HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11171992 - D.2 D. 2
__ Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS --�� Costa
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON -►• . dti - County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �'• �40�
DATE: October 26, 1992 ��s�'�•couN`►� ��
SUBJECT: Decision on File #2861-RZ, 3031-89 and SUB 7387 (Champlin & Cotton
Applicant; Maximillian Manufacturing Co. - Owner) in the Alamo Area
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Certify the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report
and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination. !
2 . Approve Rezoning #2861-RZ from A-2 to P-1, Final Development
Plan 3031-89 and Vesting Tentative Map 7387 with modified
conditions.
3 . Adopt rezoning, subdivision and California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) findings and the mitigation monitoring
program.
4 . Introduce the ordinance giving effect to the rezoning, waive
reading and set date for adoption of same.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
This item was heard by the Board of Supervisors on September 22,
1992 .
After taking testimony, the Board closed the hearing; declared its
intent to approve the project; and directed staff to propose
suitable findings for adoption. On staff's recommendation, the
Board also directed staff to modify several conditions of approval
pertaining to frontage improvements and compliance with recently-
adopted child care ordinance requirements.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT EE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON Naves-hp— 17 , 19q 2 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER Y
On September 22 , 1992, the Board of Supervisors declared intent
to approve rezoning application 2861-RZ, Final Development Plan
3031-89 and Vesting Tentative Map 7387 with modifications .
Supervisor Schroder commented on the changes relative to
frontage improvements and compliance with the adopted Child Care
Ordinance and the requested variances, and he moved approval of the
staff recommendations .
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, advised the
Board that staff wished to amend their recommendation to include the
indemnification condition on this application.
Supervisor Schroder concurred.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2 with
modified amended conditions (Exhibit A attached) , 3 (Exhibit B
attached) , and 4 are APPROVED; and Ordinance No. 92-95, giving effect
to the rezoning, is INTRODUCED, reading waived and December 8, 1992
is set for adoption of same .
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Bob Drake - 646-2091
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED Noverrnber 17 , 1992
cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Champlin & Cotton THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Maximillian Manufacturing Co. COUN ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works Department AN
San Ramon Valley Fire Prot. Dist. BY Y D , DEPUTY
East Bay Regional Park Dist. - Linda Pratt
CSA R-7A
s
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REZONING FILE #2861-RZ, FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3031-89 AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 7387 (Champlin & Cotton -
- Applicant; Maximillian Manufacturing - Owners) PER NOVEMBER 17, 1992 BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS APPROVAL
FINDINGS
A. P-1 District Related Findings
1 . The applicants have indicated they intend to commence construction within
two and one-half years of the effective date of final project approval.
2. The 27-unit project, as conditioned, is consistent with the 1977 San Ramon
Valley Area General Plan that governs the review of this project. The project
also conforms with the more recently adopted Countywide 1991 General Plan.
Adequate design and regulations are provided to assure aesthetic protection of
the scenic ridge and upper hillside and tree canopy in the southern and eastern
portions of the project. Special measures are provided to allow for reasonably
safe development (interior sprinklers, fire breaks around houses, Class A roofs)
to guard against fire hazards.
3. The project will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability
and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the nearby
community. Lot sizes are comparable to existing lots in Roundhill. Most nearby
residents will have little visual disruption. Much of the visible hillside area will
retain its natural vegetation and the development rights dedicated to the County
as a scenic easement.
4. In accord with the required findings of the (P-1 ) District, the County finds that
the development of a harmonious, integrated plan like this project, justifies
exceptions from the normal application of the code, including variations in
parcel configuration and design to provide better conformity with existing
natural terrain features.
B. Findings for Granting Exceptions to Cul-de-Sac Standards
Pursuant to Section 92-6.002 of the ordinance code, an exception is granted to the
proposed street system so as to allow 27 homes to be served from one access, and
to allow a cul-de-sac road for a length of approximately 2,000 feet (ref. Section 92-
4.018 of the Subdivision Ordinance), based on the following findings:
1 . The topography of the site is too steep to lend itself to an internal road system
with more access routes and connections. Adjoining development projects do
not provide for general access or emergency access routes to this property.
Therefore, the only legal access to the site is from Stone Valley Road. The
applicant's efforts to secure an emergency vehicle access from owners of
adjoining properties have not been successful.
2.
2. An exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant. Insofar as other nearby properties with similar
topographic constraints have been allowed to develop at a much more intensive
level than is proposed for this project. The unit density for this project is only
0.91 units per net acre.
3. The granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare nor injurious to other property in the vicinity. The project approval
complies with the road design standards of the San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District and all other road design standards of the County Subdivi-
sion Code. Moreover, new residences will be required to provide for the
following safety measures:
a. Install Fire-Resistant, Class A roofing.
b. Install building sprinkler systems for all new residences.
C. Provide a 30 - 40 foot fire break around the house.
C. Additional Finding
The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission finds that there is a perceived
need for a stop light on Stone Valley Road at Roundhill and requests that the stop light
be added to the Area of Benefit list of projects by the Board of Supervisors.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General
1 . Development shall be based on the following submitted exhibits except as modified by
conditions below:
A. Vesting Tentative Map, dated July 17, 1990.
B. Final Development Plan, dated March 9, 1992.
C. Diablo Soils Engineer Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report, dated May 11,
1989.
D. March 4, 1992 letter from Diablo Soils Engineer regarding geotechnical
feasibility of Private Street "A".
E. May 21 , 1992 Staff Study Proposing Site Plan Changes.
3.
2. A maximum of 27 single family residential lots shall be permitted as generally shown
on the March 9, 1992 Final Development Plan. No gating of any portion of the site
will be allowed now or in the future without further public hearings.
3. At least 60 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of grading permits, a revised
site/grading plan and related documents shall be submitted for the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator. The submitted plan shall provide for:
A. The plan shall be revised in accord with the staff study dated May 21 , 1992.
The major revisions provide for:
1) The residential site atop Lot 12 shall remain and not be relocated as had
been recommended in the staff study.
2) Placement of the majority of undeveloped hillside area in a common area
to be owned and maintained by a project homeowners association with
a scenic easement covering that area dedicated to the County.
3) Provision of non-exclusive access easements to the rearyards of lots
fronting on Court "A".
4) Provision of a public pedestrian trail easement between Stone Valley
Road and the EBRPD trail at the south end of the property. The trail
dedication shall include all area within the rights-of-way of Court "A",
Private Street "A" from Court A to the EVA, and the proposed EVA
connecting to the EBRPD trail.
5) Reconfiguration of the proposed planter area along Stone Valley Road
(presently on private lots) into a common area.
6) Grading of Lot 10 to create a flat pad at approximately the 593 foot
elevation with no greater elevation than 5 feet either way. Special
attention shall be provided to assure protection of trees at the daylight
line to aid in screening of eventual residential development.
7) The final grading plan shall be consistent with the recommendations of
the preliminary geotechnical report. Fills shall be designed and
constructed so as to minimize the potential for differential settlement.
The design might include over-excavation, greater compaction at depth,
or special foundation design.
Fills shall be keyed into bedrock where the natural slope is 5:1 or
steeper. Irrigation of common areas shall be kept to a minimum.
8) Three off-street bay parking spaces in the vicinity of Lots 10 - 14.
4.
B. Four copies of a final hardscape, landscape and irrigation plan covering the
proposed entrance design and street tree program. The proposed plan 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 the survival of the approved plantings
for a period of at least 24 months following completion of planting.
The plan shall demonstrate by design and selection of materials compliance
with Chapter 82-18 of the Zoning Code, "Sight Obstruction at Intersections".
The proposed frontage wall along Stone Valley Road shall be setback one foot
from the top of slope.
At least six months prior to issuance of a building permit, the approved
landscape plan for the Stone Valley Road frontage shall be installed. Approxi-
mately 90 days after landscape improvements have been corripleted, the
applicant shall contact the General Services Department(Jim Baugh, 646-4150)
to request an inspection with the project landscape architect for purposes of
acceptance. Any failing plantings shall be immediately replaced.
C. Two copies of a street light plan for all interior roads. Ornamental light
standards are encouraged. Lighting of Private Streets "A" and "B" shall be
limited to low-profile standards (e.g., 4 - 8 feet in height).
Street lighting of Courts A and B shall be consistent with the requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance.
D. Development of Residential Design Guidelines text and graphics based on the
residential design standards identified in the final development plan, and other
residential design standards listed below. The prepared document shall be
attached to and referenced in the CC & Rs for the project.
E. A grading/tree preservation plan prepared with input from a licensed arborist;
providing for the detailed information listed below.
F. The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District and East Bay Regional Park
District shall be provided an opportunity to review and comment on the revised
site plans prior to submittal to the Zoning Administrator.
G. Submittal of two copies of a preliminary geotechnical report. See Geotechnical
conditions below for detail on report scope of work.
H. Two copies of a maintenance plan and schedule for all slopes drainage terraces
and subdrains prepared by a registered civil engineer.
5.
I. Two copies of a plan making adequate provision for funding project road
maintenance and establishing a maintenance cycle/maintenance standard.
