive between Norris Canyon Road and Aragon
Lane. This improvement is relatively
inexpensive and should be implemented by the
City of San Ramon based on existing traffic
operations.
b. Facts: The Norris Canyon/Twin Creeks Drive intersection
operates at capacity during the AM peak hour. This
congestion is caused by the one land northbound approach,
which must provide for left, through and right' turn
movements. However, very little Project traffic would
use the northbound approach referenced above. The SEIR
recommends inclusion of a left turn land (northbound) ,
which will improve the existing operations to LOS A. The
SEIR confirms that this improvement is "relatively
inexpensive", and should be implemented by the City of
San Ramon based on existing traffic operations, i.e. , the
Project does not cause this impact.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
32
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impact from the congestion during the
AM peak hour at the Norris Canyon/Twin Creeks Drive
intersection is not significant. Very little
Project traffic uses the northbound approach which
causes the problem. The City of San Ramon will be
encouraged to provide for the left turn land as
referenced. This mitigation is not necessary to
apply to this Project.
26. Impact: The I-680 northbound off-ramp/Bollinger Canyon Road
intersection currently operates at level of service A, but is
projected to degrade to LOS D for short-term conditions. The
LOS and V/C are degraded during the AM and PM peak hours. The
project does not add a significant amount of traffic to the
intersection in the AM peak hour, but contributes to PM peak
hour congestion.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) To improve the conditions, another right turn
lane is necessary. The Project should
contribute its fair share of the cost of this
improvement.
b. Facts: The Project is not required to contribute to this
improvement. Its "fair share" will be used to improve
Norris Canyon Road. The Project's contribution will be
made by other developer contributions who will not have
to contribute to Norris Canyon Road such that their share
for the two remaining improvements can be larger which
will ensure that funding will be available for this lane.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
. The Project impacts at I-680 northbound off-
ramp/Bollinger Canyon Road have been avoided or
substantially lessened by having a funding mechanism
to cover this cost. The County may prioritize which
improvements to construct first. This mitigation
is not necessary to apply to this Project.
27. Impact: Consistency with Measure C and General Plan Growth
Management Element
a. Facts: As stated above, Measure C and the County's
Growth Management Element establish Growth Management
Performance Standards for traffic levels. These
standards are set forth in the County General Plan at
p. 4-7 .
The County General Plan Growth Management Element states
that LOS standards will be considered to be met if:
(1) measurement of actual conditions at the
intersection indicates that operations are
equivalent to or better than those specified
in the standard; or
33
(2) the County has included projects in its adopted
capital improvements program which, when
constructed, will result in operations equal
to or better than the standard.
In addition to the above standards, the Growth Management
Element sets forth Policies which include the following:
4-1. New development shall not be approved in
unincorporated areas unless the applicant can
provide the infrastructure which meets the traffic
level or service and performance standards outlined
in Policy 4-3 (below) , or a funding mechanism has
been established which will provide the
infrastructure to meet the standards or as is stated
in other portions of this Growth Management Element.
4-2 . If it cannot be demonstrated prior to project
approval that levels of service will be met per
Policy 4-1, development will be temporarily deferred
until the standards can be met or assured.
4-3 . In the event that a signalized intersection
on a Basic Route exceeds the applicable level of a
service standard, the County may approve projects
if the County can establish appropriate mitigation
measures, or determine that the intersection or
portion of roadway is subject to a finding of
special circumstances, or is a route of regional
significance, consistent with those findings and/or
action plans adopted by the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority pursuant to Measure C -
1988.
b. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) The Project is consistent with Policy 4-1. The
Project provides the infrastructure necessary to
meet the traffic levels of service and performance
standards set forth in Measure C and in Policy 4-
3 , for the reasons set forth under Facts for SEIR
Traffic Impacts 1-5, above. This project will
construct improvements necessary to substantially
mitigate the impact of existing, approved and
Project traffic and will provide its fair share to
substantially mitigate remaining cumulative impacts.
(2) The Project is consistent with Policy 4-2 . It has
been demonstrated that levels of service will be
met per Policy 4-1, above.
(3) The Project is consistent with Policy 4-3 . The
intersections exceeding the applicable levels of
service standards have been given appropriate
mitigation measures as set forth in the Facts,
Mitigation Measures, and Findings for SEIR Traffic
Impacts 1-5, above. No additional mitigation is
necessary to reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance. See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11,
incorporated herein by reference for this impact.
D. Additional Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The impacts set forth in this Section D were identified and
addressed in the WSP EIR, and mitigated to insignificant levels
pursuant to mitigation measures listed in the WSP EIR and
incorporated into the Project. Under CEQA, no further
environmental review is required. However, the Project adopts
mitigation measures beyond those required in the WSP EIR. In order
to identify and ensure adoption of such mitigation measures, the
following impacts are set forth.
34
Hydrology, Geology and Soils
The WSP EIR and SEIR discuss issues of Hydrology, Geology, and
Soils in different sections of those documents. The WSP EIR splits
such discussion into two categories: (1) Hydrology; and (2) Soils
and Geology. The SEIR utilizes two categories (1) Geology and
Soils; and (2) Storm Drainage.
Hydrology, Geology and Soils Impacts/Mitigation Measures Identified
in the WSP EIR
Hydrology
28. WSP Impact: The proposed project will increase stormwater
runoff and offsite flood hazards.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures:
The WSP EIR sets forth mitigation measure 4 . 8-1, which
states that the WSP recommends the construction of
detention basins to reduce post-project peak flood flows
(see SEIR at Appendix C, p.7) .
b. Facts: (See discussion of the detention basin under SEIR
Impacts, Storm Drainage, Impact 1, Facts, below. )
C. Findings: The Project impact regarding increased
stormwater runoff and offsite flood hazards is avoided
or substantially lessened by the Project detention basin,
for the reasons set forth under SEIR Impacts, Storm
Drainage, Impact 1, Facts, below.
29. WSP Impact: The Project will result in a direct loss of 0. 5
mile of creek channel and associate habitat by filling and
grading.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures:
The WSP EIR sets forth mitigation measure 4 .8-2 , which
states that the grading plan could be revised to
eliminate impacts; and 4 . 8-3 , which states that
restoration and channel stabilization may eventually
restore creek values.
b. Facts: See discussion of Project impacts on creek
corridors and habitat under SEIR Impacts, Geology and
Soils, Impact 3 , Facts, below.
C. Findings: The Project impacts regarding loss of creek
channel and associate habitat have been avoided or
substantially lessened, for the reasons set forth under
SEIR Impacts, Geology and Soils, Impact 3 , Facts.
30. WSP Impact: The proposed project will result in direct
impacts to creek channels and associated riparian corridors
at road crossings.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures:
The WSP EIR sets forth mitigation measure 4 .8-4 , which
states that in locations where a creek channel will be
moved, restoration and vegetation stabilization will
restore the natural channel; such measure further states
that a specific restoration plan for impacted creeks
should be required, with annual monitoring of channel
stability and revegetation success.
b. Facts: See discussion of Project impacts on creek
corridors and habitat under SEIR Impacts, Geology and
Soils, Impact 3 , Facts, below.
C. Findings: Project impacts on creek channels and
associated riparian corridors at road crossings have been
35
avoided or substantially lessened for reasons stated
under SEIR Impacts, Geology and Soils, Impact 3 , Facts,
below.
31. WSP Impact: The Project will increase urban runoff water
pollutants from homes, roadways, and commercial areas.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures:
The WSP EIR sets forth mitigation measure 4 . 8-5, which
states that potential increases in urban runoff can be
partially mitigated by a regular street-sweeping program.
b. Facts: This mitigation measure has been incorporated
into the Project. Conditions of Approval specifying
sediment traps, revegetation, and siltation control will
also reduce surface runoff pollutants particularly during
the grading and installation of Project infrastructure
prior to completion of the reseeding and reforestation
measures. County and ABAG standards will be implemented
into the design level drawings. (See discussion under
SEIR impacts, Storm Drainage, Impact 2, Facts, below. )
C. Findings: The Project impacts regarding from urban
runoff water pollutants have been avoided or
substantially lessened for the reasons set forth under
SEIR impacts, Storm Drainage, Impact 2 , Facts, below. )
32 . WSP Impact: The project will result in potential increased
erosion from construction activities and increased site
runoff.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures: The WSP EIR sets forth
mitigation measure 4 .8-6, which states that erosion
during construction can be reduced by a specific erosion
control plan which utilizes on-site measures; and that
the proposed detention basin be designed to function as
sediment basins during construction.
b. Facts: The above mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the Project. See also, WSP EIR
Impacts, Soils and Geology, Impact 3 , Facts, below.
C. Findings: The Project impacts regarding increased
erosion from construction activities and site runoff are
avoided or substantially lessened for reasons stated
above and at WSP EIR Impacts, Soils and Geology, Impact
3 , Facts, below.
Soils and Geology
33. WSP Impact: Earthquake ground shaking from earthquakes on
the Calaveras fault zone, which could be violent to very
violent in areas within one mile of the fault zone for an MCE,
or earthquakes on other active or potentially active faults
in the region, could result in significant damage to
improvements, or loss in life, from the primary or secondary
effects of shaking, including possible failure of cut and fill
slopes, fill settlement, and possible re-activation and/or
initiation of landslides.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures:
(1) The WSP EIR at mitigation measure 4 . 9-4 states that
the primary effects of ground shaking can be reduced
to acceptable levels by using modern seismic design
and building in accordance to Codes. (See SEIR,
Appendix C, p. 8)
(2) The WSP EIR at mitigation measure 4 . 9-5 states that
in areas that will not be developed by extensive
grading, secondary effects of ground shaking can be
reduced by: sitting improvements off unstable
36
landforms; removing or stabilizing unstable
landforms; and/or using modern designs. (See SEIR,
Appendix C, p. 8)
(3) The WSP EIR at mitigation measure 4 . 9-6 states that
in areas that will be developed by extensive
grading, the secondary effects of ground shaking
can be reduced by using appropriate grading and
design. (See SEIR, Appendix C, p. 8)
b. Facts:
(1) Facts regarding mitigation measure 4 . 9-4, above:
Harlan Tait Associates drafted reports entitled
"Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation" (revised
February, 1991) and "Geotechnical Feasibility
Investigation Norris Canyon Widening". These
reports detail preliminary geotechnical design and
construction considerations for incorporation into
the design level drawings. Recommendations such as
2 to 1 cut and fill slopes, normal surface and
subsurface drainage, and foundation design are
provided to express that the development concept is
feasible from a geotechnical standpoint.
(2) Facts regarding mitigation measure 4 . 9-5, above:
A study entitled "Preliminary Evaluation of
Geotechnically Feasible Landslide and Related Slope
Mitigation Measures" was prepared for the Project
by Harlan Tait Associates, and submitted for review
to Darwin Myers Associates (the County's independent
3rd party peer review consultant) . Darwin Myers
Associates found that the geologic and geotechnical
reports and accompanying data meet County ordinance
code requirements for the processing of the
rezoning, preliminary development plan and tentative
map.
Harlan Tait Associates will provide site specific
detailed geotechnical and civil engineering
solutions in (and incorporated into) the design
level drawings. These design level drawings will
be subject to review again by Darwin Myers
Associates to assure that appropriate mitigation
actions are included in the project construction
drawing.
Harlan Tait Associates will provide on-site
supervision of the infrastructure activities and be
responsible in conjunction with HCV to interact with
the County inspectors to assure compliance with all
construction permits.
(3) Facts regarding mitigation measure 4 . 9-6, above:
(See same Facts as for 4 . 9-5, above)
C. Findings: The Project impacts regarding future
earthquake and potential damage to life or property have
been avoided or substantially lessened by incorporation
into the Project of the mitigation measures set forth
above from the WSP EIR, and the Project conditions of
approval, which incorporate results and safeguards of the
referenced reports.
34. WSP Impact: Expansive soils (those with a high shrink
potential) , and possibly expansive bedrock materials, occur
in areas to be developed and can cause significant damage to
foundations, slabs, and pavements constructed on them.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures: The WSP EIR sets forth
mitigation measure 4 . 9-7 , stating that the significant
effects of expansive soils/bedrock can be controlled by
recognition of the condition and appropriate design.
37
Typical measures include drilled pier and grade beam
foundations, etc. (See SEIR at Appendix C, p. 9)
b. Facts: The recommended detailed site specific soil
investigations for the Project will be a continuation of
the preliminary investigations previously accomplished
by Harlan Tait Associates. The WSP EIR mitigation
measures, such as drilled pier foundations and grade beam
foundations and thicker pavement sections, are
appropriate measures to off-set the effects of expansive
soils/bedrock. These measures have been incorporated
into the Project. Each individual lot will be required
to submit a site specific geotechnical report with
recommendations for foundation design, etc. These
reports will be reviewed by the County during building
permit processing.
C. Findings: The Project impacts related to expansive soils
have been avoided or substantially lessened by Project
incorporation of the above mitigation measure, and by use
of the reports identified in the SEIR.
35. WSP Impact: Increased construction-related short term, and
possibly increased long term, erosion and sedimentation will
result from grading activities, alteration of drainage
patterns, concentration of drainage, and increased runoff
associated with proposed development.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures:
(1) The WSP EIR at mitigation measure 4 . 9-8 states that
construction-related short term erosion and
sedimentation can be significantly reduced by timing
grading activities to avoid the rainy season, and
by interim and over-winter control measures. (See
SEIR at Appendix C, p. 10)
(2) The WSP EIR at mitigation measures 4 . 9-9 states that
long term erosion can be reduced by development of
an overall erosion and sediment control plan, by
appropriate design and construction, and by
continued maintenance. (See SEIR at Appendix C,
p. 10)
b. Facts•
(1) Facts regarding mitigation measure 4 . 9-8, above:
Project submittals detail the erosion and
sedimentation control plans that will meet Contra
Costa County guidelines and ABAG Manual of
Standards. Areas of grading, stabilization methods,
areas to be revegetated and types, quantities, and
methods of seeding are detailed on submitted
reforestation plans and Sugnet's Biotic Resource
Assessment and Habitat Mitigation Plan (see SEIR
Geology and Soils Impacts, Impact 3 , Facts, below. )
Siltation control measures such as hay bales, earth
berms, sandbagging or silt fences will be detailed
to the County's satisfaction in the working
drawings. Control measures will be installed by
October 15 and maintained through April 15 of each
construction year. These mitigation measures have
been incorporated into the Project.
(2) Facts regarding mitigation measure 4 . 9-9 , above:
(See same Facts as for measure 4 . 9-8, above) .
C. Findings: The Project impacts from erosion and
sedimentation from grading will be avoided or
substantially lessened by Project incorporation of the
above mitigation measures.
38
36. WSP Impact: Areas of slope instability occur in areas to be
developed and could result in damage to improvements or loss
of life.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures:
The WSP EIR at mitigation measure 4 . 9-10 states that the
above impacts can be significantly reduced or prevented
by: recognition of the conditions; sitting specific
improvements off unstable landforms; accommodating the
impact; removing unstable materials; stabilizing unstable
materials; and reconstruction. (See Appendix C of SEIR
at p. 10)
b. Facts: The above mitigation measure has been
incorporated into the Project. See discussion at SEIR
Impacts, Geology and Soils, Impact 1, Facts, which lists
the geotechnical studies performed. These studies
confirm the Project can be constructed safely and
securely. Detailed design level geotechnical
investigations that expand on the geotechnical
feasibility studies will be prepared for review by the
County's consulting expert to assure that potential
geologic hazards are avoided and/or mitigated.
C. Findings: The Project impacts regarding areas of slope
instability have been avoided or substantially lessened
with incorporation of the above mitigation measure into
the Project, and for the reasons set forth under SEIR
Impacts, Geology and Soils, Impact 1, Facts, below. The
approved geotechnical data confirms the Project can be
constructed safely and in a stable manner.