J. Three copies of a Fencing Plan Program. For required details, see below.
Geotechnical
4. At least 60 days prior to filing a final map or issuance of a grading permit, submit a
preliminary geotechnical report for the review and approval of.the Zoning Adminis-
trator. The report shall be prepared by a geotechnical engineer and an engineering
geologist. The report shall reference the Geology, Seismicity and Grading Section of
the February, 1991 Draft EIR (pp. 48 - 69).
A. The report shall log test pits in all areas where major cuts are planned to
provide information on the geologic parameters that affect slope stability.
B. The slope area that encompasses three small landslides on the site shall be
further analyzed to accurately map their extent and provide specific recommen-
dations for the corrective grading.
C. The report shall provide calculations on theoretical rates of fill settlement.
Foundation recommendations shall take these rates into account.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 recommen-
dations, and noting that the report is available to prospective buyers from the owner.
6.
8. At least 30 days prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall enter into a
consultant services agreement with the County to provide independent geotechnical
review to monitor excavation and filling operations; to review and design modifica-
tions; and to review all as-built plans and reports.
Erosion Control Measures
9. The construction stage erosion control plan shall provide for the following measures:
A. All grading, excavation and filling shall be conducted during the dry season
(May 1 st through October 1 st) only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be
replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. After October
1st, only erosion control work shall be allowed by the grading permit.
B. A revegetation plan prepared by an experienced plant ecologist (not landscape
architect) shall be submitted as part of the erosion control plan. The plan shall
emphasize use of drought tolerant native species and plants that are adaptive
to conditions in this portion of Alamo. Ideally, the plan should include a mix of
grasses, shrubs and trees. The plan shall provide for revegetation of all
rearyard cut slopes. Hydroseeding and hydromulching would not be adequate
for this purpose.
If necessary for survival of young plants, the plan may call for the use of a
temporary drip irrigation system.(to be abandoned after 2 - 3 summer seasons).
The developer shall bond with the Community Development or Building
Inspection Departments the landscape improvements for a period of not less
than two years.
C. Hydroseeding and hydromulching are not considered adequate on 2:1 slopes
that are more than 15 feet in height.
D. The erosion control plan shall show the location of proposed temporary
detention basins, silt fences and straw bales, along with revegetation of all
graded areas. It shall also contain provisions for:
a) performing maintenance during the winter rainy season, as necessary.
b) regular inspections by the project engineer during the winter rainy
season.
c) spot inspections during/immediately following severe storms.-
Grading/Tree Preservation Plan
10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or filing a final map, submit a grading/tree
preservation plan providing for:
I
7.
A. 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 circumfer-
ence 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. Drainage terraces for cut and fill slopes shall be spaced at minimum 30-foot
intervals. All slopes shall be contour-rounded.
C. The grading plan shall provide for balanced cut and fill on-site (i.e., no import
or export of fill material).
D. 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. A sample section and color of the proposed retaining wall for the design of
Private Street "A" shall be submitted.
F. The grading/tree preservation plan shall provide for a tree replacement program
and plan. The plan shall require one replacement oak tree, minimum 15-gallons
for every 20 inches of aggregate trunk circumference of trees removed as
determined by the tree survey tally. Siting of trees shall be distributed
throughout the project based on plans prepared by a licensed landscape
architect. 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
prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall be responsible for
protecting the trees for a period of at least 24 months after planting. Ninety
days after planting, the landscape 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 immediately replaced.
A bond may be required in order to assure compliance with this tree planting
requirement.
8.
G. A construction period erosion control plan shall be submitted. For further
details, see Erosion Control Plan reviewed below.
H. 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. To assure protection and/or reasonable replacement of existing 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 24
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.
J. Preliminary plan for drainage improvements serving Lot 11 . The design should
provide for a closed conduit system connecting with a nearby street drainage
system or watercourse.
Fencing Plan
1 1 . Prior to issuance of a grading permit or filing a final map, the applicant shall submit a
fencing plan program. The program shall provide for the following:
A. Restriction of fencing within or on the perimeter of the common open space
area, and southern boundary of the site, to wire (non-cyclone) and split-rail
fencing;
B. Restriction on fencing of firebreak maintenance easement; and
C. Design guidelines for residential lot fencing.
The approved program shall be attached to the CC & Rs.
9.
Common Open Space and Heritage Tree Nomination
12. A scenic easement shall be dedicated for the area approved by the Zoning Administra-
tor for common open space area. The easement instrument shall provide that no
grading, other development activity, or removal of trees may occur in that area without
the prior written approval of the Zoning Administrator.
13. Prior to filing a final map or issuance of a grading permit, 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 be 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.
14. No trees shall be removed prior to approval of the grading/tree preservation plan
without the prior approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Irrigation of the common open space area shall be kept to a minimum.
Trail Dedication
15. Applicant shall record a public pedestrian trail easement through the project which shall
be offered for dedication to the County, or other appropriate public agency. The
location and size of the easement shall be subject to review by R-7A and subject to
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
Residential Design Guidelines
16. Development of new residences shall be subject to the following requirements:
A. Provide a building sprinkler system covering habitable interior floor space,
garages and decks, except for the existing dwelling.
B. Fire resistant, Class A roofs.
• 10.
C. Provision of a 30 - 40 foot fire break around the perimeter of each residence.
Construction plans shall designate areas to be regularly cultivated; irrigated
landscaping using fire resistant species; segments of project roadway; a
combination of such methods; or other methods which the San Ramon Valley
Fire Protection District finds adequate. Maintenance of the fire protection strip
shall be binding on either the owner of the lot or the homeowners association,
as approved by the Zoning Administrator.
D. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection
District shall be provided an opportunity to review and comment on construc-
tion plans.
E. To minimize expansive soil uplift pressures on house foundations, drilled pier
foundations which extend through the zone of shrinking and swelling materials
shall be used. These drilled pier foundations are likely to extend to depths of
eight to ten feet.
Any surface improvements placed directly on the ground surface (such as slabs-
on-grade, walkways, patios, driveways, or other improvements) should be
placed on a thick layer of non-expansive imported material to minimize distress.
In addition, construction joints or weakened planes should be provided at
intervals of no more than 10 feet in either direction to control cracking. No
slabs-on-grade should be used for living areas where expansive materials are
present. Garage slabs should be structurally separated from adjacent
foundations and should be well-reinforced. It should be noted that in some
areas where deep cuts are made, non-expansive bedrock may be exposed. In
these areas, shallow footings and living space slabs-on-grade may be used.
However, any areas where these conditions are anticipated should be confirmed
by the geotechnical engineer after site grading has been completed.
To control the amount of volume change in the expansive materials, surface
water shall be carefully controlled within the developed areas. The ground
surface shall slope away from the perimeter of the house by at least five
percent for a distance of five feet. All downspouts shall be placed into solid
pipes and conveyed to street areas, or other paved areas, leading to streets.
F. Each lot shall provide a minimum of six off-street parking spaces, three of
which shall be located in a garage. All garage doors shall be designed as
automatic sectional units.
G. Except for parking in garages, recreational vehicles and boats shall not be
parked on residential lots or on the street for longer than one week.
- I
. 11 .
H. All toilets shall be low-flow units in accordance with Section 17921 .3 of the
Health and Safety Code; sinks and showers shall be water conserving units, in
accord with the California Energy Commission Standards for new residential
buildings.
I. The site is subject to relatively strong seismic shaking. Developments should
be designed by competent professionals using design criteria that are
conservative on the side of safety. Quality construction and regular mainte-
nance are essential to long-term satisfactory performance.
J. All development shall be subject to the prior review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
K. Construction plans shall identify all trees with trunks within 40 feet of the
proposed development with a trunk circumference of 20 inches or greater. The
trunk circumference, species, and dripline of each tree shall be identified on the
plan. The plan shall identify any trees designated by the County as heritage
trees. The plans shall be accompanied by a report from a licensed arborist on
necessary measures to protect the trees during the construction and post-
construction stages of the project. The report recommendations shall be
integrated into the project design including provision for a tree protection plan.
If no trees are located within 40 feet of the proposed development, then
construction plans shall be so noted.
17. Development of residences fronting on Court "A" (Lots 1 - 9, 15 - 20) and Court "B"
(Lots 25 - 27) shall provide for the following:
A. All roof gutter water shall be intercepted to a closed conduit and taken to storm
drains along the nearby street.
B. Construction plans submitted for building permits shall be accompanied by
frontyard landscape plans. Frontyard landscaping as shown on the plans shall
be completed prior to occupancy.
18. Development of ridgeline residences (Lots 10, 1 1 , 12, 13, and 14) shall be subject to
the following requirements:
A. Development shall be reviewed for adequacy of fire safety protection measures
and protection of scenic qualities as viewed from off-site vantage points
(EBRPD trail and Roundhill area).
12.
B. Residences shall generally be designed to project a low-profile appearance.
Houses will generally be limited to a one-story height with some two story
element permissible. Residences shall be limited to 32 feet in height measured
parallel to grade. Lots 10, 11 and 12 shall be limited to 26 feet in height
measured parallel to grade. Flat exterior wall surface shall not exceed 20 feet
in height.
C. Residences on Lots 10, 11 and 12 shall be designed to terrace or cascade
down the slope.
D. Decks shall be designed such that they are no higher than 10 feet from grade.
Undergirdings shall be screened with lattice work.