37. WSP Impact: Permanent . changes in existing topography and
natural surface and near surface geologic conditions will
occur in some areas to be developed, particularly in the
Norris Canyon Road Area, where proposed grading will involve
excavations up to about 90 feet and fills up to about 45 feet.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures:
The WSP EIR at mitigation measure 4 . 9-11 states that
permanent changes in existing topography and natural
surface and near surface geologic conditions are an
"unavoidable impact" of extensive grading. This measure
further states that visual 'impacts of extensive grading
can be reduced by: sensitive engineering design, using
gradual transitions from graded areas to natural slopes.
(See Appendix C of SEIR at p. 11)
b. Facts: See discussion under SEIR Impacts, Geology and
Soils, Impact 1, Facts, below.
C. Findings: The Project impacts regarding changes in
existing topography have been avoided or substantially
lessened by incorporation of the referenced WSP EIR
mitigation measure, and for the reasons set forth under
SEIR Impacts, Geology and Soils, Impact 1, Facts, below.
For these wSP Impacts 33-37, see Section c.b. 5. , on page
11, incorporated herein by reference.
Geology and Soils and storm Drainage Impacts/Mitigation Measures
Identified in the SEIR
The impacts of the Project with regard to geology and soils issues
are set forth in the SEIR at pages 3-1 to 3-16; storm drainage
impacts are set forth at pages 3-40 to 3-45.
Geology and Soils
38. Impact: The proposed project will result in significant
grading on the project site. This grading will occur in areas
with geotechnical constraints (steep slopes, landslides) but
39
would be conducted in accordance with detailed specifications
to minimize impacts and repair landslides.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
The WSP EIR at mitigation measure 4 .9-11 states that
visual impacts can be reduced by sensitive
engineering design, using gradual transitions from
graded areas to natural slopes. This measure has
been incorporated into the Project.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures Proposed by SEIR
(a) Additional subsurface exploration and
engineering analyses should be conducted to
establish geotechnical criteria for the project
prior to submittal of the Final Subdivision Map
to the County. The geotechnical criteria
development for the project should be submitted
to the County for review and approval prior to
filing the Final Subdivision Maps. See also
Condition 13 .
(b) All grading procedures should be accurately
documented and submitted to the County. A
final grading report should be submitted to
the County upon completion of grading. The
report should contain a detailed as-graded
geologic map signed by the geotechnical
engineer and engineering geologist. The map
should show all encountered faults, aquifers,
and stratigraphic (bedrock) units. Information
on the orientation of bedding and dominant
jointing should be mapped. The map should also
identify severely weathered and highly sheared
rock, as well as seepage. It should also
include the location of all subdrains and their
connections. See also Condition 10.
(c) The County should inspect and review the
grading procedures periodically to ensure
compliance with grading codes.
b. Facts•
(1) Background: To provide Project-specific information
regarding potential geologic and soils impacts
associated with development on the Project site, and
to supplement the previous analysis prepared for the
WSP EIR, several geotechnical and related reports
were prepared: (1) Geotechnical Feasibility
Investigation prepared by Harlan Tait Associates,
August 1990, revised February, 1991; Landslide
Repair Plans prepared by Harlan Tait Associates,
March 1992 ; Comparative Grading Analysis prepared
by Aliquot Engineers, 1992 ; and a Creek Setback
Analysis by Harlan Tait Associates. Additionally,
the geotechnical feasibility of the Project was
independently reviewed by Darwin Meyers Associates.
Darwin Meyers reviewed the Geotechnical Feasibility
Investigation report and the Landslide Repair Plans
to determine whether they adequately address
potential impacts. Their findings are summarized
in the SEIR. Darwin Meyers concludes that the
geologic and geotechnical reports and accompanying
data provided regarding the project meet County
ordinance requirements.
(2) Grading Impacts: The Project provides for contoured
grading to avoid abrupt transitions, incremental
40
terracing where appropriate, minimum roadway widths,
and extensive revegetation and reforestation. The
Comparative Grading Analysis identifies differences
between the grading required for the WSP in the
Project area, and required for the Project. The
Project would significantly reduce the amount of
grading, cut and fill necessary (see SEIR at p. 3-
7, 3-8) .
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts from grading are avoided or
significantly lessened. The WSP EIR mitigation
measure and the SEIR mitigation measure have been
incorporated into the Project. No additional
mitigation measures are necessary to reduce the
impact to a level of insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference.
39. Impact: The project would require drainage improvements
including construction and maintenance of surface and
subsurface drainage facilities and a stormwater detention
basin. In addition, maintenance of repaired landslide areas
would be required.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Proiect
A detention basin has been incorporated into the
Project (see discussion under Facts, below) .
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) Surface and subsurface drainage improvements
should be regularly cleaned of sediment and
vegetation to ensure proper function and slopes
and drainage terraces should be properly
maintained. A maintenance plan should be
prepared by a registered civil engineer and
approved by the County. See also Conditions
15.
(b) A Geologic Hazards Abatement District (GHAD)
made of project property owners should be
formed to finance the maintenance of slopes,
drainage terraces and subdrains. If a GHAD is
not formed, the homeowners association should
be given these maintenance responsibilities.
(Note: the project applicant has proposed the
formation of a maintenance assessment district
composed of the 371 lots within the project for
prevention, mitigation, abatement or control
of geologic hazards, and the maintenance of
drainage facilities. ) Areas maintained by the
homeowners should include areas on the
periphery of the development containing
adjoining landslides not including public land.
See also Condition 15.
b. Facts: The Project includes a detention basin and
related facilities. The Project further includes
formation of a maintenance assessment district composed
of the 371 lots within the project for prevention,
mitigation, abatement or control of geologic hazards,
and the maintenance of drainage facilities.
41
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
Project impacts requiring drainage improvements and
detention basins have been avoided or substantially
lessened. The WSP mitigation measures and the
above mitigation measures have been incorporated
into the Project and its Conditions of Approval by
requiring a detention basin and maintenance
assessment district. No additional mitigation
measures are necessary to reduce this impact to a
level of insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference as applied to this impact.
40. Impact: Landslide repair may affect creek corridor areas and
disrupt additional wildlife habitat.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
The WSP EIR set forth mitigation measures 4 . 8-2 ,
4 .8-3 , and 4 . 8-4 , as set forth under WSP Impact 2 ,
above.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) Specific landslide repair techniques should be
defined during the final design of the project.
With respect to landslides #5, 15, 21, 16, 19 ,
46 and 58 as depicted on Sheet 2 of the
Landslide Repair Plans, landslide repair
techniques, other than remove and replace,
should be employed to avoid additional impact
to creek areas, if possible, (i.e. buttresses,
crib wall, soldier piles etc. ) . The landslide
repair techniques for each landslide will be
reviewed and approved by the County prior to
approval of the Final Development Plan and
Final Subdivision Map. See also Condition 14 .
b. Facts: The WSP EIR proposed mitigation measures
referenced above have been incorporated into the Project.
The Project grading plan has been designed to reduce
impacts. The Project includes restoration and channel
stabilization.
The Biotic Resource Assessment and Habitat Mitigation
Plan, (Resource/Habitat Plan) dated August 27 , 1991, was
prepared by Sugnet & Associates on behalf of the
applicants. The Resource/Habitat Plan confirms that the
Project will impact only . 087 acres of intermittent
drainage. Compensation for affected habitats will be
accomplished on an "acre-for-acre", "value-for-value"
basis to result in "no net loss of in-kind habitat
value. " Implementation of the Project mitigation plans
will result in development of 3 . 00 acres of new aquatic
habitat, a net gain of 2 . 13 acres; and the development
of 74 . 5 acres of new woodlands, a net gain of 50 acres.
The Resource/Habitat Plan contains a monitoring program
which will inspect the on-going mitigation program for
5 years.
The grading plan for the Project reduces grading from
the WSP plan, reducing impacts on creek channels and
42
habitat. The Project also incorporates fewer creek
crossings than anticipated in the WSP. The Resource/
Habitat Plan includes specific designs for structures
that minimize impacts on creek channels. (See
Resource/Habitat Plan at pp. 21-23 . ) Impacts to creek
channels and associated riparian corridors at the road
crossings are also addressed. The Resource/Habitat Plan
confirms that reforestation and development of new
habitat will mitigate Project impacts.
The SEIR mitigation measure above regarding landslide
repair techniques has been incorporated into the Project
through the Project landslide repair plans and Conditions
of Approval.
C. Findings: Based upon the SEIR and the entire . record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts regarding creek corridors and
habitat have been avoided or substantially lessened.
The Resource/Habitat Plan and Landslide Repair Plans
have been incorporated into the Project through the
conditions of approval. These plans will ensure
that the impacts are addressed. No additional
mitigation measures are necessary to reduce this
impact to a level of insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference as applied to this impact.
41. Impact: The proposed project would require exceptions from
the County's creek setback requirements. While the County
has indicated that the conceptual proposal appears to be
appropriate, specific building envelopes need to be
established to ensure that minimal impacts on creek corridors
would result.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) Creek setbacks on the 52 lots otherwise
requiring exceptions from the County ordinance
should be reviewed at the tentative map
approval stage or possibly on an individual
basis by Contra Costa County to confirm that
an appropriate building envelope can be
established for each lot. Building envelopes
should be established for each of the 52 lots
and approved by the County prior to approval
of the project's final subdivision map. See
also Condition 30. F.
b. Facts: A Creek Setback Analysis was prepared for the Project
by Harlan Tait Associates and Aliquot Engineering to review
the Project's compliance with County setback requirements.
Exceptions from County requirements are needed in areas where
a setback line is proposed which varies from the line
established by the County Ordinance criteria. The Project
contains 52 lots whereon exceptions may be needed. The Creek
Setback Analysis concluded that a reasonable building envelope
consistent with the goals of the County's setback provision
could be established on each of the 52 lots.
43
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts regarding exceptions to County
setback requirements have been avoided or
substantially lessened. No additional mitigation
measures are necessary to reduce this impact to a
level of insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference as applied to this impact.
42 . Impact: The proposed project would require an exception from
County roadway standards for main loop road in areas where it
would exceed a 15% slope.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) Redesign the proposed 20% roadway segments on
the main loop road serving lots 133-135, 136-
141, 147-153 and 174-177 so that it does not
require an exception to meet County
"Collector" road standards. This change would
create a road with a maximum gradient of 15%.
See also Condition 49 . I.
b. Facts: The roads have been redesigned to meet Public
Works Department safety design concerns and still provide
for roads that are sensitive to the hillside topography.
Only a few exceptions to the 15% gradient are necessary
where it is safe and provides for sensitive design in the
professional opinion of the Public Works Department.
C. Findings: Based upon the SEIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts regarding the 20% roadway
segments have been avoided or substantially
lessened.
(2) Remaining Impacts
No additional mitigation measures are necessary to
reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference.
43. Impact: The proposed project may require the use of
explosives to aid in grading.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) If explosives are necessary to aid grading
activities, a special permit from the San Ramon
44
Valley Fire Protection district (SRVFPD) will
be obtained prior to any use of explosives on
the project site. The permit application
should identify the type of explosives to be
used, where they would be stored, when they
would be used and any other pertinent
information deemed necessary by the SRVFPD.
See also Condition 13 .
b. Facts: This mitigation measure have been incorporated
into the Project conditions of approval.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts from use . of explosives have been
avoided or substantially lessened. No additional
mitigation measures are necessary to reduce this impact
to a level of insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference as applied to this impact.
44. Impact: The project may be potentially inconsistent with
G.P. policies 10-28 (regarding decreased density as slope
increases) and 10-29 (regarding development on slopes over
26%) . However, determination of the project's consistency or
inconsistency with these policies is a matter of
interpretation for the Board of Supervisors.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) If it is determined that the project with its
proposed mitigation measures is inconsistent with
policies 10-28 and 10-29, then alternative
mitigation could be considered which could include
redesigning the project to further minimize
development and grading in areas over 26% slope,
and to provide decreasing density as slope
increases.
b. Facts:
(1) Background: The Safety Element of the County
General Plan sets forth several policies which apply
to the geologic impacts of the Project. A list of
each of these policies is as follows: 10-2 ; 10-3 ;
10-8; 10-14 ; 10-22 ; 10-24 ; 10-26; 10-27 ; 10-28; 10-
29; 10-30; 10-31; and 10-32 .
(2) Project Consistency: The SEIR finds the Project
consistent with the above Policies as follows:
(i) Policy 10-29 states that significant hillsides
with slopes over 26% or more shall be
considered unsuitable for types of development
which require extensive grading or other land
disturbance. The SEIR notes that because the
Project involves grading over 26%, the Project
could be "potentially inconsistent" with this
Policy. However, as stated under the
Aesthetics section above, at SEIR Impact 6 and
incorporated herein, the Project complies with
45
this Policy. These policies require safe
design on hillsides which is demonstrated in
the soils and Geology section above. Grading
on such hillsides is not prohibited by these
policies. Opponents to the Project who have
objected to it on such ground of inconsistency
misinterpret the policies.
(ii) Policy 10-28 states that residential density
should decrease as slope increases, especially
above a 15% slope. The Project design is
consistent with this Policy in that it is a
large lot, low density, yet clustered single
family development.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project is consistent with County General Plan
Safety Element Policies regarding geologic impacts
of the Project, as referenced above. Specifically,
the Project is consistent with Policy 10-29 and
Policy 10-28 . No additional mitigation measures are
necessary to limit this impact to a level of
insignificance. Removal of homes or further limits
on the development areas are not necessary under the
General Plan or appropriate in light of PRC Section
21085 and Guidelines 15041.
storm Drainage
45. Impact: As indicated in the WSP EIR, development in the
Norris Canyon area under the WSP would result in an increase
of approximately 26 cubic feet per second (cfs) in peak flows
in San Catanio Creek. This would represent an increase of
approximately 2 . 5% in existing peak flows. Runoff within the
San Catanio watershed is expected to increase with total
build-out of the Norris Canyon area from 109 acre feet to 112
acre feet annually (WSP EIR, Table 27 , page 4 . 8 . 21) . However,
the proposed project includes a storm drainage detention basin
which would significantly reduce storm water runoff from the
site.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, set forth below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) Prior to filing a final subdivision map, pay
the appropriate storm drainage impact fees as
determined by the Contra Costa County Flood
Control District. These fees shall not exceed
$0. 35 per square foot of impervious surface
created by the proposed project.
(b) Use of the proposed detention basin for non-
flood control measures (i.e. , recreation)
should not be allowed unless it can be
demonstrated that liability, maintenance and
aesthetic concerns can be satisfactorily
resolved. See also Condition 3 . C.
b. Facts: The WSP EIR determined that the peak flows within
San Catanio Creek basin would be increased approximately
26 Cfs (Cubic feet per second) by the construction of the
Norris Canyon Road sub-area. In order to mitigate this
additional flow during a 100 year storm of 3 hour
duration, a drainage basin is proposed. The WSP EIR at
46
4 . 8-1 referenced the drainage element of the WSP, which
proposed the construction of detention basins to reduce
post-Project peak flood flows to existing conditions.
The Project incorporates this measure by proposing to
construct a 23 acre-foot detention basin along an
existing seasonal creek centrally located within the
Project.
The basin will have the ability to reduce Peak 100 year
Storm Flows at the basin from 416. 0 Cfs inflow to 123
Cfs outflow. This approximate reduction of 300 Cfs will
significantly reduce the current Peak Flows and far
exceeds the mitigation requirement of 26 Cfs reduction.
The proposed detention basin would significantly reduce
increases in storm water runoff from development of the
Project site. The hydrologic analysis indicates that
the detention basin would reduce peak flows by as much
as 200 Cfs.
The detention basin will further reduce peak flows in
San Catanio Creek at the project site outfall from
existing conditions by more than 30 percent.
The SEIR proposes the above two mitigation measures in
addition to the drainage basin to ensure that the project
conforms with the Contra Costa County General Plan Policy
regarding fees for creation of impervious surfaces.
These mitigation measures have been included in the
Project Conditions of Approval.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
Project impacts resulting from increase in peak
flows in San Catanio Creek are avoided or
significantly lessened by incorporation of a
detention basin into the Project, by ensuring proper
storm drainage impact fees are paid, and restricting
use of the detention basin. No additional
mitigation measures are necessary to reduce this
impact to a level of insignificance.
46. Impact: As identified in the WSP EIR, the proposed project
would result in an increase in urban runoff water pollutants
from homes and roadways located within the proposed project.
Urban pollutants from the proposed project would enter the
proposed local drainage facilities.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) A regular street sweeping program should be
provided to reduce urban pollutants from
entering the storm water runoff. The street
sweeping program should be funded through the
Homeowners Funded Maintenance District to be
formed by the project to fund the maintenance
of drainage facilities.
b. Facts: The WSP EIR sets forth mitigation measure 4 . 8-5,
which states that potential increases in urban runoff can
be partially mitigated by a regular street sweeping
program. This mitigation is also proposed by the SEIR,
47
above, and has been incorporated into the Project through
a condition of approval. Conditions of approval
specifying sediment traps, revegetation, and siltation
control will also reduce surface runoff pollutants,
particularly during the grading and installation of the
Project infrastructure prior to completion of the
reseeding and reforestation measures.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or substantially Lessened
Project impacts resulting from increase in urban
runoff water pollutants will be avoided or
substantially lessened through use of a regular
street sweeping program, and Project conditions of
approval specifying sediment traps, revegetation,
and siltation control. No additional mitigation is
necessary.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference as applied to this impact.
47. Impact: Maintenance of the proposed detention basin and
drainage facilities could be costly for the County Public
Works Department and Flood Control District.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) The Contra Costa County Flood Control District
should work with the project applicant and
other relevant agencies to determine the
appropriate funding and responsibilities for
maintenance of the project's storm drainage
facilities prior to approval of the project's
final subdivision map. See also Condition 15.
b. Facts: With regard to the Project, maintenance of the
proposed detention facility and on-site drainage
improvement will be provided and funded through the
formation of a maintenance assessment district as part
of the Geologic Hazards Abatement District (GHAD)
composed of the 371 privately owned lots within the
Project. The proposed district will provide a long-term
funding source and be responsible for the maintenance of
the detention facility. The district will also provide
the County Public Works Department and the City of San
Ramon with yearly plans regarding the district's
activities and budget. Creation of the GHAD has been
incorporated into the Project through conditions. of
approval. See also Condition 15.
C. Findings: Based upon the SEIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
Project impacts with regard to maintenance
responsibilities for drainage facilities have been
avoided or significantly lessened by the requirement
of the creation of a GHAD. No additional mitigation
measures are necessary to reduce this impact to a
level of insignificance.
48
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference as applied to this impact.
48. Impact: Storm Drainage Consistency With General Plan Policies
a. Background: With regard to storm drainage, the SEIR
identified the following County General Plan Policies
from the Public Facilities/Services Section:
Policy 7-45: New development should be required to
finance its legal share of drainage improvements.
Policy 7-46: On-site water control shall be
required to reduce peak flows.
Policy 7-51: Public access to watercourses shall
be required when liability and security issues can
be resolved.
Policy 7-52 : Detention basins shall be designed for
multiple use such as parks, etc. if liability issues
can be resolved.
b. Facts: The SEIR confirms at p. 3-44 that the Project is
generally consistent with the above Policies. The
Project would provide its fair share of the cost of
drainage improvements, and provide on-site water control
(detention basin) . The Project provides for construction
of the detention facility in the public park area,
provided that liability, etc. , can be resolved. The
Project would be subject to the $0. 35 per square foot
fee.
C. Findings: The Board finds that the Project is generally
consistent with the General Plan Policies regarding storm
drainage for reasons set forth above.
Water
Water Impacts/Mitigation Measures Identified in the WSP/EIR
49. WSP Impact: Development of the WSP area would require
annexation of the area to EBMUD.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures:
(1) The WSP EIR at mitigation measure 4 . 11-14 states
that all developed area outside of the current
service boundary for EBMUD shall be processed
through LAFCO.
(2) Mitigation measure 4 . 11-15 requires that development
within higher elevation than those served by
existing pressure zones shall be responsible for
cost of constructing major facilities through the
System Capacity Charge (SCC) .
(3) Mitigation measure 4 . 11-16 requires that the SCC
would be imposed by EBMUD pursuant to its
regulations.
(4) Mitigation measure 4 . 11-17 requires that new
development pay all applicable fees for provision
of water service.
49
b. Facts•
(1) Facts regarding mitigation measure 4 . 11-14 , above: The
Board has submitted a Resolution of Application to the
Contra Costa County LAFCO. Annexation is a condition of
project approval. Annexation is requested into EBMUD,
CCCSD, and County Lighting District L-100. See
discussion under SEIR Water, Impact 1, Facts, below.
(2) Facts regarding mitigation measures 4 . 11-15 through 4 . 11-
17, above: A preliminary utility plan that outlines the
water supply and storage system for the proposed project
was submitted and evaluated through the SEIR and Project
review. Conditions 3 .K. requires SRVRPC review of
watertank details to confirm mitigation of visual
impacts. Final design level review of the water delivery
.system will require review and approval by EBMUD. There
is no evidence to suggest that there is any physical or
technical impairment to the delivery of water by EBMUD
to this site an its homes and common facilities.
C. Findings: The Project impact regarding the requirement
to annex to EBMUD is avoided or substantially lessened,
with incorporation of these mitigation measures, and the
mitigation measures set forth in the SEIR for Water as
set forth below. The Project impacts have been avoided
or substantially lessened for the reasons set forth under
SEIR Impacts Water, Impact 1, Facts, below. See also
Section 50.C(2) , incorporated herein by reference.
Water Impacts/Mitigation Measures Identified in the SEIR
The impacts of the Project with regard to water issues are set
forth in the SEIR at pages 3-16 to 3-36.
50. Impact: The project site is not currently within an existing
water service district. It appears that EBMUD would provide
the most practical and feasible method of obtaining water
service for the project. Annexation and extension of a 12"
main to the project site (EBMUD size requirement) would be
required. The 12" line is large enough to provide water
service to other sites, which could create a growth inducing
impact.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) LAFCO will evaluate the situation and make the
determination regarding annexation of the
project site into EBMUD. Project consistency
with the identified General Plan policies,
EBMUD's policies and environmental impacts will
be evaluated as a part of the decision. See
also Condition 9 and Advisory Note L.
(b) Prior to recording a final map, evidence should
be provided that the project has been annexed
into EBMUD consistent with Water Service Policy
7-21 and Water Service Implementation Measure
7-i. See also Condition 9 .
(c) If the project is annexed to EBMUD, the
District should evaluate their Ultimate Service
boundaries, standards and the project's water
supply requirements to determine how to design
50
the water line extension without providing
capacity for lands that are not anticipated for
development. A design that limits future
connections unrelated to the project would
mitigate any incremental growth inducing impact
of the project.
b. Facts: No primary public water lines or wells exist
within the Project site or the immediately surrounding
areas. The nearest existing line is a 12-inch EBMUD
water main 1. 5 miles from the site, in the San Ramon
area. EBMUD is the closest and most logical water
provider. DSRSD and Zone 7 are too remote and delivery
of service from those providers is technically
infeasible. Zone 7 does not ordinarily service Contra
Costa areas.
The Board has applied to the Contra Costa County LAFCO
to evaluate and approve three annexations as part of one
boundary reorganization, including the subject annexation
into EBMUD. Upon request of Contra Costa County, the
Alameda LAFCO transferred jurisdiction over the EBMUD
annexation to the Contra Costa LAFCO (Norris Canyon Area
Boundary Reorganization) . The Contra Costa LAFCO has
policies for evaluating requests for changes to water
boundaries. These policies generally require an
evaluation of timeliness, efficiency of service and
environmental review.
The SEIR and through this planning process the County
evaluated several alternative means of supplying the
project with water, including utilization of EBMUD. The
SEIR noted EBMUD's Policy 52 , which states in part that
annexation of an area outside EBMUD's ultimate service
boundary will only be considered by EBMUD if it
represents the most practical and feasible method of
obtaining service and the acceptable level of average
demand is not exceeded. Other provisions of Policy 52
may not be satisfied here.
EBMUD's acceptable maximum level of average demand of
projected and planned water supply is currently being
developed as part of the District's Water Supply
Management Program (WSMP) . The draft SEIR summarized
EBMUD's circumstances regarding its water supply, and the
WSMP, at p. 3-24 through 3-28 and at p. 3-32 through 3-
36, and in other additional information provided
subsequently by EBMUD and the applicant. That additional
information is also utilized by the Board to determine
whether its General Plan water services policies are
being satisfied.
The SEIR and the Board through sufficient evidence in
the record have concluded that EBMUD is the logical
provider of water for the site, and would provide the
most practical and feasible method of obtaining service,
and that EBMUD has adequate capacity to serve the
Project.
To serve the additional residences, EBMUD would provide
approximately 277 , 500 gallons of water per day (the
actual use would be much lower during a drought when
landscape watering may be substantially reduced or
eliminated through voluntary or mandatory WSP
restrictions; see prior EBMUD restrictions as examples) .
This figure constitutes only 0. 12% ( . 001156) of the
District's 240 mgd total delivery capacity; and only
0. 130 ( . 00129) of the District's 215 mgd actual water
demand. The SEIR noted that EBMUD's Policy 52 states
51
the District's policy to review and report on adequacy
of the District's water supplies when considering case
by case decisions on requests for replacement supplies
"which increase the average annual demand by one percent
(1. 0%) ". The SEIR and other information in the record
have confirmed that once annexed, the Project's demand
would not be considered consequential.
Providing water to this Project as a relatively small
user, even during times of drought and with reduced water
supplies, will have a less than significant impact on
existing EBMUD customers. Cumulative impacts are more
fully discussed in Attachment 2 to this Exhibit.
The County General Plan addresses water service issues
in its Growth Management Program and the Public
Facilities/Services Element. The Growth Management
performance standard is set forth in the General Plan at
p. 4-11. Generally, it requires the County to require new
development to timely demonstrate that adequate water
quality and quantity can be provided. It does not
require adequate water service to be verified at this
early project approval stage, rather at the final
subdivision or similar approval stage in the process.
EBMUD misinterprets the General Plan. This standard is
also set forth in Policy 7-21 and Implementation Measure
7-i.
The SEIR concluded that at this time there is sufficient
evidence to find that EBMUD has a sufficient water supply
capacity to serve the Project consistent with the General
Plan standards. Compliance with the General Plan
standards is more fully set forth in Attachment 2 to this
Exhibit.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
All three of the above mitigation measures are
incorporated into the Project. Mitigation measures
4 . 11-14 through 4 . 11-17 set forth in the SEIR are
also incorporated into the Project. With such
mitigation measures, the Conditions of Approval and
the limited amount of water use by this Project in
the context of EBMUD's entire water demand and
supply, even under EBMUD's worst case scenario,
the Project impacts regarding the requirement to
annex to a water district or otherwise obtain water
have been avoided or substantially lessened. EBMUD
is the logical water provider. EBMUD has adequate
short-term and long-term capacity to provide the
limited amount of water necessary for the Project.
The Project is consistent with the County growth
management performance standards: (1) there is
sufficient evidence that capacity exists within the
water system for the Project; and (2) the applicant
will fund the necessary installation of utilities.
Drought-related use restrictions will further reduce
and mitigate water use by this Project. With regard
to EBMUD's Policy 52 , the Board finds that EBMUD
represents the most practical and feasible method
of obtaining service, and the acceptable minimum
level of average demand is not exceeded and that it
is not otherwise bound to follow EBMUD's annexation
policies and its unilaterally created Ultimate
Service Boundary. No additional mitigation measures
are necessary to reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance.
52
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference as applied to any impact on
EBMUD's existing and future water supply and its
ability to service customers within its boundaries.
51. Impact: The project would use a maximum of approximately
277, 500 gallons of water per day. This is 0. 12% ( . 001156) of
the District's 240 mgd total delivery capacity and the very
small percentage 0. 13% ( . 00129) of the District's 215 mgd
actual water demand as determined in the SEIR. Using the
District's worst case figures this use represents a comparable
percentage use of total delivery capacity and of total demand.
Moreover, in the worst case water use by the project will be
substantiallycurtailed by voluntary or mandatory
restrictions. Once annexed, the project's demand would not
be considered consequential (more than 1% of average annual
demand) . Based on anticipated demand increases (0. 18% per
year) in the SEIR or by EBMUD in some of its later
information, water supply should be available to the project
over the ten year build-out process.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
(See discussion under Facts, below)
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) Prior to recording a final map, there should be
verification or assurance of water service through
a Pipeline Extension Agreement or other means for
the units to be constructed based on building
permits. See also Condition 9 .
b. Facts•
See discussion under Facts for Impact 1, above and
Attachment 2 . The Project incorporates the above
mitigation measure in Condition 9.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
See Findings made under Impact 1, above. The above
mitigation measure is added to such Findings. No
additional mitigation measures are necessary to
reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference.
52. Impact: Consistency with General Plan Policies.
a. Background: The General Plan sets forth Water Service
Policies in its Public Facilities/Services Element. The
SEIR identifies Polices applicable to the Project are
more fully explained in Attachment 2 .
b. Findings: The Board finds that the Project is consistent
with the General Plan Policies as set forth above, for
the reasons set forth in Attachment 2 to this Exhibit.
53
Fire Protection
Fire Protection Impacts/Mitigation Measures Identified in the WSP
EIR
53. WSP Impact(s) : Development of this site would increase demand
for fire protection and create a need for additional
firefighting personnel; additional fire station; and
additional firefighting equipment.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures:
The WSP EIR sets forth the following three mitigation
measures to address the above impacts:
(1) 4 . 11-1: Five additional firefighting personnel
positions shall be created and an engine meeting
the requirements of the Fire District for the
Westside shall be purchased.
(2) 4 . 11-2 : Projects shall comply with the Uniform Fire
Code and Uniform Building Code.
(3) 4 . 11-3 : Provision shall be made for projects to
include the following fire protection measures:
fire sprinkler systems, heat and smoke detection
system, adequate fire flows, approved access roads,
weed abatement programs, and fire resistive
vegetation.
b. Facts: The Project will provide 371 units that could
potentially contain 925 residents based on the County
per unit average household size. This is slightly less
than the one firefighter per every 1, 000 new residents
standard. (4 . 11-1) The Project shall be required to
comply with the Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building
Code as part of the approval process prior to
construction. (4 . 11-2) The Project Conditions of
Approval require the provisions set forth in measure
4 . 11-3 .
In addition, the applicant has met with the San Ramon
Valley Fire Protection District and agreed to incorporate
additional mitigation measures in the project. See
discussion under SEIR Fire Protection Impacts, Impact 1,
Facts, below.
C. Findings: The Project impacts regarding fire protection
have been avoided or substantially lessened by
incorporation of the listed mitigation measures, and the
additional mitigation measures set forth under SEIR Fire
Protection Impacts, set forth below.
Fire Protection Impacts/Mitigation Measures Identified in the SEIR
The impacts of the Project with relation to fire protection issues
is set forth in the SEIR at pages 3-36 to 3-39.
54. Impact: The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
(SRVFPD) was contacted regarding the fire safety aspects of
the proposed project. The SRVFPD reviewed the proposed
project with respect to fire safety issues related to hillside
development which were brought to light by the 1991 Oakland
hills fire and has set forth specific mitigation measures as
listed in Section 3 . 2 . 2 of this SEIR.
54
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) The fire protection measures and project design
features proposed by the San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District should be incorporated into
the project design prior to approval of the
final subdivision map and as conditions of
project approval. See also Conditions 3 . I. ,
and 31.
b. Facts: The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
(SRVFPD) was contacted regarding fire safety aspects of
the Project. The SRVFPD reviewed the Project with
respect to fire safety issues related to hillside
development which arose from the 1991 Oakland hills fire.
the SRVFPD recommended several measures to reduce
potential fire hazards, as set forth in the SEIR at pp.3-
36 through 3-37. These measures have been incorporated
into the Project condition of approvals.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
The Project impacts regarding fire protection have been
avoided or substantially lessened by incorporation of
the mitigation measures set forth in the WSP EIR, above,
the mitigation measures recommended by the SRVRPD as
referenced above and the Conditions of Approval.