E. 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.
F. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a building permit, proposed residential
designs shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Adminis-
trator. The submittal shall include the site plan, tree preservation plan,
arborist's report, structural elevations, and floor plans, sample palette of
exterior colors, and landscape/irrigation plans. Prior to submittal of plans to the
Zoning Administrator, the East Bay Regional Park District shall be provided an
opportunity to review and comment on the plans. Landscape plans shall
emphasize use of California native species, particularly for plantings which may
be visible from outside the subdivision.
G. Before commencing detailed design work, prospective builders are encouraged
to contact East Bay Regional Park District about visual impact considerations
and to contact the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District about required and
prudent fire safety measures.
H. Landscape plans for lots 13 and 14 shall provide for a row of 5-gallon shrubs
and 15-gallon trees along the adjoining trail and flanks of development site to
provide aesthetic benefit to trail users and privacy to residents. The plan shall
provide for dense plantings, emphasizing use of drought tolerant and California
native species.
19. Construction plans for residences on Lots 1, 25, 26, and 27 shall be accompanied by
a report from a licensed acoustic engineer. The report shall recommend measures to
assure that interior noise levels not exceed 4.5 dBA CNEL. The report recommenda-
tions shall be integrated into the design of the residences.
13.
Landscane Plans
20. Except for landscaping of private residential lots, the East Bay Municipal Utility District
shall be provided an opportunity to review and comment on all landscape/irrigation
plans. Landscape plans for all common areas shall be designed to minimize
maintenance costs. The plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect (or
in the case of the graded slope maintenance plan, a qualified plant ecologist) and
certified for compliance with the County Water Conservation in New Developments
Ordinance.
Street Names
21. At least 30 days prior to filing a final map, proposed street names shall be submitted
for review and approval of the Community Development Department, Graphics Section
(646-2029).
Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions
22. A copy of the project's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be submitted to
the Community Development Department. The document shall provide for mainte-
nance of common open space, roads, and fire break projections. The document shall
reference the approved residential design guidelines and slope and drainage improve-
ment 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.
The CC & Rs shall make an adequate provision for funding road maintenance and
establishing a maintenance cycle standard.
Construction Period Restrictions
23. 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.
24. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal
combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition, and to locate stationary
noise-generating equipment as far away from existing residences as possible.
25. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site
and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary and to the
homeowner associations of nearby residential projects, including Roundhill Property
Owners Association, that construction work will commence. The notice shall include
14.
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 re-issued 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.
26. The project shall comply with the dust control requirements of the Grading Ordinance
including provisions pertaining to water conservation.
27. Comply with the following archaeological resource requirements:
A. 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. 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 Reouirements
28. Comply with the following road utility and drainage requirements:
A. 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) Constructing road improvements along the frontage of Stone Valley
Road.
15.
Constructing curb, four-foot six-inch separated path, necessary
longitudinal and transverse drainage, pavement widening and a half-
width median island (including surface treatment)along the frontage will
satisfy this requirement. The roadway shall be widened to provide a 40-
foot road width (curb to curb) transitioning to a 56-foot road width to
provide for a left-turn lane into the project. The left turn lane shall be
extended to the east to serve as a merge lane with appropriate
transitions.
2) Constructing paved turnarounds at the end of the proposed private
roads in accordance with San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
standards, including private road "B".
3) Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities, including the existing
distribution facilities along the Stone Valley Road frontage.
4) Conveying 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
an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the
storm waters to a natural watercourse.
5) Designing and constructing 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. The Ordinance prohibits the discharging of
concentrated storm waters into roadside ditches.
6) Installing, within a dedicated drainage- easement, any portion of the
drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets.
7) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer,
payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improve-
ments 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 County Pubic Works Department,
Road Engineering Division.
8) Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
B. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way and slope
easements on Stone Valley Road as required for the planned future width of 84
feet in accordance with PA 4331 , Stone Valley Road - Roundhill Road to Green
Valley Road, on file in the County Public Works Department.
16.
C. Provide for adequate corner sight distance at the intersection of Stone Valley
Road and "A" Court using a design speed of 45 miles per hour in accordance
with CALTRANS standards.
D. Relinquish abutter's rights of access along Stone Valley Road, including curb
returns.
E. Provide for adequate sight distance at the southern end of Private Street "A",
in the vicinity of Lot 14, for a design speed of 20 miles per hour. This may
require realignment of the curve at Lot 14.
F. Install safety related improvements on Stone Valley Road (including traffic signs
and channelization) as approved by the Public Works Department.
G. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a
concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and driveways.
H. Mitigate the impact of the additional storm water run-off from this development
on San Ramon Creek by:
1) Removing 1 cubic yard of channel excavation material from the
inadequate portion of San Ramon Creek near Chaney Road for each 50
square feet of new impervious surface area created by the development.
all excavated material shall be disposed of off-site by the developer at
his cost. The site selection, land rights, and construction staking will be
by the Flood Control District. OR...
2) Upon written request, the applicant may make a cash payment in lieu of
actual excavation and removal of material from San Ramon Creek. The
cash payment will be calculated at the rate of $0.10 per square foot of
new impervious surface area created by the development. The added
imperious surface area created by the development will be based on the
Flood Control District's standard impervious surface area ordinance.
The Flood Control District will use these funds to work on San Ramon
Creek annually.
I. Submit a sketch plan to the Public Works Department, Road Engineering
Division, for review showing all public road improvements prior to starting work
on the improvement plans. The sketch alignment plan shall be to scale and
show proposed and future curb lines, lane striping details and lighting. The
sketch alignment plan shall also include sufficient information to show that
adequate sight distance has been provided.
• 17.
J. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division,
of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for
the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage
improvements.
K. Establish an emergency access easement between Private Street "A" and the
East Bay Regional Park District (E.B.R.P.D.) trail easement, as proposed. The
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District shall be provided an opportunity to
comment on an appropriate design for the proposed access improvements.
L. Erosion control structures to a height, length and design acceptable to the Flood
Control District shall be installed along the bank of two right-angle bends in the
Stone Valley Creek channel downstream from the culvert that discharges run-
off from the site into Stone Valley Creek. These devices should be installed
only on the outside bank of the two bends in the channel, unless the Flood
Control District recommends work on the inside bank. Potential solutions
include protecting the lower two-thirds of the outside bank with gabions, rip-
rap, or equally effective erosion control material.
The first turn in the channel is within the Flood Control District's existing
drainage easement, so access for men and equipment is not a problem. The
second bend in the channel is on private properties (APN 193-252-04 and 05).
If access to the private property is not freely granted by the owners, the
improvement requirement for this section of the channel is waived. However,
an in lieu contribution equivalent to the cost of the improvements could be
provided at the direction of the County. The estimated cost of the improve-
ments shall be subject to the review of the Public Works Director and the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
When the design of the on-site storm drainage system is known, the devel-
oper's engineer shall provide calculations to verify that the existing culvert
linking the site to Stone Valley Creek has adequate capacity. If a larger culvert,
or second culvert, proves to be necessary, the developer shall be required to
pay all costs associated with its installation.
M. Court "B" shall be posted and the south curb painted red with labels, "No
Stopping Fire Lane CVD 22.500.1 "; Private Streets "A" and "B" shall be posted
no parking and curbs painted on both sides.
N. Design of project roads shall be consistent with public road standards (i.e.,
compaction of fill, drainage and pavement design). The only exceptions shall
be those pertaining to road width and right-of-way width, and cul-de-sac length.
An exception is granted to the maximum cul-de-sac length requirement to allow
the proposed road design.
18.
Grade access for project roads and driveways in excess of 15% shall consist
of grooved concrete or rough asphalt concrete to a maximum grade of 20%.
0. Sufficient survey data shall be submitted to verify the location of the property
boundaries with respect to the EBRPD trail easement.
P. Annex to a lighting and landscaping maintenance district to allow for mainte-
nance and operation of landscape improvements along the Stone Valley Road
frontage and project entrance, and interior street lighting.
0. Install left turn channelization for ingress and egress to this subdivision and a
median island (including surface treatment) on Stone Valley Road at its ultimate
location subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department,
Road Engineering Division, and convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication,
any additional right of way that may be required for these improvements.
OR
Provide striped left turn channelization for ingress and egress to this subdivi-
sion, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department, Road
Engineering Division. In addition, submit a sketch plan and cost estimate
prepared by a registered civil engineer for a median island to be installed in its
ultimate location on Stone Valley Road, and pay to the County a fee equivalent
to one-half the estimated cost of the median island and surface treatment (Fund
#8192).
R. Apply the Area of Benefit in accordance with the provisions of the Area of
Benefit Ordinance unless the Board of Supervisors recommends that the Area
of Benefit fee from this project go to signalization of the Roundhill Drive - Stone
Valley Road traffic signal.
Child Care
29. Residential development shall be subject to child care ordinance fees in effect at the
time of issuance of building permits.
Subdivision Indemnification
30. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9,the applicant(including the subdivider
or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa
County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this
subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such
claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defence.
19.
ADVISORY NOTES
A. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge//thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Alamo Area of Benefit as adopted by the
Board of Supervisors.
B. Comply with the requirements of the East Bay Municipal Utility District and Central
Sanitary District.
C. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District.
D. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game
pertaining to alteration of riparian vegetation and other possible on-site wetlands.