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts regarding need for fire
protection have been avoided or substantially
lessened by inclusion of the above mitigation
measure in the Project conditions of approval. No
additional mitigation measures are necessary to
reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference as applied to this impact.
55. Impact: Consistency with County General Plan Policies.
a. Background: The SEIR states that the County General
Plan, Public Facilities/Services Element sets forth
several Policies which are applicable to the Project, as
follows:
(1) Policy 7-65: New development shall pay its fair
share of costs of new fire protection.
The Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures
incorporate this requirement.
(2) Policy 7-66: Needed upgrades for fire facilities
and equipment shall be identified as part of Project
environmental review.
The Project received this type of review. The
SRVRPD determined that no upgraded facilities or
equipment are required to serve this Project.
55
(3) Policy 7-67 : Sprinkler systems may be required.
The Project complies with this policy, by the
applicants agreement to require five sprinklers in
every home.
(4) Policy 7-72 : Special fire protection requirements
for hillsides shall be developed.
The Project has incorporated the SRVRPD
recommendations for hillsides, including adequate
access.
(5) Policy 7-74 : Fire equipment access shall be
provided to open space areas.
The Project has incorporated open space access for
fire equipment, through emergency vehicle access.
(6) Policy 7-82 : All structures located in Hazardous
Fire Areas shall be constructed with fire-resistant
materials, etc.
The Project has incorporated these requirements.
(7) Policy 7-62 : The County shall strive to have fire
stations located within one and one-half miles of
development in urban, suburban and central business
areas.
An alternative to this policy is the provision of
fire sprinklers as provided in this Project,
pursuant to Policy 7-66.
b. Findings: The Project is consistent with County General
Plan Policies regarding fire protection for the reasons
set forth above.
Public Protection
Public Protection Impacts/Mitigation Measures set forth in the
WSP/EIR
56. WSP Impact: New development under the Specific Plan will
cause an increased need for police protection services.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures:
(1) The WSP EIR at mitigation measure 4 . 11-12 states
that addition of five officers, two patrol vehicles,
and staff support for a fifth beat forth the San
Ramon Police Department will provide a response time
of four to six minutes for "priority 1" calls for
the Westside.
(2) The WSP EIR at mitigation measure 4 . 11-13 requires
incorporation of police department recommendations
regarding design aspects of development that affect
traffic safety and crime prevention.
b. Facts: The significant impact identified in the WSP EIR
relates to the entire westside buildout. The Norris
Canyon Road sub-area of the Westside currently has
primary police protection supplied by the Contra Costa
County Sheriff's Department. This police protection will
continue after construction of the Project. Should the
Project be annexed into the City of San Ramon, then the
City will supply primary police services. Discussions
with the Sheriffs department has revealed conflicting
General Plan related service standards. However, the
56
Project applicant has agreed to participate in an
appropriate program should the Sheriff's Department
determine the Project impacts warrant mitigation.
On-going funding for police protection by the County or
the City will be from the tax dollars generated by the
County's property tax assessment.
C. Findings: The Project impacts regarding police
protection have been avoided or substantially lessened.
Public Protection Impacts/Mitigation Measures set forth in the SEIR
The impacts of the Project with relation to public protection
issues is set forth in the SEIR at pages 3-39 to 3-40.
57. Impact: The proposed project would result in the development
of 371 single-family residences on the project site. The
addition of these residences to the County would have an
incremental impact on the need for additional public
protection services. However, residential projects of this
nature, large single family homes in a rural setting,
generally do not place significant demands on public
protection services.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) The Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department
should determine an appropriate fee to be paid
to the Sheriff's Department by the project
applicant to comply with the facility standards
policy of 155 square feet per 1, 000 residents.
The facility standards "fee", if appropriate,
should be paid upon issuance of building
permits for the project.
b. Facts: The Conditions of Approval incorporate this
mitigation measure.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts regarding need for public
protection have been avoided or substantially
lessened by inclusion of the above mitigation
measures in the Project and its Conditions of
Approval. No additional mitigation measures are
necessary to reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference as applied to this impact.
Treated Wastewater and Sewage Disposal
Treated Wastewater and Sewage Disposal Impacts/Mitigation Measures
Identified in the WSP EIR
58. WSP Impacts: (1) A portion of the site is not within the
sphere of influence of the CCCSD; (2) the project would
57
increase Average Dry Weather wastewater flow to CCCSD
facilities by 135, 000 gpd. , existing sewer mains would need
to be upgraded to serve development under the Specific Plan;
(3) pump stations would be necessary to serve some areas of
the Westside.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures:
4 . 11-4 : The contributing watershed in the northern
portion of the Westside shall be annexed to the CCCSD.
4 . 11-6: Fees shall be paid to CCCSD to cover any
required upsizing; sewer mains shall be extended on
Norris Canyon Road;
4. 11-7 : Existing capacity and improvement to CCCSDs'
existing facilities required as a result of new
development will be funded from applicable district fees
and charges.
b. Facts: The applicant has filed an application to annex
the Project into the CCCSD. The Board of Supervisors has
submitted the Resolution of Application to LAFCO.
CCCSD has responded by letter (dated April 1, 1991)
stating a sewer capacity study verifies the ability to
serve. (4 . 11-4) The SEIR confirms that CCCSD is the
logical provider for sewer service. Responsibility for
changing the CCCSD's Sphere of Influence lies with the
LAFCO.
The proposed Project would generate an average dry
weather flow of 111, 000 gallons per day (gpd) based on
an average of 3000 gpd/unit. The applicant will
construct the on and off-site sewer mains as part of the
Project infrastructure. This work would be to CCCSD
standards. Based on CCCSD's review of the existing sewer
line capacity off-site, CCCSD has state upsizing of
existing mains would not be necessary. The Project
conditions of approval require the applicant to pay
applicable sewer capacity fees. (4 . 11-6, 4 . 11-7)
The WSP EIR confirmed that the use of pump stations
within proposed development of this area is strongly
discouraged by the CCCSD. The District requires that
all other forms of conveying flow be examined before
presenting the option of pumping. The SEIR confirmed
that the sewer system would operate under gravity flow,
no pumping would be required.
C. Findings: The Project impacts regarding annexation to
CCCSD; upgrading CCCSD and other facilities; and use of
a pump station have been avoided or substantially
lessened by incorporation of mitigation measures set
forth in the WSP EIR as stated above. The mitigation
measure regarding pump station is rejected at this time
as being unnecessary for the reasons stated above.
Treated Wastewater and Sewage Disposal Impacts/Mitigation Measures
Identified in the SEIR
The impact of the Project with relation to treated wastewater and
sewage disposal issues is set forth in the SEIR at pages 3-45 to
3-49.
59. Impact: The proposed project would generate an average dry
weather flow of 111, 300 gallons per day (gpd) based on an
average of 300 gpd/unit. The proposed project would include
off-site sewer improvements including extension of the
58
existing CCCSD mains located at Norris Canyon and Bollinger
Canyon Roads, along Norris Canyon Road to the project site.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Proiect
See mitigation measures set forth in the WSP EIR,
above. All have been incorporated into the Project.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are necessary.
b. Facts: See WSP EIR Treated Wastewater Impacts, Impact
1, Facts, set forth above. The SEIR confirmed that with
adoption of the WSP EIR mitigation measures, no
additional mitigation measures are necessary.
C. Findings: Based upon the SEIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts regarding annexation to CCCSD;
upgrading CCCSD and other facilities; and use of a
pump station have been avoided or substantially
lessened by incorporation of mitigation measures
set forth in the WSP EIR as stated above. The
mitigation measure regarding pump station is
rejected at this time as being unnecessary for the
reasons stated above. No additional mitigation
measures are necessary to reduce this impact to a
level of insignificance.
60. Impact: The project site is not located within an existing
sewer district and would have to be annexed before service
could be provided to the site. There are two sewer districts
in the general area of the project site (Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District (CCCSD) and the Dublin San Ramon Services
District (DSRSD) ) . CCCSD is the closest to the project site
and would be the logical provider.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See mitigation measure set forth under WSP EIR for
sewer service set forth above.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are necessary.
b. Facts: See WSP EIR Impacts, Facts, set forth above.
The SEIR confirmed that with adoption of the WSP EIR
mitigation measures, no additional mitigation measures
are necessary.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts regarding annexation to CCCSD;
upgrading CCCSD and other facilities; and use of a
pump station have been avoided or substantially
lessened by incorporation of mitigation measures
set forth in the WSP EIR as stated above. The
mitigation measure regarding pump station is
59
rejected at this time as being unnecessary for the
reasons stated above. No additional mitigation
measures are necessary to reduce this impact to a
level of insignificance.
61. Impact 3 . Compliance with County General Plan Policies.
a. Background: The County General Plan Growth Management
performance standard for sanitary sewer at p.4-11
generally requires that the County shall require new
development to demonstrate that adequate sewer quantity
and quality exist prior to approval. As stated above,
the CCCSD has indicated capacity and ability to serve.
The County General Plan Policies applicable to the
Project are found in the Public Facilities/Services
Element, as follows:
(1) Policy 7-31: Urban development shall be encouraged
within the sewer Sphere of Influence; expansion
should be restricted to areas where development can
meet growth standards.
As stated, the County has confirmed growth standards
can be met for provision of sewer service.
(2) Policy 7-33 : The County shall require new
development to demonstrate that adequate wastewater
treatment can be provided.
This is the adoption of the County Growth Management
performance standard, addressed above.
(3) Policy 7-37 : The need for sewer system shall be
reduced by requirement incorporation of water
conservation measures.
The Project incorporates water conservation
measures.
The SEIR confirms that the Project is generally
consistent with the Policies of the County General Plan.
b. Findings: The Board finds that the Project is consistent
with the standards and Policies of the County General
Plan regarding sewer service, for the reasons set forth
above.
Park Land/Recreation/Open Space
Park Land/Recreation/Open Space Impacts/Mitigation Measures
Identified in the WSP EIR
62. WSP Impact: Development under the WSP will result in a demand
for an additional 32 acres of public parks.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures:
4 . 11-10: Create Neighborhood and community park areas
within the Westside to serve new residents and the City
of San Ramon, and meet the San Ramon General Plan
Standards.
4 . 11-11: Provide dedications of new parkland area and/or
payment of parkland dedication fees.
b. Facts: The Project contains an 8 . 8 acre neighborhood
park site to be constructed by the developer. The City
of San Ramon parkland standard of 4 . 5 acres per 1, 000
60
persons has been met. (See further discussion under
SEIR Park Impacts, Impact 1, Facts, below) .
C. Findings: The Project impact regarding adequate parkland
has been avoided or substantially lessened by adoption
of the above mitigation measures, as explained under SEIR
Park Impacts, Impact 1, Facts, below.
Park Land/Recreation/Open Space Impacts/Mitigation Measures
Identified in the SEIR
The impact of the Project with relation to park land, recreation
and open space issues is set forth in the SEIR at pages 3-49 to 3-
57 .
63. Impact: The proposed project includes an 8 . 8 acre community
park to be developed in the center of the project site. The
park would be considered a "Neighborhood Park" and would
exceed the County park criteria of providing 3 . 0 acres per
1, 000 residents.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
The WSP EIR mitigation measures referenced above
have been incorporated into the Project.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) Prior to tentative map approval, the applicant
should obtain a response from the Public Works
Department on the feasibility of allowing
active or passive recreation activity within
the proposed detention basin. The review
should provide for a preliminary
landscape/ irrigation plan including
identification of the location and design of
any proposed fencing, and the assignment of
any liability and maintenance responsibility.
See also Condition 3.J.
b. Facts: The WSP EIR mitigation measures, and the above
mitigation measure, have been incorporated into the
Project. The park area has been expanded from 5 to 8.8
acres with additional recreation amenities. The park
would be considered a "Neighborhood Park", and would
exceed the County Park standards of providing 3 . 00 acres
per 1, 000 residents. A portion of the park would also
be utilized for the storm water detention basin. This
would be consistent with County policy regarding
detention basins which promote multiple use of detention
facilities.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts regarding providing adequate
park lands have been avoided or substantially
lessened; the 8 . 8 acre park meets all County
standards. No additional mitigation measures are
necessary to reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference as applied to this impact.
61
64. Impact: The project would contain approximately 854 acres
of homeowner's association owned and privately owned, deed-
restricted agricultural and open space and public open space.
The project would include a range management program.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) Consider dedication of the 673 acres of
privately owned agricultural/open space to the
East Bay Regional Parks District as an
expansion of the adjacent Bishop Ranch Regional
Open Space. See also Condition 4 .
(b) A scenic easement over all privately owned
agricultural/open space area could be dedicated
to the County. See also Condition 3 .M. and 21.
(c) A range management report should be prepared
yearly and submitted to the County Agricultural
Commissioner for review. The yearly report
should summarize the primary aspects of the
prior years range management practices
including but not limited to: residual dry
matter on the ground in the fall; number of
cattle or other livestock on the property;
summary of plant composition; and the
documentation of any pest infestations.
b. Facts: The Project would result in a total of 673 acres
of the Wiedemann Ranch property being restricted to
agricultural, open space and restricted uses. The 673
acres will be restricted through a combination of a
recorded restrictive covenant or servitude instrument,
scenic easement and gifted public open space. The
restrictions would set forth limits on future use and
development consistent with Condition 3 .M. , 4 , and 21.
A new Williamson Act contract will be placed on the 598
acres that is not publicly owned.
An additional Williamson Act contract on the 673 will
further . ensure that the agricultural lots will lands
remain for agricultural open space and related uses.
The applicants have prepared a Range Management Program,
setting forth various range management practices for
livestock production, conservation of plant and wildlife
diversity and fire hazard reduction. The program
provides a mechanism for periodic review by the County
Agricultural Commissioner.
The EBRPD finds the open space provision of the Project
acceptable as modified consistent with direct discussion
with District officials and have withdrawn any objections
to the Project. Their letters of objection are withdrawn
from the record at their request.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts regarding restriction of open
space lands use have been avoided or substantially
62
b. Facts: The Project will be required to pay current
SRVUSD school impact fees (estimated at $1, 750, 000 for
the 371 units) . In addition, the SRVUSD would receive
increased property tax reserves from the Project. The
SEIR confirms that the school impact fees and increased
property tax revenues would adequately mitigate
enrollment impacts of the Project.
C. Findings: The Board finds that the Project impact on
school enrollment is avoided or substantially lessened.
The school impact fees and increased property tax
revenues would adequately mitigate enrollment impacts of
the Project.
School Impacts/Mitigation Measures Identified in the SEIR
The impact of the Project with relation to school issues is set
forth in the SEIR at pages 3-57 to 3-60.
67. Impact: According to school district's student generation
factors, the proposed project would result in approximately
250 new student enrollments at SRVUSD schools. Students
generated by the proposed project would impact local SRVUSD
schools. Based on the current SRVUSD impact fees the proposed
project is estimated to provide approximately $1, 750, 000. 00
to the school district from the 371 units. The SRVUSD would
also receive increased property tax revenues from the project.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
The WSP EIR mitigation measures set forth above are
incorporated into the Project.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are necessary.
b. Facts: See the WSP EIR School Impacts, Impact 1, Facts,
above.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impact on school enrollment is avoided
or substantially lessened. The school impact fees
and increased property tax revenues would adequately
mitigate enrollment impacts of the Project. No
additional mitigation measures are necessary to
reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference as applied to this impact.
68. Impact: Consistency with County General Plan standards and
Policies
a. Background: The SEIR identified the following County
General Plan Policies (Public Facilities/Services
Element) regarding schools:
(1) Policy 7-141: The environmental review process
shall monitor service.
The SEIR performs such review.
64
(2) Policy 7-142 : The State classroom sizes shall be
utilized
These standards have been utilized.