E. Comply with the Water Conservation Landscaping in New Developments Ordinance.
F. The vesting tentative map application was accepted as complete on October 29, 1989.
G. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District fees at
time of issuance of building permits. Any cumulative impacts upon the School District
shall be mitigated to the maximum extent allowed under all relevant laws.
RD/aa
RZXVII/2861-RZC.RD
6/1/92
7/21/92
7/29/92
8/5/82 (SRV-df)
9/22/92 (BS-a)
11/17/92 (BS-a)
b� 7
t �
-��=��...-i,,1� 'tui • ` ,Ar, ..;���• 9j ���, ii;1t�,``i��,�:\ � �i � `,
,� �'•�\•, ;; � '4 ` ski �� �I G� ,�il'A�-� .\j�•� , } i � c
O >
N tib yN �- ��• :', �\ '(�. `' .'�, ► t `, ,-" r-' _ - �'" N Q o
Y► t�3 \. \ •�11�1' �, .:"� .� ~fit'' �1. � �i:' , •� —- `, ; °o •o
\V-► yo-
w
la
01
1=` cr•.• , •`/:- 1 ,'{.•'�r,:j4.� �:''rL�j• �' � \'•�...�,`\ <.3.!.• :���x •` i N i:a
!' Y �j1 � �. t� �: ��t Q l•� ,' -a�• :'�'•. �fir^
.tLl iii: tN', t .,r••� „ � '1 o n `,,��;. rtt''`�• /��:. './ `•`.
J.
�+`'^ .�• S. - ;� E Y p.i'K y •"~ate r"a e,'.�% - ..
ttR '..� `• m tom" _ '^-.•w
• � I
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
FINDINGS RELATED TO APPROVAL OF THE
CHAMPLIN AND COTTON PROJECT,
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
The Board of Supervisors (this "Board") of Contra
Costa County, California (the "County" ) adopts the following
findings regarding the Champlin & Cotton Project (the
"Project" ) , including a mitigation monitoring program.
The matters before this Board are (i) certification
of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project
(the "EIR" ) under the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA" ) ; ( ii ) adoption of a rezoning of the site from A-2
to P-1 (County File No. 2861-RZ ) ; (iii ) approval of a Final
Development Plan with conditions (County file No. 3031-89 ) ;
( iv) approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for a maximum of
27 lots with conditions (Sub 7387 ) ; (v) adoption of CEQA
findings covering the Project; (vi ) adoption of a Statement
of Overriding Considerations prepared for the Project
pursuant to the CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the County's
CEQA Guidelines; and (vii ) adoption of a mitigation
monitoring program.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. The Proiect
The Project is located in the unincorporated area
of the County known as Alamo, approximately 1. 2 miles east
of the I-680 Interchange with Stone Valley Road. The
Project site consists of approximately 37 acres on the
north-facing slope of Alamo Ridge.
Applications for the Project were accepted as
complete by the County on October 29 , 1989. The Project
originally proposed development consisting of 30 residential
units.
The Project site is currently designated for
residential development by the 1977 San Ramon Valley Area
General Plan, which governs the Project because applications
for the Project were accepted as complete prior to the 1991
adoption of the County General Plan.
1
LLjuL��ULL
B. The EIR
The County prepared an initial study (the "Initial
Study") for the Project, dated November 21 , 1989 . The
Initial Study is included in the ETR as Appendix A. The
Initial Study indicated that the Project potentially could
have significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, the
County directed preparation of the EIR.
In February, 1991 , a draft EIR was issued on the
30-unit Project. On April 18 , 1991 , the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission (the "Commission" ) took public
testimony on the draft EIR. The public comment period on
the draft EIR expired on April 23 , 1991. On June 6 , 1991,
after reviewing the public comments and staff responses to
those comments, the Commission voted its intent to recommend
certification of the EIR.
For purposes of these findings , the EIR for the
Project consists of the draft EIR and its appendices, the
final EIR and documents incorporated by reference thereto.
C. Revised Plan
Subsequent to the Commission's actions recommending
certification of the EIR, a revised plan (the "Revised
Plan" ) for the Project was proposed which called for a
development consisting of 27 residential units, reductions
in grading and other reductions in adverse environmental
impacts.
In response to concerns raised in the EIR and
public comments on the EIR, the Project applicant (the
"Applicant" ) submitted the Revised Plan. Under the
Revised Plan, many of the potentially significant impacts of
the Project identified in the EIR would be avoided or
substantially lessened.
On June 10 , 1992 and July 8 , 1992 , the Commission
conducted a public hearing on the Revised Plan recommending
approval or adoption of each of the matters currently before
this Board.
II. 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 matters before this Board, the
Revised Plan and the following:
2
1. All applications submitted to the County with
regard to the Project including appendices to them;
2 . The EIR;
3 . All documentary and oral evidence received and
reviewed at public hearings relating to the Project and EIR;
4 . All staff reports prepared for the Board
regarding the Project;
5. The San Ramon Valley Area General Plan (the
"SRVAGP") ;
6. All resolutions , findings , and conditions of
approval recommended by the Commission; and
7 . All matters of common knowledge to this Board.
III. EIR CERTIFICATION FINDINGS
This Board finds that:
(a) The EIR has been completed in compliance
with CEQA; and
(b) The EIR was presented to the decision-
making body of this Board and that this Board reviewed and
considered the information contained in the EIR prior to
approving the Project.
IV. CEQA FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The EIR describes the Project, analyzes potential
environmental impacts of the Project, and, where
appropriate, recommends measures to mitigate such impacts.
The EIR states that unless otherwise indicated in the text
of the EIR, all mitigation measures recommended are
determined to substantially reduce any adverse environmental
impacts to a level of insignificance, and all mitigation
measures are determined not to result in any potentially
significant adverse impacts.
3
Plans, Ordinances and Policies
A. San Ramon Valley Area General Plan
(Rp. 23-25
1. Impacts
The impacts of the Project on policies contained in
the SRVAGP are discussed at pages 13 to 22 of the EIR.
These impacts include potential conflicts with SRVAGP
policies which provide ( i) that density should decrease as
slope increases; ( ii ) the Public and Seismic Safety Element
of the SRVAGP indicates that slopes over 25% are not
suitable for pad grading. (The site has an average slope of
31%. ) ; (iii ) special restrictions on development are
warranted in the Project Area because Stone Valley Road and
Alamo Ridge are a scenic route and scenic ridge,
respectively.
2 . Mitigation Measures
The EIR states that mitigation measures proposed by
the Applicant include contour rounding of slopes , split-
level pads, and using existing vegetation to screen the
highest units in the Project. The EIR states that these
measures mitigate some, but not all , of the. potential
impacts posed by the Project.
The EIR recommends the following additional
mitigation measures:
a. Scenic Route
(i ) In the north portion of the
site, cut slopes should be downscoped. Fence lines in the
north portion of the site should be set back from the top of
slope, and the fence should be of a design acceptable to the
Planning commission and/or Planning Director. Homeowners
association should own a slope separating lots on the north
portion of the site from Stone Valley Road;
(ii) Existing vegetation along the
Stone Valley Road frontage preserved through special design,
including requiring the Developer to establish drought
tolerant plants on the slope and guarantee their survival
for two years;
(iii ) Residences on lots 1 , 2 and 3
should be a single story.
4
b. Grading on Slopes Steeper
than 25%
Pad grading should be limited to slopes of 25% or
less.
C. Scenic Ridge
( i) Maximum height of cut slopes in
south portion of site should be limited to 30 feet.
( ii ) Developer should be required to
provide a brow ditch at the top of the cut and another ditch
at the toe of slope.
(iii ) Developer should be required to
landscape the slope with drought tolerant plants.
( iv) Visibility of residences on
knoll should be minimized through proper design.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that:
a . Impacts Avoided or
Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts on the SRVAGP have been avoided
or substantially lessened by the implementation of the
mitigation measures described above. Those mitigation
measures will reduce the impact of the Project as to the
potential inconsistencies with the SRVAGP because they will
require the Project to comply substantially with policies
regarding scenic routes , grading on slopes of greater than
25% and scenic ridges.
(i ) Mitigation Measures
Incorporated into the
Project
Under the Revised Plan, the following mitigation
measures have been incorporated into the Project:
(1 ) proposed cut slopes have been reduced in scale;
( 2 ) although regrading of the frontage along Stone Valley
Road will result in the elimination of most existing
vegetation, a landscape plan consisting of trees and shrubs
is proposed along the graded embankment; ( 3 ) the residences
on Lots 1 , 2 and 3 (Lots 1 , 25 , 26 and 27 under the Revised
Plan) will either be limited to a single story or will have
5
a stepped design that provides for a visual appearance of a
one-story structure as viewed from Stone Valley Road;
(4 ) Pad grading generally will be limited to slopes of 25%
or less.
(ii ) Additional Mitigation
Measures
The Conditions of Approval impose the following
additional mitigation measures: (1) the majority of the
undeveloped hillside area will be placed in a common area to
be owned and maintained by a Project homeowners association,
with a scenic easement covering that area dedicated to the
County; (2) the proposed planter area along Stone Valley
Road will be reconfigured from a private area into a common
area; ( 3 ) lot 10 will be graded to create a flat pad of
approximately 593 foot elevation with no greater elevation
than 5 feet either way; (4 ) special attention shall be
provided to assure protection of trees at the daylight line
to aid in screening of residential development; (5 ) a
proposed hardscape, landscape and irrigation plan for the
proposed entrance design and street tree program shall be
prepared by a licensed architect and certified for
compliance with the County Water Conservation Ordinance;
(6 ) Applicant shall provide a suitable instrument
guaranteeing to the County the survival of the approved
plantings for a period of at least 24 months following
completion of plantings; (7 ) the proposed frontage wall
along Stone Valley Road shall be setback one foot from the
top of the slope; (8 ) a grading/tree preservation plan shall
be prepared with input from a licensed arborist; (9 ) a
scenic easement shall be dedicated for common open space
area; ( 10 ) development of Residential Design Guidelines text
and graphic based on the residential design standards
identified in the final development plan, and other
residential design standards , attached to and referenced in
the CC & Rs.
B. Length of cul-de-sac
1. Impacts
The Project includes a residential street ( labeled
"A Court" on the Preliminary Development Plan) that would
result in a cul-de-sac approximately 2100 feet in length
that would provide sole access to the 30 lots ( 27 lots under
the Revised Plan) . As indicated in the EIR at page 24 , the
proposed cul-de-sac would not comply with the applicable
subdivision ordinance limits, which limits cul-de-sacs to
700 feet and service of 16 lots. The EIR identifies the
6
length of the proposed cul-de-sac as an impact of the
Project in that secondary or emergency access for the south
portion of the site is proposed.
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends mitigation of this impact
through modification of the design of the Project to extend
the proposed cul-de-sac to make a loop street with Valley
Oaks Road for access to the site.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that:
a. Rejected Mitigation Measure
The mitigation measure recommended at page 24 ,
which calls for extension of the proposed cul-de-sac, is
hereby found to be infeasible for the following reasons:
(i ) the topography of the site is
too steep to lend itself to an internal road system with
more access routes and connections;
( ii ) development projects adjoining
the Project site do not provide for general access or
emergency access routes to the proposed cul-de-sac, and,
accordingly, Stone Valley Road provides the only legal
access to the Project site;
(iii ) Applicant's efforts to secure
an emergency access from owners of adjoining properties have
been unsuccessful .
b. Impacts Avoided or
Substantially Lessened
The Project impacts relating to violation of the
subdivision ordinance have been avoided or substantially
lessened by this Board's adoption of an exception to cul-de-
sac standards. Safety hazards associated with limited
access in the event of a fire will be partially mitigated by
the Project's compliance with road design standards of the
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District and all other road
design standards of the County Subdivision Code and by
requiring new residences in the Project to provide the
following safety measures:
7
( i ) installation of Fire-Resistant,
Class A roofing;
(ii) installation of building
sprinkler systems;
(iii ) provision of a 30 to 40 foot
fire break around new residences.
c. Remaining Impacts
The only feasible mitigation measures may not
completely reduce the impacts on safety associated with the
proposed cul-de-sac. Thus , construction of the proposed
cul-de-sac is a significant, unavoidable impact of the
Project. As more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, the environmental , economic,
social and other benefits of the Project override any other
remaining impacts relating to the cul-de-sac.
Public Services and Utilities
A. General
1 . Impacts
Project impacts on public services and utilities
are discussed at pages 26 to 36 of the EIR. The development
of a residential subdivision will require a variety of
community services and natural resources. The EIR states
that development of a residential subdivision on the site
will require a variety of community services and natural
resources which represent a cost to the community, including
fire protection, water service, police protection, and
schools, among others. Cumulative impacts on traffic as
buildout of the area occurs necessitate road improvements,
and fiscal constraints leave little expectation for County-
funded or City-funded circulation improvements in the area.
Indirect costs of development are likely to be borne by the
public at large.
2. Mitigation Measures
Mechanisms are in place to require developers to
pay traffic mitigation fees for off-site road improvements.
Many direct costs of development are mitigated by fees, but
the indirect costs of development are unavoidable adverse
impacts.
8
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that many of the direct costs
of the Project on public services and utilities, including
costs of road improvements necessary to mitigate cumulative
traffic impacts , will be avoided or substantially lessened
by fees , but mitigation of indirect costs of development is
infeasible. The environmental , economic, social and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining impacts
relating to public services and utilities, as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
B. Schools
1 . Impacts
The impacts of the Project on school services are
discussed at pages 34 to 35 of the EIR. Using the criteria
provided by the San Ramon Valley Unified School District,
EIR estimates that the Project will generate approximately
21 students. The EIR states that the School District does
not anticipate that the Project will cause capacity problems
but that cumulative growth in student population
necessitates the construction of new schools in the School
District.
2 . Mitigation Measures
The EIR states that the School District's one-time
fee school fees would generate nearly $190 , 000. These
funds, along with state bond monies and other revenues , are
used for capital improvements, such as building new schools
and improvements to existing schools.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project's impact in
contributing approximately 21 students to cumulative growth
of student population will be avoided or substantially
lessened by mitigation measures incorporated into the
Project and those imposed on the Project. The reduction of
the size of the Project from 30 units to 27 units under the
Revised Plan is a mitigation measure incorporated into the
Project which may be expected to reduce the number of
students generated by the Project. In addition, payment of
the School District's fees which, along with other revenues,
will be used for capital improvements, such as building new
schools and improvements to existing schools.
9
C. Sewage
1 . Impacts
The Project impacts on sewage services are
discussed at page 35 of the EIR. Based on Sanitary District
criteria , the EIR states that the Project can be expected to
generate 26 , 300 gallons per day, thereby increasing the
volume of the sewage treated by the Sanitary District's
treatment plant by 0. 3% (less than 0. 5 of 1% of of remaining
capacity) .
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends use of low-flow toilets and
water-conserving sinks , showers and lavatory faucets to
minimize the cumulative impacts of the Project on sewage
treatment facilities.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project's impact in
contributing an average flow of approximately 26 , 300 gallons
per day to volume of sewage treated by the Sanitary
District's facilities will be avoided or substantially
lessened by mitigation measures incorporated into the
Project and those imposed on the Project. The reduction of
the size of the Project from 30 units to 27 units under the
Revised Plan is a mitigation measure incorporated into the
Project which may be expected to reduce the volume of sewage
generated by the Project. In addition, the conditions of
approval require installation of low-flow toilets and water-
conserving sinks , showers and lavatory faucets which will
minimize the cumulative impacts of the Project on sewage
treatment facilities.
D. Water
1. Impacts
The Project impacts on water services are discussed
at page 35 of the EIR. Based on EBMUD's estimate of average
daily water use, the EIR estimates that the Project will
generate consumption of 30 , 000 gallons of water per day.
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends requiring the developer to
participate in the EBMUD water conservation program.
10
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project's impact in
generating consumption of approximately 30 , 000 gallons of
water per day will be avoided or substantially lessened by
mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and those
imposed on the Project. The reduction of the size of the
Project from 30 units to 27 units under the Revised Plan is
a mitigation measure incorporated into the Project which may
be expected to reduce the water consumed as a result of the
Project. In addition, the Conditions of Approval require
the Project to comply with the County Water Conservation
Ordinance, which is equivalent in its requirements to the
EBMUD water conservation program.
E. Fire
1 . Impacts
The Project impacts with regard to fire hazard are
discussed at pages 35 to 36 of the EIR. The EIR states
that, based on the character of vegetation (seasonally dry
grass , brush and trees) and the steepness of slopes , the
Project site is an area of moderate to high fire hazard.
2 . Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends the following measures to
mitigate the fire hazards associated with the Project:
(a) Project design should provide adequate
street widths and grades, emergency access to open space
areas, use of fire resistant roofing material , and hydrant
locations and fire flows acceptable to the fire district;
and
(b) Applicant should be required to
provide a 30 to 40 foot wide firebreak around each
residence.
(c) In addition, the EIR recommends that
the County consider as a Condition of Approval , requiring
installation of fire sprinklers in the proposed residential
units.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project's impact on
fire hazards will be avoided or substantially lessened by
11
the above mitigation measures, all of which are imposed upon
the Project in the Conditions of Approval. These measures
will mitigate these hazards by facilitating containment of
any fires that occur in the area.
Flood Hazards and Drainage
A. Local Drainage Problems
1. Impacts
The Project impacts on the existing local drainage
problem in Stone Valley are discussed at pages 44 to 45 of
the EIR. The EIR states that the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(Figure 13 ) indicates that Stone Valley Creek is subject to
overbank flooding. Additionally, creekbank erosion is
identified as an existing problem. The EIR states that the
Project will have a minor adverse impact on peak flows near
the site, but this impact will be attenuated with distance.
The impact of the Project on peak flows at the mouth of
Stone Valley Creek is expected to be negligible.
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR notes that the role of the County and the
Applicant in solving the existing flooding problem is
limited. Nevertheless, the EIR recommends that erosion
control structures be installed at the outside bank of the
two right-angle bends in the channel immediately downstream
from the culvert that discharges runoff from the site into
Stone Valley Creek.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project's impact on
the existing local drainage problem will be avoided or
substantially lessened by the above mitigation measures, all
of which are imposed upon the Project in the Conditions of
Approval. These measures will mitigate the impacts of the
Project on the existing local drainage problem by minimizing
the impact of erosion caused by discharges from the Project
site.