(3) Policy 7-146: Adequate provisions of schools shall
be assured by coordinating review through the Growth
Management Program and environmental review process.
The Growth Management Program and environmental
review process have been followed for the Project.
b. Findings: The Board finds that the Project is
consistent with the County standards and Policies for
the reasons set forth above.
Fiscal
Fiscal Impacts/Mitigation Measures Identified in the SEIR
The impact of the Project with relation to fiscal issues is set
forth in the SEIR at pages 3-60 to 3-62 .
69. Impact: The project will place demands on certain public
service (i.e. , police, schools, parks, etc. ) and utilities
(i.e. , water, sewer, electricity, etc. ) . In general, the
financial implication of a new development on public services
and utilities is paid for out of development fees or charges,
property tax revenues and service fees.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are necessary.
b. Facts: The SEIR discusses fiscal impacts at p. 3-60.
Generally, the SEIR states that public services and
utilities would be provided by a wide range of local
service providers, including the County, public
utilities, and private service providers. The SEIR
concludes that the Project would not have a significant
fiscal impact on the County or the various service
providers because the Project would pay certain
development fees and would result in increased property
tax revenues, which would provide a long-term funding
source for various County services.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project fiscal impacts have been avoided or
substantially lessened for the reasons set forth
above. No additional mitigation measures are
necessary to reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference.
65
Plant and Animal Life
Plant and Animal Life Impacts/mitigation Measures Identified in
the WSP EIR
70. WSP Impact: The WSP EIR divided the Westside into Development
Areas, and set forth impacts on plant and animal life within
such areas. Project areas and impacts were set forth as
follows:
Development Area B: Potential impacts could result from
the filling or sedimentation of two major creek
drainages.
Development Areas C & D: Potential impacts could result
from tree removal and filling or damage to creeks.
Development Areas E, G, H & I: Impacts could result from
constructed related erosion and siltation, and water
quality impacts from post construction runoff.
Development Area F: Impacts potentially could result
from construction-related erosion and siltation, and
water quality impacts from post-construction runoff. In
addition, removal of approximately seven acres of
riparian habitat due to filling of one creek with dirt
from the grading of the cross-valley ridge will have a
significant impact on the riparian habitat.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures: The WSP EIR sets forth
seven mitigation measures, 4 . 10-1 through 4 . 10-7 , which
are set forth in the WSP EIR at pp. 4 . 10-16 and 4 . 10-17.
b. Facts: The Project adopts through its design and through
the conditions of approval each of the WSP EIR mitigation
measures. The WSP EIR confirms that based on the
implementation measures, the potential impacts would not
be significant, except for Development area F. The WSP
EIR Development Area F impacts were based on the
conceptual grading plan reviewed in that document. That
grading plan created the need to dispose of excess cut
materials. As stated in these Findings, the Project
grading plan substantially reduces grading and proposed
to fill only a small portion of Development Area F. The
reduced grading and filling, reforestation program, and
other Project measures will reduce impacts in this area.
C. Findings: The Project impacts as set forth above have
been avoided or substantially lessened by the
incorporation of the Project of all referenced WSP EIR
mitigation measures, and the Project reduction of
grading, and the Project reforestation program and other
design features.
Plant and Animal Life Impacts/Mitigation Measures Identified in
the SEIR
The impacts of the Project with relation to plant and animal life
is set forth in the SEIR at pages 3-62 to 3-77 .
71. Impact: The proposed project would directly impact
approximately 0. 87 acre of intermittent drainage channels.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
All WSP EIR mitigation measures regarding
intermittent drainage channels are incorporated into
66
the Project. To further mitigate this impact, the
Project would include creation of approximately 3 . 00
acres of new wetland area.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are necessary.
b. Facts: Biological surveys of the Project site were
conducted in 1988 and 1989 as part of the WSP EIR. To
provide supplemental information specific to the Project,
the referenced Resource/Habitat Plan was prepared by
Sugnet & Associates. The Resource/Habitat Plan confirmed
the Project would impact only 0. 87 acres of intermittent
drainage channels. To mitigate this impact, the Project
includes creation of 3 . 00 new acres. Of this 3 . 00 acres,
approximately 1. 58 acres would be seasonal and 1. 42 acres
would be perennial aquatic habitat. The Resource/Habitat
Plan shows the location of the aquatic habitat
compensation sites.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts on intermittent drainage
channels are avoided or substantially lessened for
reasons set forth above. No additional mitigation
measures are necessary to reduce this impact to a
level of insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference as applied to this impact.
72 . Impact: The project would require fourteen crossings of
drainage channels and wildlife corridors.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
All WSP EIR mitigation measures regarding drainage
crossings are incorporated into the Project.See
discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are necessary.
b. Facts: The Resource/Habitat Plan sets forth specific
drainage crossing design specifications to reduce impacts
and to minimize corridor fragmentation through the use
of clear spans and arch culverts where practical.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts on drainage crossings have been
avoided or substantially lessened through the
drainage crossing design specifications set forth
above. No additional mitigation measures are
necessary to reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance.
67
73. Impact: The proposed project would directly impact 1, 220
trees as a result of project infrastructure (roads, utilities,
etc. ) . Construction activities could result in additional
trees being adversely affected by damage to roots, trunks and
canopies.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
All WSP EIR mitigation measures regarding tree
preservation have been incorporated into the
Project.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) To protect existing trees and vegetation in
the Development Area during construction of
the project the following measures should be
incorporated into the Final Development Plans
and Final Subdivision Plans:
1) During road construction and grading,
heavy equipment should be restricted to
the minimum area suitable for equipment
operations. Short-cuts and stockpiling
of material on otherwise undisturbed areas
should be prohibited.
2) Tree trunks immediately adjacent to
construction areas should be protected by
fencing or other barriers to avoid
physical damage. Protection should extend
outside drip lines where feasible to
prevent trunk, limb damage and soil
compaction.
3) Where roots are covered with impervious
surfaces, or roots are removed within the
drip line, thinning of the tree crown
should be conducted to compensate for lost
root function.
4) A licensed arborist should be consulted
to monitor construction and propose
specific measures to protect vegetation
outside of the construction zones.
(b) To educate project residents about the long-
term care of oaks and other native plan species
present on the project site, an informational
program, including written material, should be
prepared and distributed to project residents.
The focus of the informational program should
be to educate residents about the special
maintenance and care requirements of the native
plant species present on the site. The
informational program should be submitted to
Contra Costa County for approval prior to
completion of the first homes to be occupied.
The information should be distributed to
residents upon purchase of each home. See also
Condition 17 .
C. Facts: The above mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the Project through the conditions of
approval. The Resource/Habitat Plan includes a
Reforestation Plan which includes the planting of
approximately 6, 700 trees on the site covering
approximately 74 . 5 acres. To ensure that proposed
68
reforestation and aquatic habitat replacement plans are
implemented, the Resource/Habitat Plan further contains
a monitoring program.
The Project contains several other features designed to
reduce impacts on plant and animal life, as summarized
in the SEIR at p. 3-72 .
d. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
Project impacts regarding trees have been avoided
or substantially lessened by incorporation of all
the mitigation measures as set forth above, by
incorporation of Project features designed to
minimize impacts, and by use of the Resource/Habitat
Plan. No additional mitigation measures are
necessary to reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference as applied to this impact.
74. Impact: The project may be potentially inconsistent with
G.P. policies 8-6 and 8-14 regarding the preservation of
trees, vegetation and development on slopes over 26%.
However, determination of the project's consistency or
inconsistency with these policies is a matter of
interpretation for the Board of Supervisors.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) If it is determined that the project with its
mitigation measures is potentially inconsistent
with policies 8-6 and 8-14 , then alternative
measures could be considered which could
include redesigning the project to further
minimize development on slopes over 26% and to
provide for decreased removal of trees and
vegetation.
b. Facts: The General Plan sets forth Policies from the
Conservation Element of the General Plan applicable to
the Project as follows:
(1) Policy 8-6: Significant trees, natural vegetation,
and wildlife populations generally shall be
preserved.
The Project generally complies with this Policy.
The Project will only affect 288 of the 1, 143 acre
site. The Project will include drainage crossings
designed to limit impacts on wildlife corridors.
Impacted vegetation and trees would be replaced at
a ratio of at least 3 to 1 . These and other
referenced Project features ensure this Policy is
followed.
(2) Policy 8-7 : Important wildlife habitats and
corridors shall be maintained.
69
The Project is consistent with this Policy for
reasons set forth above.
(3) Policy 8-9 : Areas containing significant resources
or endangered species shall be maintained.
The Project is consistent with this Policy through
use of the Habitat/Resource Plan. Further, a live
trapping program was performed which found no
presence of the Alameda Whipsnake. No other rare,
endangered or listed species have been identified
on the Project site.
(4) Policy 8-12 : Natural woodlands shall be preserved
as possible.
The Project is consistent with this Policy for
reasons set forth above. The removal of some of the
trees is required to locate roads and infrastructure
on the Project site.
(5) Policy 8-14 : Development on open hillsides, etc. ,
shall be restricted, and hillsides with a grade of
over 26 percent shall be protected.
The Project is consistent with this Policy for
reasons set forth in the Aesthetics section of these
Findings. Protection and restriction do not mean
prohibition.
(6) Policy 8-21: The planting of native trees shall be
encouraged.
The Project is consistent with this Policy through
use of the Habitat/Resource Plan and for reasons
set forth above.
(7) Policy 8-28 : Protect the County's mature oak, bay
and buckeye trees.
The Project is consistent with this Policy through
use of the Habitat/Resource Plan and for reasons
set forth above.
(8) Natural Watercourses shall be integrated into new
development; existing native riparian habitat shall
be preserved; on-site water control shall be
required; restore habitat; setback from creek;
grading should minimize impacts near watercourses;
and revegetation should include native vegetation.
(Policies 8-86 through 8-89 ; 8-91 through 8-92) .
The SEIR confirms that the Project is consistent
with Policies regarding natural watercourses. The
Project would integrate existing watercourses into
the Project design, allow public access, enhance
riparian areas though reforestation efforts and
provide adequate setbacks from existing creeks.
The Project provides a minimized grading plan, and
has on-site water controls (detention basin) .
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project is consistent with General Plan Policies
regarding vegetation and wildlife and natural
watercourses, as set forth above. Specifically, the
70
Project is consistent with Policy 8-6 through
utilization of the Habitat/Resource Plan, and with
Policy 8-14 , for reasons set forth in the Aesthetics
section of these Findings. (See SEIR Aesthetics
Impacts, Impact 6, Facts. ) No additional mitigation
measures are necessary to reduce this impact to a
level of insignificance.
75. Impact: The project site contains three small areas within
the proposed development area (approximately nine acres) , and
one larger tract outside the development area (approximately
49 acres) that are suitable for the Alameda Whipsnake, which
is an animal species of special concern.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion for Policy 8-9 , above. No Whipsnakes
have been found on the site during extensive
trapping in two separate programs. These nine acres
are not habitat. The Department of Fish and Game
requires no mitigation in light of the results of
the trapping programs.
b. Facts: Because no whipsnakes or endangered species have
been found, no mitigation is necessary.
C. Findings: Based upon the SEIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
Project impacts regarding the Alameda Whipsnake have
been avoided or substantially lessened through the
previous trapping program, and monitoring as set
forth above. No additional mitigation measures are
necessary to reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance.
Noise
Noise Impacts/Mitigation Measures Identified in the WSP EIR
76. WSP Impact: Cumulative growth in the area (without the
Project) will increase the Ldn 4 decibels along Norris Canyon
Road. With the implementation of the Specific Plan, Ldn noise
levels could increase an additional 1 Db for a total of 5
decibels. Residential development within 1156 feet of the
roadway would be exposed to Ldn noise levels exceeding 50Db.
Existing homes within 50 feet of the roadway would be exposed
to a significant impact.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measure:
4 . 7-9 : Residential development is generally planned for
greater than 50 feet from the roadway. However, if
within 50 feet, noise control measures will be
incorporated into the building's design. Where buildings
will be located between outdoor use areas and the
roadway, outdoor noise will be reduced to normally
acceptable levels. Interior noise levels will be
controlled to an Ldn of 45 Db through the use of sound-
rated windows and walls.
b. Facts: See SEIR Noise Impacts, Impact 1, Facts, below.
The above mitigation measure has been incorporated into
the Project.
71
C. Findings: The Board finds that the noise level impacts
on residential development have been avoided or
substantially lessened through use of the listed WSP EIR
mitigation measure, and mitigation measures identified
in the SEIR, for reasons set forth at SEIR Noise Impacts,
Impact 1, Facts, below.
77. WSP Impact: Average noise levels along Norris Canyon Road
would increase 4 decibels due to cumulative growth, and an
additional 1 decibel due to Specific Plan implementation.
There would be a significant cumulative impact.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measure:
4 .7-3 : Residential development is also required to meet
interior noise goals. . . An acoustical consultant should
review the Project Plans to ensure that the Title 24
noise goals are met.
b. Facts: See the SEIR Noise Impacts, Impact 1, Facts,
below. This mitigation measure has been incorporated
into the Project.
C. Findings: The Board finds that the noise level impacts
on residential development have been avoided or
substantially lessened through use of the listed WSP EIR
mitigation measure, and mitigation measures identified
in the SEIR, for reasons set forth at SEIR Noise Impacts,
Impact 1, Facts, below.
78. WSP Impact: Existing land uses located within the future 60
Ldn contour would be exposed to a significant increase in
noise levels and will require that Project plans include
mitigation.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measure:
4 .7-10: Mitigating noise impacts on existing land uses
could be achieved by the construction of noise barriers
or berms.
b. Facts: This mitigation measure has been incorporated
into the Project. See SEIR Noise Impacts, Impact 1,
Facts, below.
C. Findings: The Board finds that the noise level impacts
on existing land uses with the future 60 Ldn contour have
been avoided or substantially lessened through use of the
listed WSP EIR mitigation measure, and mitigation
measures identified in the SEIR, for reasons set forth
at SEIR Noise Impacts, Impact 1, Facts, below.
Noise Impacts/Mitigation Measures Identified in the SEIR
The impacts of the Project with relation to noise are set forth in
the SEIR at pages 3-77 to 3-82 .
79. Impact: The project would contribute 1 decibel of the 5
decibel increase resulting from cumulative development. While
the project specific noise impact would be minimal, the
project would contribute to cumulative noise impacts along
Norris Canyon Road.
a. Mitigation•
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Pro-iect
See discussion under Facts, below.
72
I
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) The Wiedemann Ranch project should be required
to pay a fee to the County, equal to its fair
share of cumulative noise impacts, for the
construction of noise barriers at the two
identified sites. (The projects fair share
should be equal to 20% of the total cost of the
barriers (project contributes 1-decibel of
5-decibels under cumulative conditions = 20%) .
The barriers should be installed before
cumulative noise levels are reached.
Installation of the barriers will be the
responsibility of Contra Costa County and
should be coordinated with the City of San
Ramon. See also Conditions 3 .G. , and 41.
(b) If explosives are necessary to aid grading
activities, a special permit from the San Ramon
Valley Fire Protection District (SRVFPD) will
be obtained.
b. Facts: The WSP EIR identified development on the Project
site that would contribute to increases in future noise
levels along Norris Canyon Road. Cumulative noise levels
were identified in the WSP to increase by 5-decibels and
increase the 60 Ldn contour from 52 to 117 feet from the
centerline of Norris Canyon Road. Cumulative noise
levels resulting from the Project site would constitute
1 of the 5 decibels.
To supplement the noise analysis in the WSP EIR, Charles
M. Salter associates conducted a review of noise impacts
along Norris Canyon Road (Noise Study dated October 17
and November 21, 1991) .
The SEIR concluded that while the Project specific noise
impact would be minimal, the Project would contribute to
cumulative noise impacts; therefore the Project should
contribute its fair share, or 20% of the cost to mitigate
future noise impacts along Norris Canyon Road. In fact,
the Project will be required to pay for the entire cost
of the soundwall and construct it now per Condition 41.
The Noise Study identified to areas where cumulative
noise level could be mitigated. The Noise Study
recommends constructing a wood or masonry barrier which
breaks the line-of-site from cars traveling on Norris
Canyon Road to a standing receiver on the outside use
space. See discussion in SEIR at p. 3-77 .
With regard to use of explosives, the Geotechnical
Feasibility Report for the Project indicates that
blasting may be necessary to aid excavation in certain
areas. The SEIR confirms noise impacts would not be
considered significant, but recommends obtaining the
referenced permit.
The WSP EIR mitigation measures, and the above mitigation
measures, have been incorporated into the Project
conditions of approval.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
73
I
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
Project impacts regarding noise have been avoided or
substantially lessened by incorporation of the WSP EIR
and SEIR mitigation measures for the reasons set forth
above. No additional mitigation measures are necessary
to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference as applied to this impact.
80. Impact: Consistency with County General Plan standards and
Policies.
a. Background: The County General Plan, Noise Element sets
for two Policies applicable to the Project, as follows:
(1) Policy 11-1: New Projects shall be required to meet
acceptable noise level standards as established in
the County Noise and Land Use Compatibility
Guidelines.
(2) Policy 11-4 : The County requires new single-family
housing projects to provide for an interior Dnl of
45 dB or less.
The SEIR confirms that Noise levels on the Project
site would be within normally acceptable levels for
single family residential development (CNEL of 60
dB or less) which would translate to an interior
noise level of 45 dB or less in Project homes.
Therefore, the noise environment on the Project site
is compatible with the proposed land use. Existing
homes along Norris Canyon Road will also be
protected where necessary by sound walls.
b. Findings: The Board finds that the Project is consistent
with the referenced General Plan noise Policies, for
reasons set forth above.
Agricultural Issues
Agricultural Impacts/Mitigation Measures Identified in the WSP EIR
(See discussion under SEIR Agricultural Impacts, Impact 1,
Facts, below. )
Agricultural Impacts/Mitigation Measures Identified in the SEIR
The impacts of the Project with relation to agricultural issues is
set forth in the SEIR at pages 3-82 to 3-87 .
81. Impact: The proposed project is requesting cancellation of
the existing Williamson Act contracts on the properties.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) The decision regarding cancellation of the
Williamson Act contracts on the property will
be made by the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors.
74
i
(b) If cancellation is not granted, then the
contract restrictions are scheduled to expire
in any case. The restrictions on the
Wiedemann property expires in 1995. The
restrictions on the Christensen property
expires in 1998 .
b. Facts:
(1) Conversion of agricultural land: The open
space/agricultural issues associated with
development of the Project site were addressed in
the WSP EIR (Chapter 4 . 2) . The WSP EIR found that
the Project would result in the direct loss of
farmland, but that this impact would not be
considered significant, because such farmland is
not considered "prime" agricultural land. The
Project area land is not considered "prime" because
of steep slopes, rough terrain and relatively less
fertile soil present on the Project site. The SEIR
further recognizes that the Project projects the
vast majority of Project lands for agricultural and
related open space uses.
(2) Williamson Act Cancellation Issues: The WSP EIR and
the SEIR set forth the specific findings necessary
to cancel the Williamson Act contracts on the
subject property. The SEIR confirms that even if
the Williamson Act contracts were not cancelled,
the vast majority of the property would be free of
the contract by 1995, and the remaining would be
free in 1998 .
The SEIR recognizes that the decision to cancel the
Williamson Act is made by the Board, and that the
Board has the responsibility to make the findings
required. The Board has made the decision to cancel
and the necessary findings.
The SEIR references the applicant's letter submitted
as part of the SEIR process, which outline's the
Project's justification for cancellation of the
Williamson Act projects. The letter is summarized
at p. 3-85 of the SEIR. See also Williamson Act
Findings attached to Board Order as Exhibit H,
incorporated herein by reference.
C. Findings: Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts related to conversion of
agricultural land and cancellation of the Williamson
Act have been avoided or substantially lessened.
The Project lands are not considered prime
agricultural lands. The Williamson Act contracts
will in any event run out in 1995 and 1998 . Under
the Project, the vast majority of Project lands will
remain in agricultural or related open space use.
The Board must separately make the required
Williamson Act findings for contract cancellation.
The Board recognizes and adopts the justification
for cancellation as outlined in the Exhibit H. No
additional mitigation measures are necessary to
reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
75
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated herein by
reference as applied to this impact.
82. Impact: The project would be surrounded by agricultural
activities which may result in nuisances and hazards for
project residents.
a. Mitigation:
(1) Measures Incorporated into the Project
See discussion under Facts, below.
(2) Additional Mitigation Measures
(a) Homeowners should be made fully aware through
a sales disclosure statement that they are in
close proximity to existing agricultural
activities which may result in nuisances and
hazards. In addition, the project applicant
should prepare an informational booklet to be
distributed to project residents upon purchase
describing the adjacent agricultural
activities, potential hazards and ways for
residents to minimize potential hazards
including appropriate behavior when using the
adjacent trails and open space areas. The
informational booklet should be submitted to
the County for review and approval prior to
filing a final map. The booklet should be
attached and referenced in the CC&R's homes
being occupied. See also Conditions 42 and 43 .
b. Facts: This mitigation measure has been incorporated
into the Project Conditions of Approval. The Project
has included a 50 foot wide buffer area between the
proposed development and the cattle ranching activities
proposed on the remainder of the property.
C. Findings: Based upon the SEIR and the entire record
before this Board, the Board finds that:
(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened
Project impacts related to proximity of agricultural
activities have been avoided or substantially
lessened by the Project buffer areas and the
referenced mitigation measure. No additional
mitigation measures are necessary to reduce this
impact to a level of insignificance.
(2) Remaining Impacts
See Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11, incorporated
herein by reference.
Other WSP EIR Impacts/Mitigation Measures and Findings
The WSP EIR sets forth three further areas of impacts and
mitigation measures. These areas are not further addressed in the
SEIR. They are briefly addressed below.
Housing, Population and Employment
83. WSP Impact: The Specific Plan would result at buildout in an
increase of approximately 18 percent over the current
population of San Ramon and would consist of eight percent of
future growth to occur in the City.
76
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measure: The impacts are on public
services. The appropriate mitigation measures are
discussed in other sections of the WSP EIR.
b. Facts: This impact references increase in City of San
Ramon population. The Project is being approved by the
County. The mitigation measures regarding impact on
County and other services are set forth throughout these
Findings.
C. Findings: The Board finds that increased population and
impacts on public services are avoided or substantially
lessened for reasons stated throughout the applicable
public services sections of these Findings.
84. WSP Impact: The project would create fewer housing units than
proposed under the (City of San Ramon) General Plan, and,
because of the lower density, the cost of those units would
be higher. The project would contribute to the gap between
what those employed in the area can afford and the cost of
housing is in San Ramon. The majority of area employees would
not earn incomes at those local jobs sufficient to allow them
to purchase housing in the Westside.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measures:
4 . 3-1: Designate some areas for higher density.
4 . 3-2 Encourage affordable housing by use of density
bonuses.
4 . 3-3 Allow increased development and higher density
next to existing roads and utilities.
b. Facts: The stated impact concerns the San Ramon General
Plan; the Project is being approved by the County.
However, for the purposes of these Findings, higher
density is unnecessary and infeasible because of project
topography and location. To mitigate the need for
affordable housing, the Project shall contribute to the
County affordable housing trust fund, in the fixed amount
of $3 , 333 per approved residential unit. See also
Conditions 51.
C. Findings: Project impacts regarding higher cost housing
and affordable housing have been mitigated or
substantially lessened for reasons set forth above.
Project higher density is rejected as unnecessary and
infeasible for reasons set forth above.
Air Quality
85. WSP Impact: Clearing, excavation and grading operations,
construction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground, and wind
blowing over exposed earth surfaces generate dust. Therefore,
construction on the project site would temporarily increase
TSP and PM/10 concentrations and could lead to violations of
the Federal and State 24-hour average PM/10 standards if dust
suppression measures were not implemented. The project will
potentially have adverse PM/10 impacts during construction on
adjacent residential neighborhoods.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measure:
4 . 6-1 All construction contracts should require
watering.
4 . 6-2 Conditions of approval should require daily
cleanup of mud and dust.
77
b. Facts: These mitigation measures have been incorporated
into the Project conditions of approval. Impacts during
construction on "adjacent residential neighborhoods" are
mitigated by the remoteness of the Project area.
C. _Findings: Project impacts from construction on air
quality are avoided or substantially lessened by the
Project through incorporation of the referenced
mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval, for
reasons set forth above.
86. WSP Impact: Existing violations of the eight-hour CO standard
(9. 0 ppm) are projected at curbside at the San Ramon/Crow
Canyon intersection. Modeling also suggests that, while the
violation would be limited to the sidewalk areas over most of
the length of these major local roadways, the eight-hour CO
concentrations wold remain above the standard within a 100-
to 200-foot radius of the intersections.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measure:
4 . 6-3 Implementation of the roadway improvements
proposed by Section 4 . 5 of the WSP EIR would
substantially improve traffic flow, and, therefore, air
quality at this intersection.
b. Facts: The WSP EIR confirms that implementation of
measure 4 . 6-3 above reduces the impact to a less than
significant level. The Project generally incorporates
the mitigation measures listed in the WSP EIR for traffic
improvements. (See discussion under the Traffic section
of these Findings. )
C. Findings: Project impacts on the air quality at the San
Ramon/Crow Canyon intersection will be avoided or
substantially lessened by Project incorporation of
traffic mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval
as set forth in these Findings and Conditions 18 and 47
regarding dust control.
Historical and Archaeological Resources
87. WSP Impact: Access to "rock walls" due to general development
under the Specific Plan could lead to their destruction.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measure:
4 . 13-3 : Preservation of rock walls an only be assured
by excluding people from this area. Locations and
condition of the walls should be recorded and monitored.
b. Facts: The rock walls identified in the WSP EIR are
located generally along the Alameda side (western WR
property line) of the Contra Costa/Alameda County borders
extending from the approximate 1, 600 foot contour towards
the southeast. The Project development is entirely
within Contra Costa County and only along a portion of
the eastern side of Wiedemann Hill. The rock walls are
geographically remote from the proposed development and
not immediately accessible from the Project road system.
The area along the eastern side of Wiedemann Hill outside
the development will remain in deed-restricted, open
space ownership.
The Project should not be responsible for the referenced
mitigation measure; it will not cause deterioration of
the rock walls. The Project does provide direct access
to these areas of the open space; restricting such access
78
in an effort to protect the rock walls would not be
conducive to maximizing open space access.
C. Findinqs: The Project impacts on the referenced rock
walls are insignificant. The proposed mitigation measure
is unnecessary and infeasible for this Project, which is
geographically separate and removed from the rock wall.
88. WSP Impact: A historic barn located on the Wiedemann property
would probably be affected by any development plans.
a. WSP EIR Mitigation Measure:
4 . 13-4 : Monitoring by an archeologist might be
necessary.
b. Facts: The barn on the Wiedemann property is located on
a proposed residential lot. When development occurs, the
monitoring by a registered archaeologist would assure
identification and removal of historic materials. The
conditions of approval require an archaeologist during
grading.
C. Findings: The Project impacts regarding the historic
barn have been avoided or substantially lessened. The
Conditions of Approval require an archaeologist to be
present while development occurs to ensure removal of
historic materials. See Condition 48 .
E. Significant Unavoidable or Irreversible Adverse Impacts
a. Facts: The SEIR discusses significant unavoidable
adverse impacts of the Project at pp. 3-87 , 3-88 . The SEIR
confirms that the WSP SEIR made findings of overriding
considerations for the following unavoidable impacts of
development in the Norris Canyon Road Area:
(1) Alteration of the visual character of the area;
(2) Permanent change in the landform of the cross-
valley ridge and visibility from open space areas;
(3) Inconsistency with the Resource Conservation Overlay
District Ordinance Standards;
(4) Permanent change in the rural character of Norris
Canyon Road due to proposed roadway improvements
and widening; and
(5) Visibility of water tanks.
The Project has avoided or substantially lessened all its
significant environmental impacts. The Findings made
throughout this document on an impact-by-impact basis confirm
that all significant environmental impacts have been
mitigated, including impacts (1) - (5) above, which were
considered unavoidable in the WSP EIR in the context of the
entire WSP and at that early conceptual planning level of
design and consideration.
With regard to impacts (1) - (5) above, all significant
environmental impacts have been mitigated. The Project has
included extensive mitigation measures above and beyond those
set forth in the WSP, as follows: .
(1) Alteration of visual character: The Final EIR and
the entire record confirms that the significant
impact of a change in view has been avoided or
substantially lessened by the project design. A
change in view or land form is not in and of itself
79
an "unavoidable" significant impact. The SEIR
confirms that a change is a subjective matter,
particularly when the area has been included within
the ULL and planned for residential use. Here,
mitigation measures incorporated into the design of
the Project, combined with the limited area of
development and its limited visibility reduce the
visual impacts from that envisioned in the WSP EIR.
The Project is consistent with the hillside
protection policies in the General Plan. The ridge
and its open hillsides in their entire context will
have retained their existing visual character with
this Project. Therefore the alteration of the
visual character of the area is less than
significant.
(2) Cross-valley ridge and visibility from open space:
The view of the upper ridgeline and its hillside in
the foreground has been substantially preserved.
Intermittent, limited development below the
ridgeline, with the vast majority of Project
property locked into permanent open space, is not
a significant visual impact with the design of this
Project. A change in the cross-valley ridge is not
a significant visual change in context with the
entire ridge and hillside. Grading envisioned in
the WSP EIR has been greatly reduced, and Project
incorporated guidelines serve to protect and
preserve these areas and related visibility. views
from the BROS have been protected to the
satisfaction of EBRPD by relocations of units and
changes to the Conditions of Approval to further
mitigate visual impacts of homes on the cross-
valley ridge (it is not a true ridge but more of an
intermediate part of the hillside) .
(3) Inconsistency with the RCOD: Inconsistency with
the San Ramon RCOD standards is not a significant
impact for the Project, because here County
standards will be applied.
(4) Change in rural character of Norris Canyon Road:
The improvements to Norris Canyon road are limited
to safety improvements, and minimal capacity
improvements, less than contemplated by San Ramon.
The rural character of the road will be maintained.
(5) Water tanks: Additional mitigation measures have
been included in the Project to ensure the water
tanks have been located, sized and designed to
eliminate any visual impacts. They are smaller than
contemplated in the WSP and no longer conceptual in
nature or design.
b. Findings: The Project, with mitigation measures as set
forth in these Findings, avoids or substantially lessens
all significant impacts, including those listed as
unavoidable impacts in the WSP EIR as set forth at (1) -
(5) , above, for the reasons set forth above.
F. Cumulative Impacts
a. Facts: The SEIR contains a discussion of the Projects
potential cumulative impacts at pp. 3-88 , 3-89 . Table 3 . 6-
1 lists reasonably foreseeable projects in the San Ramon
Area. Figure 3 . 6-1 identifies the locations of such
projects.
80
The SEIR confirms that in most cases the potential
cumulative impacts of the Project are addressed under
the individual topics set forth in the SEIR and WSP EIR.
The SEIR lists a summary of potential impacts of
development in the Norris Canyon Road Area as identified
in the WSP EIR, as follows:
(1) Increased traffic volumes on Norris Canyon Road and
level of service impacts at both the San Ramon
Valley Boulevard/Bollinger Canyon Road and San Ramon
Valley Boulevard/Norris Canyon Road intersections;
(2) Cumulative increase in existing noise levels;
(3) Visual character and effect on remaining
agricultural activities;
The SEIR confirms in its individual Traffic, Noise and
Agriculture section, and in its cumulative analysis, that
the impacts identified in the WSP EIR are reduced
generally as follows:
(1) Increased traffic volumes: The Project will
contribute incrementally to cumulative traffic
volumes on local and regional roadways. All
intersections within the study area which are
affected by the Project would operate at a level of
service D or better with cumulative traffic
(including the Project) , with traffic measures
recommended by the SEIR at Section 2 . 3 .