B. San Ramon Creek
1 . Impacts .
The Project impacts on San Ramon Creek are
discussed at page 46 of the EIR. The EIR indicates that the
cumulative impacts of development in the Stone Valley Creek
12
watershed will increase flow on San Ramon Creek downstream
from the mouth of Stone Valley Creek. The segment of San
Ramon Creek from Livorna Road to Chaney Road is inadequate
to carry peak runoff from the 100-year storm.
2. Mitigation Measures
The developer is subject to the County-established
fee of 10 cents per square foot of impervious surface
created. The funds are used to improve the inadequate
section of San Ramon Creek.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project's impact on
the San Ramon Creek will be avoided or substantially
lessened by the above mitigation measure, which is imposed
upon the Project in the Conditions of Approval . Imposition
of the County fee will mitigate the cumulative impacts of
the Project on San Ramon Creek by contributing the efforts
to improve the inadequate section of San Ramon Creek.
C. Erosion and Sedimentation
1. Impacts
The Project impacts related to erosion and
sedimentation are discussed at pages 46 to 47 of the EIR.
The EIR indicates that the mass grading proposed by the
Project includes many high, relatively steep cut slopes. .
The greatest risk of erosion is during the construction
phase and first years following development. The sediment
released by erosion can affect water quality in Stone Valley
Creek by creating turbidity. Also, as sediment falls out of
suspension and is deposited on the floor of the creek, it
can reduce the capacity of the channel .
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends that grading be conducted during
the dry, summer season ( 1 May to 1 October) . An erosion
control plan should be required as part of the grading
permit, and that plan should be fully implemented by
15 October. On 2: 1 slopes more than 15 feet high,
hydroseeding and hydromulching is not considered adequate.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project's impacts with
13
regard to erosion and sedimentation will be avoided or
substantially lessened by the above mitigation measures,
which are imposed upon the Project by the Conditions of
Approval . Imposition of these measures will mitigate the
erosion and sedimentation impacts of the Project by
minimizing surface runoff.
Geology, Seismicity and Grading
A. Grading Plan
1. Impacts
The Project impacts relating to the grading plan
are discussed at page 63 of the EIR. The EIR notes that cut
slopes up to 72 feet high are proposed, and grades of cut
slopes are 2: 1 throughout the Project, with drainage
terraces at 25 foot vertical intervals.
2. Mitigation Measures
To mitigate the impacts of the proposed grading
plan, the EIR recommends the following mitigation measures:
(a) brow ditches should be provided at the
top of cut and fill slopes , with drainage terraces at no
more than 30 foot intervals;
(b) all roof gutter water should be
intercepted to a closed conduit and taken to the storm
drainage facilities in A Court; and
(c) the final grading plan should be
consistent with recommendations of the preliminary soils
report.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project impacts
resulting from the proposed grading plan will be avoided or
substantially lessened by the above mitigation measures,
which are imposed upon the Project in the Conditions of
Approval. Imposition of the County fee will mitigate the
impacts of the proposed grading plan on drainage and
erosion. The environmental , economic, social and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining impacts
relating to the proposed grading plan, as more fully stated
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
14
B. Slope Gradient and Slope Stability
1. Impacts
The Project impacts associated with slope gradient
and slope stability are discussed at pages 63 to 64 of the
EIR. The EIR states that bedrock in the area is at its
stability limits , and the 2: 1 cut slopes proposed in the
Project will increase the rate of mass wasting. In areas of
massive sandstone, the proposed cut slopes should perform
satisfactorily, but deeply weathered, highly fractured or
weak claystone may be subject to raveling, soil creep and
sloughing. Depending on the orientation of bedding and
joint planes , block sliding may be a problem.
2. Mitigation Measures
An engineering geologist should log test pits in
all areas where major cuts are planned to provide
information on the geologic parameters that affect slope
stability.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project's impact will
be avoided or substantially lessened by the above mitigation
measures , which are imposed upon the Project in the
Conditions of Approval. The Conditions of Approval require
submission of a preliminary geotechnical report (the
"Preliminary Geotechnical Report" ) for review and approval
of Zoning Administrator at least 60 days prior to filing a
final map or issuance of a grading permit. The Preliminary
Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a geotechnical
engineer and an engineering geologist and shall include a
log of test pits in all areas where major cuts are planned
to provide information on the geologic parameters that
affect slope stability. The Conditions of Approval further
require the final grading plan to be consistent with the
recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report. The
environmental , economic, social and other benefits of the
Project override any remaining impacts relating to slope
gradient and slope stability as more fully stated in the
Statement of overriding Considerations.
C. Possible Landslides
1 . Impacts
The Project impacts associated with possible
landslides are discussed at pages 66 to 67 of the EIR. The
15
EIR states that Diablo Soils Engineers report three
relatively small landslides on the site. (The location of
the two are shown on the Project map. )
2 . Mitigation Measures
According to the EIR, Diablo Soils Engineers
recommend that the three small slides be repaired. In
addition, the EIR recommends further analysis of the slope
area that encompasses the slides to accurately map their
extent and provide specific recommendations for the
corrective grading.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project impacts
associated with possible landslides will be avoided or
substantially lessened by the above mitigation measures ,
which are imposed upon the Project in the Conditions of
Approval . The Conditions of Approval require analysis of
the slope area that encompasses the slides to accurately map
their extent and provide specific recommendations for
corrective grading, to be included in Preliminary
Geotechnical Report with which final grading plan must be
consistent.
D. Expansive Soils
1. Impacts
The Project impacts resulting from expansive soils
are discussed at page 67 of the EIR. The EIR states that
soils in the Project site are moderately to highly expansive
and that these conditions can result in foundation damage,
as well as damage to concrete slabs and roadways.
2 . Mitigation Measures
To mitigate the impacts associated with expansive
soils in the Project site, the EIR recommends certain
construction measures to minimize the effects of expansive
soils, including drilled pier foundations that extend
through the zone of shrinking and swelling materials and
placement of a thick layer of nonexpansive material under
surface impoundments placed directly on the ground surface.
In addition, the EIR recommends that surface water be -
carefully controlled within the development area to control
the amount of volume change in the expansive materials.
16
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project impacts
associated with expansive soils will be avoided or
substantially lessened by the above mitigation measures,
which are imposed upon the Project in the Conditions of
Approval. Drilled pier foundations will minimize expansive
soil uplift pressures on house foundations, and other design
measures will minimize the risk of damage from expansive
materials.
E. Fills
1 . Impacts
The Project impacts associated with fills are
discussed at pages 67 to 68 of the EIR. The EIR states that
if fills proposed as part of the Project are not adequately
designed, compacted and drained such fills could be subject
to differential settlement, resulting in damage to
structures.
2 . Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends that fills be designed and
constructed so as to minimize the potential for differential
settlement. The design might include over excavation,
greater compaction at depth, or special foundation design.
The Applicant's geotechnical engineer should also calculate
theoretical rates of settlement. Foundation recommendations
should take these rates into account.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project impacts
associated with fills will be avoided or substantially
lessened by mitigation measures incorporated into the
Project and imposed upon the Project in the Conditions of
Approval . Under the Revised Plan, fill areas have largely
been eliminated, thereby substantially mitigating the risks
of differential settlement. In addition, the Conditions of
Approval require fills to be designed so as to minimize the
potential for differential settlement.
17
F. Surface Drainage and Irrigation
1. Impacts
The Project impacts related to surface drainage and
irrigation are discussed at page 68 of the EIR. The EIR
states that redirected surface flows could destabilize cut,
fill or natural slopes , thereby causing risk of damage to
properties located at the base of such slopes. In addition,
landscape irrigation could significantly raise groundwater
levels at the site.
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends that fills be keyed into bedrock
where the natural slope is 5: 1 or steeper. To mitigate the
impact of landscape irrigation on groundwater levels , the
EIR that irrigation of common areas be kept to a minimum.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project impacts
associated with surface drainage and irrigation will be
avoided or substantially lessened by the above mitigation
measures, which are imposed upon the Project in the
Conditions of Approval . These measures will mitigate the
risks of damage to properties located at the base of slopes
by stabilizing fills on such slopes. Minimizing irrigation
of common areas will mitigate the impact of landscape
irrigation on groundwater levels by reducing the amount- of
water that seeps into groundwater.
G. Seismic Shaking
1. Impacts
The Project impacts associated with seismic shaking
are discussed at pages 68 to 69 of the EIR. The EIR states
that the Project would likely be subject to relatively
strong shaking, which is likely to damage structures on the
Project site.
2. Mitigation Measures
To mitigate the impacts of associated with seismic
shaking the EIR recommends that the development be designed
by competent professionals using criteria that are
conservative on the side of safety.
18
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project impacts
associated with seismic shaking will be avoided or
substantially lessened by the above mitigation measures,
which are imposed upon the Project in the Conditions of
Approval. The environmental , economic, social and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining impacts
relating to seismic shaking, as more fully stated in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
H. Execution of Earthwork
1 . Impacts
The Project impacts associated with earthwork are
discussed at page 69 of the EIR. The EIR states that due to
the marginal natural stability of the Project area even
minor errors in the grading process could cause slope
failures.