The project will contribute its fair share where
necessary to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts and
will construct those improvements that are required
to mitigate existing, approved plus Project traffic
impacts and meet County growth management standards.
(2) Noise: The SEIR confirms that noise levels along
Norris Canyon Road will increase approximately 4
decibels more with cumulative development. The
Project will contribute an additional 1 decibel for
a total of 5 decibels. The noise study prepared
with the SEIR confirms that the Project's share of
cumulative noise impacts will be mitigated by
building the sound walls per Condition 41. That
represents the Project's fair share of cumulative
noise impacts. In fact, the Project will pay for
its construction.
(3) Visual: The Project would change somewhat the
visual character of the local and regional hillside
areas by introducing suburban uses into a relatively '
rural setting. The Project combined with other
hillside developments in Contra Costa and Alameda
Counties would contribute to a long-term cumulative
visual change of the hillside areas of these
counties.
The SEIR confirmed that the impact of a change in
view has been mitigated by the Project design.
Further, a change in view or land form is not in
and of itself an unavoidable significant impact.
It can be mitigated, and it has been mitigated with
regard to this Project.
Further, the preservation policies along the Los
Trampas and Pleasanton Ridge confirm that cumulative
visual change along the ridge will be minimal.
Intermittent, limited development below the
ridgeline is not a significant visual impact if
81
sensitively developed. To the west, Alameda County
has long maintained agricultural land use policies.
The County's ULL provides additional protections as
does its 65/35 Land Preservation Plan.
Finally, the Project will not necessarily make it
difficult for remaining agricultural activities to
be viable; nor will it necessarily cause nearby
properties to develop. The Project retains the
substantial majority of the property in agricultural
use and related open space use. Scenic easements
are also provided. Further, by retaining the
substantial majority of property as open space,
neighboring properties will not be pushed toward
development.
b. Findings: Based on the Final EIR and the entire record,
the Board finds the Project's cumulative impacts have
been avoided or substantially lessened by the WSP EIR
mitigation measures and SEIR mitigation measures as
incorporated into the Project, for the reasons set forth
above. No additional mitigation measures are necessary
to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. To
the extent cumulative impacts must be mitigated and have
not been mitigated, see Section C. 5.b(2) , on page 11,
incorporated herein by reference as applied to such
cumulative impacts.
G. Significant Irreversible Changes
a. Facts: The SEIR discusses significant irreversible
changes at pp. 3-89, 3-93 . CEQA requires (1) an analysis
of the justification of uses of nonrenewable resources
during the initial and continued phases of a project
which may be irreversible since large commitment of such
resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely;
and (2) an analysis which describes irreversible damage
that could result from environmental accidents with a
project.
The SEIR describes the two significant irreversible
changes associated with the development in the Project
area as identified in the WSP EIR:
(1) Conversion of open space and agricultural land to
urban and suburban uses; and
(2) Significant grading of residential areas including
the grading down of the cross-valley ridge to 90
feet lower than its existing level and the filling
of one creek.
The SEIR confirms that mere conversion of opens space
and agricultural land as part of this Project is not a
significant impact (see SEIR sections at Land Use,
Aesthetics, and Geology and Soils) : Conversion of some
open space has been planned by the County, and the site
is within the ULL. Project design guidelines will
minimize impacts. The Project lands are not considered
"prime" agricultural lands. The vast majority of Project
lands will remain as protected open space.
With regard to grading, the Project will reduce the
amount of grading down of the cross-valley ridge from
the 90 feet envisioned in the WSP EIR to approximately
50 feet. The design of the project and the location of
the cross-valley ridge, really an intermediate hill with
limited visibility, are such that the visual impacts of
this isolated cut has been substantially mitigated.
82
b. Findings: The Project impacts arising from significant
irreversible changes have been avoided or substantially
lessened by incorporation of the WSP EIR mitigation
measures and the SEIR mitigation measures. Project
impacts regarding conversion of agricultural lands are
reduced by sensitive design and construction, and
retaining the substantial majority of project acreage as
open space, in combination with the open space and
agricultural protection policies in San Ramon, Alameda
County and Contra Costa as applied to nearby undeveloped
land. Project impacts regarding grading are reduced by
the Project grading plan reduction from the WSP EIR
grading plan.
H. Growth Inducing Impacts
a. Facts: The SEIR discusses the Project's growth inducing
impacts at p. 3-93 . Pursuant to CEQA, a project is
considered growth inducing if the project could directly
or indirectly foster economic growth or population
growth.
The SEIR identifies growth inducing impacts as set forth
in the WSP EIR for the Norris Canyon Area, as follows:
(1) Viability of existing farming operations;
(2) Growth pressures for open space land to be developed
beyond the proposal; and
(3) Extension of new services. Expansion does not
create a growth inducing effect if services are
planned to serve only the amount of the growth in
the WSP. (New sewer and water lines would be
planned so as to not have excess capacity that could
encourage future additional growth.
(4) Extension of new services. Expansion creates a
growth inducing effect if service areas include
areas other than only those proposed for development
under the Specific Plan, or if expansion set a
precedent for expansion in other areas.
The SEIR states that its analysis did not identify any
new growth inducing effect associated with development
on the site. With regard to the WSP EIR analysis, the
SEIR elaborated as follows:
The Project may result in limited growth inducing
effects by bringing utility services to the Project
site. Utilities such as sewer and water mains would
be of a size to accommodate the limited remaining '
development possible within the Westside Area. This
growth inducing impact would not be considered
significant or adverse because this development
would be limited to one property (Freitas property)
which is within the Urban Limit Line and is within
an area designated by the County General Plan for
residential development. Its development potential
is limited. In addition, new sewer and water lines
would be planned so as to not have excess capacity
that could encourage future growth. Moreover, since
the WSP the County has adopted the ULL and its 65/35
Land Preservation Plan. Coupled with Alameda
County's long standing agricultural land use
policies in the are and given the location of the
Project, there is very little growth in the area
that might be induced.
b. Findings: The Project growth inducing impacts are
insignificant for the reasons set forth above. Any
impacts resulting from the Project are avoided or
substantially lessened by the Project with
incorporated mitigation measures as set forth
herein. 83
I. Relationship Between Short-Term Use and Long-Term
Productivity
a. Facts: The SEIR discusses the relationship between local
short term uses of man's environment and the maintenance
and enhancement of long term productivity at p. 3-94 . The
SEIR confirms that short-term impacts of the Project
would primarily result from construction; i .e. , temporary
disturbance of existing vegetation, visual disruption,
and energy consumption. The SEIR confirms that
construction impacts would not be considered significant
due to the relatively short duration of the construction
activity and mitigation measures designed to replace or
repair damage caused by construction activities. Long-
term adverse impacts include traffic congestion, and
traffic generated noise. As set forth herein, the
Project's extensive mitigation measures reduce these
long-term impacts. Beneficial effects of the Project
include increased housing, improved trail access, fiscal
opportunities for the County, and preservation of large
amounts of open space.
b. Findings: On balance (with regard to the Project
relationship between local short-term use and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity)
the long-term benefits of the Project, including
increased housing, improved trail access, fiscal
opportunities, and preservation of open space, outweigh
any short term and long term adverse effects.
J. Discussion of Project Alternatives
Pursuant to CEQA at Section 15126 (d) , the SEIR includes a
comparative analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives to the
Project, which could feasibility attain the basic objectives of
the Project. The SEIR thus analyses three alternatives, as
addressed below. The Addendum incorporates the analysis in the
Staff Report of the Avoidance Alternative and the Minimization
Alternative.
1. No Proiect Alternative
a. Facts: CEQA Guidelines at Section 15126 (d) require that
the specific alternative of "No Project" be evaluated in
the environmental document. The SEIR discusses this
alternative at page 4-2 . The No Project Alternative
would avoid changes to the existing environment which
would be caused by the Project. These changes include
the following:
(1) Conversion of open space;
(2) Loss of existing vegetation and impacts on
stream habitat;
(3) Increased noise levels along Norris Canyon
Road;
(4) Changes in the visual character of a portion
of the site;
(5) Changes in view;
(6) Increased traffic;
(7) Expansion of public services;
(8) Grading; and
(9) Increased storm water runoff.
As set forth in these Findings, however, the impacts as
summarized above are greatly reduced by incorporation
into the Project of the WSP EIR and SEIR mitigation
measures. The SEIR confirms further that "changes" in
84
view, etc. do not necessarily equate to significant
impacts.
The No Project Alternative would not provide benefits
which come with the Project. Those benefits include:
preservation of the substantial majority of the Project
property in open space; the development of needed
additional housing in this growing area; and increased
revenues to the County.
The SEIR confirms that the No Project Alternative would
be the "environmentally superior alternative", but it
would not be considered a long term alternative because
it is inconsistent with the intent of the WSP, the County
General Plan land use designation, and the County ULL
policy, all of which envision some development in this
portion of the planning area.
b. Findings: The Board rejects the No Project Alternative
because the benefits of the Project, including
preservation of open space, development of housing, and
increased revenues, are more productive in the long term
than the No Project Alternative; and further because the
County General Plan and ULL policy envision development
of the Project property. The No Project Alternative
would be inconsistent with the County General Plan.
2 . Mitigated Project Alternative
a. Facts: The SEIR sets forth a discussion of the Mitigated
Project Alternative at pp. 4-3 through 4-14 .
The Mitigated Project Alternative incorporates all the
additional mitigation measures that were identified in
the SEIR for the Project. The Mitigated Project
Alternative is similar to the Project as proposed by the
applicant, because the applicant incorporated many of
these mitigation measures into the Project application.
The SEIR contains a summary of the specific mitigation
measures included in the Project. The applicant included
such mitigation through submission of several reports and
documents, previously addressed in these Findings,
including:
(1) Biotic Resource Assessment and Habitat
Mitigation Plan
(2) Reforestation Plan
(3) Aquatic Habitat Plan
(4) Habitat Monitoring Plan
(5) Hillside Protection and Design Guidelines
(6) Range Management Plan
(7) Erosion Control Plan
The applicant further addressed issues regarding open
space, grading impacts, and other issues of concern.
The Mitigate Project Alternative incorporates these
measures (as incorporated into the Project submittal) ,
and the additional measures recommended in the SEIR.
The SEIR further contains a summary of the specific,
additional mitigation measures recommended under each
SEIR section, i.e. , Land Use, Aesthetics, Traffic, etc.
These measures have been addressed in these Findings,
above.
The SEIR references two major changes in the Project
under this Alternative from that envisioned in the WSP.
First, the Project would include a revised entry road,
85
with reduced grading, pavement, and vegetation/tree
removal. Second, development of the lots along the south
side of "A" Drive in the vicinity of the cross-valley
ridge would be subject to Architectural Review by the
Zoning Administrator, and subject to identified measures
which reduce visual impacts.
As confirmed by the Findings above, the Board has
determined that the Project incorporation of the WSP EIR
mitigation measures, and the imposition of the additional
mitigation measures, results in avoidance of significant
impacts of the Project.
b. Findings: The Mitigated Project Alternative represents
a "conditioned" development proposal that would greatly
lessen the impacts of residential development as first
identified in the WSP EIR. The applicant's incorporation
of WSP EIR mitigation measures, and the imposition of the
further SEIR mitigation measures as set forth in these
Findings, ensures that all significant impacts of the
Project are avoided or substantially lessened. Further,
with the referenced mitigation measures, the Project is
consistent with the County General Plan Growth Management
Standards, and Policies. For these reasons, the
Mitigated Project Alternative is the preferred
alternative.
3. Resource Conservation Overlay District (RCOD) Alternative
a. Facts: The SEIR further analyzed the Resource
Conservation Overlay District (RCOD) Alternative, at
pp. 4-15 through 4-17 . The RCOD Alternative was
previously addressed in the WSP EIR.
The RCOD Alternative is based on the City of San Ramon's
Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the City's RCOD is to
maintain an environmental equilibrium consistent with
existing vegetation, soils, geology, slopes, and drainage
patterns, and to preserve the natural topography,
including swales, canyons, knolls, ridgelines, and rock
outcroppings.
The RCOD requirements do not apply to the site. It is
similar to the avoidance alternative in the SRVRPC staff
report. Based on the restrictions imposed, the proposed
371 homesites would be reduced to approximately 50 homes,
which could be possibly be built within the proposed
development area within the flatter portions of the
Project site.
Because the RCOD requirements so limit development,
additional environmental benefits would occur if this
Alternative were utilized. There would be a reduced
impact on open space/agricultural lands; reduced visual
impacts; reduced traffic; and reduced impacts on public
services.
However, the RCOD requirements in effect would be a "No
Project Alternative. " The Project site consists of 1, 143
acres, the great majority of which will be restricted to
open space use. The RCOD requirements, allowing only 50
homesites on this vast property, so severely limit
development that they do not allow a reasonable use of
the property. The same drawbacks for the "No Project
Alternative" as listed above thus in effect apply here.
The Board has found that development can occur on the
Project site beyond the strict limitations of the ROOD,
without significant impacts. The Mitigated Project
Alternative, with its extensive additional mitigation
86
measures, allows reasonable development while minimizing
such impacts.
b. Findings: The Board finds that the benefits of allowing
reasonable development on the Project site outweigh any
environmental benefit of utilizing the RCOD Alternative.
The Mitigated Project Alternative allows reasonable
development, while limiting environmental impacts through
strict mitigation measures. The RCOD Alternative
severely limits development without much incremental
environmental benefit. Moreover, reducing the density
of the Project is not necessary to mitigate its impacts
to a level of insignificance and, therefore., such an
alternative is inappropriate under per PRC 21085.
R. Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA requires the decision-makers to balance the benefits of a
proposed project against any unavoidable environmental risks in
determining whether to approve the project. (CEQA Guidelines at
Section 15093) The Board has determined that all environmental
impacts of this Project, both individual and cumulative, have been
mitigated to a level of insignificance. However, if any of the
identified impacts are found to remain significant and unavoidable,
then the Board has determined that the benefits of this Project
outweigh any such unavoidable environmental impacts. This Board
adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations
regarding any such remaining, unavoidable and irreversible impacts
of the Project and the anticipated economic, social and other
benefits of the Project. This Statement of Overriding
Considerations is supported by substantial evidence in the record
of these Findings.
1. Findings and Statement
a. Overriding Considerations. Any remaining, unavoidable
and irreversible impacts of the Project are acceptable
in light of the environmental, social, economic and other
considerations set forth herein because the benefits of
the Project outweigh any significant and unavoidable or
irreversible adverse environmental impacts of the
Project.
b. Reiected Mitigation Measures. Any mitigation measures
which were recommended in the EIR but not incorporated
into the Project due to their infeasibility are
infeasible in part because such measures would impose
limitations and restrictions on the Project so as to
prohibit the attainment of specific social, economic and
other benefits of the Project which this Board finds
outweigh the unmitigated impacts of the Project. Some
mitigation measures in the EIR have been adjusted to be
more effective and in light of direction from staff, the
SRVRPC, the Board, interested agencies and the applicant.
The Conditions of Approval should also be considered
additional mitigation measures as part of the Project.
C. Project Alternatives. The Project Alternatives set forth
in the SEIR are infeasible (except for the Mitigated
Project Alternative) in part because such alternatives
would prohibit the attainment of specific social,
economic and other benefits of the Project which this
Board finds outweigh the environmental benefits of the
Project alternatives. The Project applicant has stated
that none of the alternatives are acceptable and it would
not develop the property under any of the alternatives.
87
2. Description of Overriding considerations
a. Extent of Open Space Preserved
The Project property consists of 1, 143 acres of land.
Currently, such property is bound by Williamson Act
contracts, which keep such property in agricultural and
related open space use. However, Williamson Act contract
on the major portion of such property will run out in
approximately three years.