2. Mitigation Measures
To mitigate the impacts associated with execution
of the earthwork necessary for the Project, the EIR
recommends accurate documentation of all grading procedures,
effective inspection and review and submission to the County
of an as-graded plan.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project impacts
associated with execution of earthwork will be avoided or
substantially lessened by the above mitigation measures,
which are imposed upon the Project in the Conditions of
Approval . By ensuring careful oversight of the grading
process, implementation of these measures will decrease the
likelihood of errors in that process. The environmental ,
economic, social and other benefits of the Project override
any remaining impacts relating to execution of earthwork, as
more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
19
Traffic and Circulation
A. Stone Valley Road
1. Impacts
The impacts associated with the Project's proposed
improvements to Stone Valley Road frontage are discussed at
page 86 to 90 of the EIR. The EIR states that the
Applicant's plan for frontage improvements is not complete,
and the improvement design is inadequate to provide for
safe, functional traffic flow along the roadway in front of
the site.
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends that before the final
development plan is approved, the Applicant should be
required to submit an improvement plan meeting Public Works
Department criteria for improvements to Stone Valley Road.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board , this Board finds that the Project impacts
associated with Applicant's plan for Stone Valley Road
frontage improvements has been avoided or substantially
lessened by the above mitigation measure. The Public Works
Department has reviewed the planned road alignment and has
determined that the improvement plan is satisfactory.
B. Emergency Access
1 . Impacts
The Project impacts with regard to emergency access
are discussed at page 90 of the EIR. The EIR states that
the steep character of the Project site and the fact that
immediate access is provided only by a single 2000-plus foot
long cul-de-sac poses a significant safety hazard in the
event of a wildfire or other emergency.
2 . Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends that the Applicant be directed
to provide emergency access at the southwest property
corner.
20
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that, as discussed above
regarding Plans , Policies and Ordinances - Length of Cul-de-
Sac, the mitigation measure proposed by the EIR is
infeasible and, accordingly, is rejected. Safety hazards
associated with limited access in the event of a fire will
be partially mitigated by the Project's compliance with road
design standards and safety measures discussed above. The
only feasible mitigation measures may not completely reduce
the impacts on safety associated with the proposed cul-de-
sac. Thus, construction of the proposed cul-de-sac is a
significant, unavoidable impact of the Project. As more
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
the environmental , economic, social and other benefits of
the Project override any other remaining impacts relating to
the cul-de-sac.
C. East Bay Regional Park District Trail
Easement
1. Impacts
The Project impacts relating to the East Bay
Regional Park District ("EBRPD" ) trail easement is discussed
at pages 90 to 91 of the EIR. The EIR states that recorded
maps for adjacent properties indicate the trail easement is
on-site. These maps conflict with the Applicant's plans ,
which show the trail just south of the site. If the
easement is on-site, readjustments of lots and roadways will
be required along the south boundary of the project.
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends that before the Project is
approved, the Applicant could provide sufficient survey
data , acceptable to the Public Works Department, to
establish the location of the property boundaries with
respect to the EBRPD trail easement. If the easement is on-
site, a revised tentative map should be prepared.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board , this Board finds that the Project impacts
associated with the EBRPD trail easement will be avoided or
substantially lessened by the above mitigation measure,
which is imposed upon the Project in the Conditions of
Approval . The Conditions of Approval require Applicant to
21
submit sufficient survey data to verify the location of the
property boundaries with respect to the EBRPD trail
easement.
D. On-Street Parking
1. Impacts
The Project impacts with respect to on-street
parking are discussed at pages 91 to 92 of the EIR. The EIR
states that the proposed internal roads are to have 24 and
32 foot wide pavement widths and that for either street
width, heavy demand for parking could reduce the traveling
width to the extent that emergency vehicle access could be
compromised.
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends that where double loaded, the
main access street should be 36 feet wide. Where residences
front on one side only, the EIR recommends that street width
should be 28 feet, and on one side of the street, the curb
should be painted red and posted "no parking. "
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project impacts
associated with on-street parking will be avoided or
substantially lessened by mitigation measures incorporated
into the Project and imposed upon the Project in the
Conditions of Approval. Mitigation is incorporated into the
Project under the Revised Plan, which provides that Court A
will be 36 feet wide, and Court B will be 32 feet wide.
Parking will be allowed on both roads, and because most of
the units provide for six spaces of on-site parking,
sufficient parking will be available. In addition, the
Conditions of Approval provide that no parking will be
allowed on the two 20-foot wide roads, and parking on
Court B will restricted to one side of the street.
Implementation of these measures will mitigate the risks
regarding lack of emergency access by providing adequate
parking and sufficiently wide roads.
E. Private Street Design and Maintenance
1. Impacts
The traffic impacts of the Project relating to
private street design and maintenance are discussed at
page 92 of the EIR. The EIR states that, in general, some
22
private streets do not meet the design standards for public
streets. In addition, the EIR states that poor design and
maintenance can result in the need for extensive rebuilding.
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends that the design criteria for all
roads in the project should be consistent with public road
standards. The CC&R's should make adequate provision for
funding road maintenance and establishing a maintenance
cycle/standard.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project impacts
associated with private street design and maintenance will
be avoided or substantially lessened by the above mitigation
measures , which are imposed upon the Project in the
Conditions of Approval . The Conditions of Approval require
that the design of Project roads shall be consistent with
public road standards , except with regard to road width,
right of way width and cul-de-sac length, as discussed
above. The CC & Rs for the Project will make adequate
provision for maintenance of internal roads. Theses
measures will provide for adequate maintenance and design of
private roads, thereby reducing the likelihood that
significant County investment will be required in the
future.
Biotic Resources
A. Vegetation
1. Impacts
The Project impacts on vegetation are discussed at
pages 100 to 102 of the EIR. The EIR states that existing
vegetation would be removed to accommodate roadways and
individual .lots on approximately 18 acres of the site.
Approximately 4 . 5 acres of oak woodland vegetation would be
eliminated, removing an estimated 400 oaks with trunk
circumferences of 24 inches or more.
2 . Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends that grading should be
minimized, especially within the oak woodland vegetation.
Trees with trunk circumferences of 24 inches or more should
be plotted on a revised tentative map. The location of
these trees should be considered when modifying the proposed
23
grading and site plans. In addition, the EIR recommends
that a qualified arborist should be retained to evaluate the
condition of individual trees considered for preservation
( i .e. , some may not be healthy, or may need pruning or other
care) . Finally, EIR recommends that specific guidelines be
developed to protect the trees to be retained from
inadvertent damage by the grading contractor.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project impacts on
vegetation will be avoided or substantially lessened by the
mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and
imposed upon the Project in the Conditions of Approval .
Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project
under the Revised Plan, which dramatically reduces the
number of trees that would be removed under the Project. In
addition, the Conditions of Approval require preparation of
a grading/tree preservation plan, with which the final
grading plan must be consistent, to minimize the loss of or
potential damage to existing trees. No trees shall be
removed prior to approval of the grading/tree preservation
plan without the prior approval of the Zoning Administrator.
The Conditions of Approval further require Applicant to
apply to the County for heritage tree designation for trees
to be preserved on the property prior to filing a final map
or issuance of a grading permit. The environmental ,
economic, social and other benefits of the Project override
any remaining impacts on vegetation, as more fully stated in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
B. Wildlife
1 . Impacts
The Project impacts on wildlife are discussed at
pages 102 to 103 of the EIR. The EIR states that removal of
existing vegetation would eliminate some existing wildlife
habitat, and the increased presence of man and domestic
animals will further diminish the habitat value of the open
space lands.
2 . Mitigation Measures
To mitigate the impacts of the Project on wildlife,
the EIR recommends that landscaping of common areas feature
native plants. In addition, the EIR recommends an open
channel area or a year around source of water for wildlife
be provided to enhance the value of the open space parcels.
24
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project impacts on
wildlife will be avoided or substantially lessened by the
mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and
imposed upon the Project in the Conditions of Approval.
Under the Revised Plan, earlier proposed alterations of
existing ravines is now largely avoided. The Conditions of
Approval require landscaping plans to emphasize use of
native plant species.
C. Special Status Taxa
1 . Impacts
No rare, endangered or threatened species of
animals or plants were encountered during the field surveys.
2. Mitigation Measures
None required.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds the Project will have no
significant impact on special status taxa.
D. Wetlands
1 . Impacts
The impacts of the Project on wetlands are
discussed at pages 103 to 104 of the EIR. The EIR cites as
an impact of the Project, the elimination of the pond on the
site, as well as 1500 lineal feet of intermittent stream
channel . This work will be subject to review and approval
by California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG") and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps" ) .
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends use of one of the following
mitigation measures, listed in order of descending
preference: (a) retain the existing stream channels,
enhance the riparian vegetation, and provide replacement
habitat for the pond; (b) retain existing stream channels to
the degree possible, possibly in combination with offsite
mitigation to compensate for any lost wetlands; and
(c) provide off-site mitigation as negotiated with CDFG.
25
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project impacts on
wetlands will be avoided or substantially lessened by the
mitigation measures incorporated into the Project. Under
the Revised Plan, existing stream channels will largely be
preserved. Moreover, prior to filing a final map, the
Project will have to comply with the requirements of the
Corps and CDFG. If the wetlands mitigation is necessary in
connection with the Project, such mitigation will be
required by CDFG.