Of the 1, 143 acres of Project land, approximately 854
acres or 75% will be permanently restricted to
agriculture and open space use. With regard to such 854
acres, parks and common open space of the Project
comprise 181 acres, of which 172 acres will be common
open space within the Project. The remaining 673 acres
will be privately-owned and deed restricted to
agricultural and open space uses. Cattle grazing will
continue on the 673 acres of open space. A new
Williamson Act contract will be entered into as well on
the 598 acres.
The development area of the Project site is contemplated
for development under the County General Plan and the
County Urban Limit Line. Approval of the Project now
will allow preservation of the substantial majority of
the property in permanent open space use. Such permanent
preservations avoids the possibility that this
substantial part of the Project site, which has the most
visual and open space significance, may be authorized for
development, either as large lot ranchettes (5 acre
minimum parcel size) as allowed in the current General
Plan, or as a suburban hillside through an amendment to
the General Plan.
b. Need for Additional Housing, including Higher End
Housing, in San Ramon Area
The County General Plan, Housing Element, sets forth
projected housing needs county-wide for the years 1988
to 1995. (General Plan at pp. 6-1, et seq. ) The General
Plan cites information provided by the Association of Bay
Area Government (ABAG) in its January 1989 publication,
Housing Needs Determinations (incorporated herein by
reference) . State law requires ABAG to determine housing
needs for all income levels so that each jurisdiction can
provide for its "fair share" of housing for each income
group. Thus, ABAG sets forth projected housing needs in
Contra Costa County in four separate income categories:
Very Low; Low; Moderate; and Above Moderate. The ABAG
figures estimate a total projected need for 48, 756 units
in the County for the years 1988-1995; 42 , 309 units in
incorporated areas, and 6, 447 units in unincorporated
areas. (General Plan at p. 6-22 , Table 6-6) Of such
48 , 756 units, 23 , 198 units are projected to be required
in the "Above Moderate" category. (General Plan at p. 6-
24 , Table 6-8) Specifically, the City of San Ramon,
which includes the Project in its sphere of influence and
may eventually annex the Project, is projected to require
4 , 065 "Above Moderate" income units. Such requirement
for "Above Moderate" income units is higher than for any
other city in the County.
Further, testimony at the public hearings for project
approval confirmed the need and desire for higher end
housing in the San Ramon area. Local citizens at the
September 23 , 1992 Board hearing, and other hearings,
including experienced real estate agents and contractors,
testified that San Ramon has consistently delivered lower
cost, higher density single-family and multiple-family
housing compared to other communities in the San Ramon
Valley Testimony further showed, however, that single-
88
family housing at the higher end of the market in the San
Ramon Valley area is scarce, requiring local citizens and
others to move to other communities in the area to find
it. Public testimony cited a study of the Tri-Valley
Area wherein house sales for a recent twelve month period
in the range of $500, 000 to $1, 000, 000 included 89 sales
for Alamo; 90 for Blackhawk; 78 for Danville; 5 for
Brentwood; and only 1 for San Ramon. Testimony confirmed
that the Project is San Ramon's most significant
opportunity for higher end housing, thereby providing
balanced housing opportunities in San Ramon and its
sphere of influence. Testimony further confirmed that
plans for the Dougherty Valley area are for more median
and lower cost homes, with higher density.
Finally, it is noted that several County General Plan
Goals, Policies and Implementation measures also support
and encourage approval of higher end housing in the
Project area. The General Plan Housing Element, at p. 6-
106, Goal 6-B, sets forth the goal of making "available
a wide range of housing types and residential densities
to meet the needs of all age groups and household sizes
within Contra Costa County's population. " The Housing
Element, at p. 6-107 , Policy 6-1, states that a "balance
of housing types, tenures, densities, and price ranges
shall be encourage, supported and stimulated. " Policy
6-6 confirms that housing opportunities shall be provided
for all economic segments of the population throughout
the County. This beautiful hillside setting represents
a good opportunity to provide custom homes as large lots
designed in a sensitive manner to appeal to the higher
end of the housing market.
The Board finds that there is a reasonable need and
desire for higher end housing in the San Ramon area,
which is addressed by the Project. Moreover, there is
an obvious benefit to the local economy and job
opportunities, in particular to the building industry,
through the construction of this Project and its custom
homes.
C. Project Will Contribute to Needed Decreases in San
Catanio Creek Peak Flows
The Project includes the construction of an on-site
detention basin to regulate increases of storm water run-
off. The detention basin will regulate on-site run-off
entering San Catanio Creek. The "Detention Basin Report"
referenced in the SEIR at p. 3-41 confirms that the
proposed basin will decrease peak flows in San Catanio
Creek at the Project site outfall from existing
conditions by more than 30%. In and of itself this
decrease does not solve downstream flooding, because
discharge from the Project site is a relatively small
part of the overall watershed that contributes to
downstream flooding. However, similar measures added to
development projects in the watershed coupled with any
new stream improvements that may be implemented by the
County Public Works Department and the City of San Ramon
will help to relieve downstream flooding. This Project
is a good start.
d. Project Will Provide Needed Improvements to Norris Canyon
Road
The Project Conditions of Approval require the applicant
to construct needed road improvements along Norris Canyon
Road, based on a 35 mph design speed, 34-ft. road width
with bicycle lanes and 4-ft. all weather shoulders. The
Board finds that these road improvements are needed for
89
safety reasons, and that there currently are no other
potential sources of County funding for such
improvements, given current and projected budget and
revenue conditions. Moreover, according to the Public
Works Department, there are not any likely substantial
development fee sources for these improvements other than
this Project. Public Works will look to the Freitas
property for other improvements if it develops. Approval
of the project with its conditioned obligations to
improve Norris Canyon Road will allow the improvements
to be constructed.
L. Consistency with General Plan
The SEIR sets forth at Table 2 . 1-1, p. 2-10, a chart entitled
"Contra Costa General Plan Policies Evaluated in this SEIR". The
Board has found the Project to be consistent with each of the
County General Plan goals, standards, and policies as set forth on
such chart. The Board's specific Findings for each goal, standard
and policy are set forth in these Findings under the discussion of
the corresponding Section in the SEIR.
90
EXHIBIT F-2
FINDINGS REGARDING REZONING TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (P-1)
(# 2947-RZ) ; PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (#3.005-91) ; AND APPROVAL
OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS 7575 AND 7578
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa specifically find as
follows:
Rezoning to Planned Unit District/Development Plan
1. Finding: The applicant intends to start construction
within two and on-half years from the effective date and plan
approval.
Facts: The applicants have previously furnished the
County a letter dated May 20, 1992 and incorporated herein by
reference, that provides the factual support for the Board to make
this finding.
2 . Finding: The proposed planned unit development is
consistent with the County General Plan.
Facts:
a. General: The General Plan designation for the
property is single family residential, low density. The
subdivision is consistent with such designation. The subdivision
is consistent with the General Plan's established County Urban
Limit Line, which defines the area within which further development
shall occur.
b. Compatibility with General Plan Goals, Policies, and
Implementation Measures: The subdivision is further compatible
with General Plan Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures.
The Project SEIR performed an extensive review of the County's
General Plan policies regarding new development, and their
relationship to the Wiedemann Ranch project. (Draft SEIR at pp. 2-
8 , 2-9) . The Draft SEIR sets forth at p. 2-10, Table 2 . 1-1, a list
of County General Plan policies evaluated in the SEIR. The SEIR
evaluated Project consistency with such policies; such evaluation
addressed principle policies of all General Plan Elements. This
Board made specific Findings under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) with regard to the Project's consistency with
such policies. Such Findings are incorporated herein by reference.
The Board found that the Project is consistent with the General
Plan goals and policies.
3. Finding: The residential development will constitute a
residential environment of sustained desirability and stability,
and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood and community.
Facts: The Board Findings made as part of the
certification of the SEIR are incorporated into these Findings by
reference. Such SEIR Findings confirm that the project, with
mitigation measures, will constitute a stable, harmonious project,
in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. The property
consists of 1, 143 acres. The substantial majority of the property
will be kept in open space. The developed area will be constructed
in a sensitive manner consistent with approved design guidelines.
The residential development will be located adjacent to the
preserved open space. The project has been designed to include
1
buffer areas between the residential uses and the agricultural and
open space uses, to help insure compatibility between the two uses.
These buffers will include a fifty foot wide band around the
perimeter of the development area, within which no development or
agricultural uses would be allowed. In addition, each lot
contains private open space within which no development will be
allowed. These buffer areas significantly reduce the potential
land use conflicts associated with Project development.
The Project will be designed sensitively and with minimized
impacts, within the hilly terrain of the Project site. The Project
incorporates Hillside Protection and Development Guidelines to help
insure that development design preserves the natural environment,
while achieving a harmonious relationship with neighboring
structures.
4. Finding: The development of a harmonious, integrated
plan as set forth above justifies exceptions from the normal
application of this code.
Facts: A planned unit development is desired when
application of conventional zoning regulations to a. large-scale
development may create a monotonous and inappropriate neighborhood.
Further, the planned unit development is intended to allow
diversification in the relationship of various lots sizes and open
spaces, while insuring substantial compliance with the General
Plan. (County Ordinance 84-66. 204) The proposed planned unit
development on this Project, which contains rolling hillside lands,
allows for diversification of lot sizes, avoiding a "cookie-
cutter", monotonous development, and allowing for clustering of the
homesites in a smaller, defined area, while preserving the great
majority of the project property (681 acres) into open space.
Rezoning to planned unit development further allows the County lock
in lot sizes and placement, and to place strict conditions of
approval on the Project design and grading to help protect the
topography and environment and to promote sensitive design.
Approval of Tentative Map
1. Finding: The subdivision is consistent with the County
General Plan.
Facts•
a. General: See 2 .a. , on page 1, incorporated herein
by reference.
b. Compatibility with General Plan Goals, Policies, and
Implementation Measures: See 2 .b. , on page 1, incorporated herein
by reference.
2. Finding: The design of the subdivision will provide for
future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities.
Facts: The Project conditions of approval require that
all Project homes be designed to meet energy efficiency standards
of 10% more than the requirements of Title 24 of the California
Code of Regulations currently in effect, unless otherwise approved
by the Zoning Administrator (ZA) as to glass efficiency standards
to provide architectural design flexibility. The design of the
subdivision with its large lots and varied exposures will allow for
future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the
design of the homes. Such opportunities. will be taken into account
by the ZA in consideration of design approval consistent with the
approved conditions and mitigation measures.
3. Finding: The discharge of waste from the subdivision in
the existing sewer system will not result in violation of existing
requirements.
2
Facts: The Project SEIR addressed treated wastewater
and sewage disposal at Section 3 . 2 . 4 , p. 3-45. The Project will
require off-site sewer improvements as set forth in the SEIR. The
Project site will be annexed to the Contra Costa County Central
Sanitary District (CCSD) , and will pay all applicable facility
capacity fees. Compliance with all CCSD requirements will be
necessary. The SEIR confirmed that the Project will mitigate all
potential impacts by providing the necessary sewer improvements
and paying applicable fees consistent with CCSD requirements.
(SEIR at p. 3-49)
4. Finding: Pursuant to G.C. §66474 , the Board must deny
a tentative map if it makes any one of seven listed findings.
(566474 (a) -(g) The Board confirms that it does not make any of
such findings, and rather finds the following in the affirmative:
a. Finding: The proposed map is consistent with the County
General Plan.
Facts: See Facts for Finding 1, above.
b. Finding: The design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is consistent with the County General Plan.
Facts: The lot configuration and general project design
of the subdivision using the planned unit development approach are
consistent with the General Plan and its goals, policies and
implementation measures. P-1 zoning allows clustering of the
homesites and preservation of a substantial majority of the
property acreage as permanent open space; the buffer areas between
the residences and adjacent agricultural uses will ensure
compatibility of the two uses. See also Finding 1, above.
C. Finding: The site is physically suitable for the type
of development.
Facts: The County General Plan and the Westside Specific
Plan, and their environmental documentation, specifically
designated the site for residential development and found the site
physically suitable for such development. The Project SEIR further
thoroughly evaluated the impacts of the residential development,
and found residential development suitable. For reasons set forth
in the Board's Findings on the SEIR for the Project, the Board
confirms that the project is suitable for residential development.
d. Finding: The site is physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.
Facts: The County General Plan designated the area for
528 units; the Westside Specific Plan (WSP) designated the area
for 450 units. The Project SEIR reviewed and analyzed the site's
physical suitability for the proposed density, specifically in its
sections regarding Land Use; Aesthetics; Geology and Soils; Storm
Drainage; Plant and Animal Life; and Agriculture. The Project
SEIR, and the Boards Findings thereon, confirm the site's physical
suitability for the Project density. The Project includes an
Aquatic Habitat Plan, a Reforestation Plan, a Range Management
Plan, and an overall Monitoring Program, to ensure that the site's
environment is protected on a continuing basis. The Project
incorporates Hillside Protection and Development Guidelines to
ensure development is performed sensitively and with minimal site
impact.
e. Finding: The design of the subdivision is not likely to
cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife or their
habitat.
Facts: Biological surveys of the Project site were
conducted in 1988 and 1989 as part of the Westside Specific Plan
EIR. A Biotic Resource Assessment and Habitat Mitigation Plan was
3
prepared by Sugnet & Associates to provide supplemental information
specific to the propose project. The Project SEIR contained
specific analysis of Project impacts on fish, wildlife and their
habitat. (Section 3 . 3) The Project incorporates an Aquatic
Habitat Plan, which provides for the creation of approximately 3 . 0
acres of new wetlands area. The Project further includes a
Reforestation Plan, which provides for the planting of
approximately 6, 705 trees on the site. Finally, the Project has
a Monitoring Program to ensure that proposed reforestation and
aquatic habitat replacement plans are implemented and successful.
The Board's Findings with regard to the SEIR impacts confirmed that
the project with incorporated mitigation measures will have an
insignificant impact on fish and wildlife.
f. Finding: The design of the subdivision will not cause
serious health problems.
Facts: The Project SEIR analyzed health and safety
issues as part of its discussion of Geology and Soils (Section 3 . 1,
p. 3-1) Several geotechnical reports were prepared, and analyzed
in the SEIR. Based on such reports, and other information as set
forth in the SEIR, the project design will be one of stability and
safety.
g. Finding: The design of the subdivision will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through
or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
Facts: The Project contains an integrated trail system
to ensure new access through open space lands and linkage with
other regional trails planned or located outside the project site.
The proposed system and open space plan are endorsed by the East
Bay Regional Park District. No other potential conflicts with
public easements are apparent.
4
ATTACHMENT 1 TO EXHIBIT F
List of Exhibits Submitted To
The San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission and
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors*
Scale Model (dated Nov. 1990) .
Westside Specific Plan FEIR Viewpoint Photography (dated April and
June, 1992) .
Wiedemann Ranch Residential Community Park Plan (revised
September 1, 1992) .
Large aerial (dated April 27 , 1990) with mylar site plan overlay
(dated April 1992) .
Comparative Visual Analysis: Westside Specific Plan EIR vs.
Wiedemann Ranch Residential Community Site Plan.
Percent Slope Model Wedges prepared by A.M. Guzzardo, Inc.
Photographic Viewshed Analysis based on WSP EIR viewpoints (dated
August 1991) .
Computerized Viewshed Analysis by CADP (dated September 1991) .
Regional and Project Trail, Agricultural Lot, Open Space and Scenic
Easement Map (colorized dated November 12 , 1992) .
Viewshed Analysis based on WSP EIR viewpoints + Norris Canyon Road
and Bishop Ranch Regional Open Space (dated July 1992) .
Viewshed Analysis based on WSP EIR viewpoints depicting revised 371
lot configuration (dated November 17, 1992) .
EBMUD Ultimate Service Boundary Map prepared by Aliquot (dated
November 17 , 1992) .
Subdivisions 7575 and 7578 VTM of Wiedemann Ranch revised
November 13 , 1992 depicting 371 lots with relocated lots colorized.
LAFCO Annexation Map prepared by Aliquot (dated November 13 , 1992) .
* (This is a partial list only depicting the principal exhibits) .