The environmental , economic, social and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining impacts on
wetlands, as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
Open Spaces and Trails
A. Parks and Recreation
1. Impacts
The impacts of Project on parks and recreation are
discussed at pages 108 to 109 of the EIR. The EIR indicates
that because no community recreation facilities are proposed
as part of the Project, residents can be expected to rely,
at least in part, on existing recreational facilities in the
community, resulting in a minor, cumulative demand on nearby
parks and trails.
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends payment of required park
dedication fees. The resulting funds of such fees will be
available for use by County Service Area R7-A. In addition,
the EIR recommends construction of some private recreational
facilities to be maintained by the homeowners association.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project impacts
associated with parks and recreation will be avoided or
substantially lessened by payment of the required park
dedication fees, which are payable at the building permit
stage. Funds resulting from such fees will mitigate the
Project impacts by enabling improvement of recreational
facilities that may experience increased use as a result of
the Project.
26
- I
B. Emergency Access to Open Space
1 . Impacts
The Project impacts associated with emergency
access to open space are discussed at pages 108 of the EIR.
The EIR states that the steep canyon walls in the area
present a wildlands fire hazard, and unless adequate access
to open space parcels is provided for firefighters, it may
be extremely difficult to control openland fires.
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends that the Conditions of Approval
provide for review of the tentative map and grading plan by
the fire district.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project impacts
associated with emergency access to open space will be
avoided or substantially lessened by the above mitigation
measure, which is imposed upon the Project. The Conditions
of Approval require that the San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District be provided the opportunity to review
and comment on the revised site plans prior to their
submission to the Zoning Administrator. Such revised site
plans must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for
review and approval at least 60 days prior to the filing of
a final map or issuance of grading permits. This mitigation
measure will ensure that fire district standards are
incorporated into the Project.
C. Possible Slides in Open Space Areas
1. Impacts
The Project impacts associated with possible slides
are discussed at page 109 of the EIR. The EIR states that
possible slide areas have been identified in the open space
lands. The three existing slide areas and the steep cut
slopes proposed in the Project could pose financial and
liability problems for the homeowners association.
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends that to the extent possible, cut
slopes overlooking residential lots be included in the
27
-- I
residential lot. In addition, the possible slide areas
should be stabilized before the open space is turned over to
the homeowners association.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project impacts
associated with possible slides in open space areas will be
avoided or substantially lessened by the mitigation measures
incorporated into the Project and imposed upon the Project.
Under the Revised Plan, the areas of proposed cut slopes are
significantly reduced, thereby mitigating the risk of
slides. In addition, the Conditions of Approval require
stabilization of possible slide areas.
D. Las Trampas to Mt. Diablo Trail
1 . Impacts
The impacts of the Project on the EBRPD trail
discussed at page 109 of the EIR. The EIR states that the
Project proposed grading adjacent to the trail and has the
potential to damage the existing fence and affect the
stability of the trail easement, as well as visual quality
for trail users on this scenic ridge.
2 . Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends that the developer be required
to construct a screen of shrubs and trees along the south
property line. In addition , the EIR recommends that the
final development plan and grading plans be submitted to the
EBRPD for review and comment prior to approval by the
Planning Commission.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project impacts on the
EBRPD trail will be avoided or substantially lessened by the
above mitigation measures. These measures are incorporated
into the Conditions of Approval , except that implementation
of visual mitigation measures recommended in the EIR will be
left to the determination of the Zoning Administrator.
Review of and comment on the final development plan and
grading plans by the EBRPD will enable the EBRPD's concerns
regarding the trail to be addressed prior to grading.
28
Air Quality
A. Short-Term Effects
1. Impacts
The short-term impacts of the Project on air
quality are discussed at pages 112 to 113 of the EIR. The
EIR states that the Project will have construction-related
air quality impacts chiefly due to dust generated by
equipment and vehicles.
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends implementation of a watering
program to control dust on construction sites. The EIR
states that an effective watering program could reduce
emissions by approximately 50%. The County Building
Inspection Department has responsibility for enforcing dust
control requirements.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the short-term air quality
impacts of the Project will be avoided or substantially
lessened by the above mitigation measures, which is imposed
upon the Project in the Conditions of Approval. As set
forth in the EIR, implementation of this measure could
reduce short-term dust emissions by approximately 50%. The
environmental , economic, social and other benefits of the
Project override any remaining short-term air quality
impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
B. Long-Term Effects
1. Impacts
The long-term air quality impacts of the Project
are discussed at page 113 of the EIR. The EIR states that
such impacts would not be significant by themselves but
would contribute to the cumulative degradation of regional
air quality. Long-term impacts would result from changes in
automobile traffic patterns and volumes, combustion of
natural gas, fireplaces and sewage.
2 . Mitigation Measures
The EIR states that the Project's local and
regional long-term impacts on air quality can be reduced
29
I
through traffic flow improvements. Because pollutant
emission rates are increased by congestion, any roadway or
intersection improvements that increase average speed,
reduce congestion or vehicle idling can be considered air
quality mitigation measures. In addition, liberal planting
of street trees , and chimney devices that trap ash have a
beneficial effect.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the long-term impacts of
the Project on cumulative air pollution will be partially
mitigated by the extensive tree planting program,
incorporated into the Project under the Revised Plan. In
addition, road improvements required by the Conditions of
Approval , including installation of left turn channelization
for ingress and egress to the Project and a median island on
Stone Valley Road are traffic-flow improvements that will
mitigate air quality impacts by increasing average speed and
reducing congestion and vehicle idling. Any remaining
impacts on long-term air quality are overridden by the
environmental , economic, social and other benefits of the
Project override any remaining long-term air quality
impacts , as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
Noise
A. Ambient Noise
1 . Impacts
The Project impacts associated with ambient noise
levels are discussed at pages 115 to 117 of the EIR. The
EIR states that exterior noise levels on the lots nearest
Stone Valley Road fall outside the normally acceptable range
according to criteria developed by the State Department of
Health.
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends that mitigation of the impacts
of high noise levels on lots nearest Stone Valley Road
through construction of a solid wall , earthberm (or
combination of the two) between these building sites and the
roadway.
30
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project impacts
associated with ambient noise levels will be avoided or
substantially lessened by the mitigation measures
incorporated into the Project and imposed upon the Project
in the Conditions of Approval. The mitigation measure
recommended in the EIR is hereby rejected, because changes
in the Project, as reflected in the Revised Plan, avoid or
substantially lessen the impacts of ambient noise.
Specifically, the masonry/wrought iron wall is considered of
greater value than any noise attenuation benefit derived
from construction of an acoustic wall . In addition, the
Conditions of Approval require that houses on lots nearest
Stone Valley Road be designed in accordance with the
recommendations of an acoustic engineer. The environmental ,
economic, social and other benefits of the Project override
any remaining impacts relating to ambient noise, as more
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
B. Construction Noise
1 . Impacts
The Project impacts associated with construction
noise are discussed at pages 117 to 119 of the EIR. The EIR
states that sporadic construction noise levels of 60 to 70
dBA could be experienced at the residential properties west
of the Project. The EIR states that after the site
preparation phase and foundation laying, the primary noise
sources are material delivery trucks and power tools used
for carpentry. Because construction noise is usually of
short duration and occurs during normal working hours, the
EIR states it is unlikely to create a serious problem.
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR states that because impacts on adjacent
properties would be minor, no mitigation is required.
Moreover, the Building Inspection Department has the
authority to shut the job down if a serious noise problem
were to occur. Potential mitigation measures are to
restrict hours (e.g. Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to
5 :00 p.m. ) , use modern equipment and shield any stationary
sources of high intensity noise with plywood.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the construction noise
31
impacts of the Project are insignificant. Moreover,
mitigation measures proposed in the EIR are incorporated
into the Conditions of Approval .
C. Traffic Noise
1. Impacts
The traffic noise impacts of the Project are
discussed at page 119 of the EIR. The EIR states that
parcels along Stone Valley Road will not experience a
noticeable change in noise as a result of the Project. A
10% increase in traffic volume would increase noise by a
maximum of 1 to 2 dBA.
2. Mitigation Measures
None required.
3 . Findings
Based on the EIR and the entire record before this
Board, the Board finds the Project will have no significant
impact on traffic noise.
Cultural Resources
A. Archaeology
1. Impacts
The Project impacts on archaelogical resources are
discussed at page 123 of the EIR. The EIR states that there
is a potential for buried prehistoric cultural resources on
the Project site.
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR recommends that if prehistoric artifacts
are uncovered during development of the Project, work within
100 feet of the find should be stopped and the County should
be notified within 24 hours. A qualified archaeologist
should evaluate the significance of the find and advise the
County and developer of any mitigation measures deemed
necessary.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the impacts of the Project
on archaeological resources will be avoided or substantially
32
lessened by the above mitigation measure, which is imposed
upon the Project in the Conditions of Approval . Imposition
of this measure will adequately protect any archaelogical
resources on site by ensuring that development activities do
not disrupt such resources if discovered.
B. Cultural Resources/Historic Sites
1. Impacts
There are no historic sites within 1500 feet of the
property.
2. Mitigation Measures
None required.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the Project will have no
significant impact on archaeological resources.
Visual Quality
A. Views/Loss of Visual Open Space
1 . Impacts
The Project impacts on visual quality are discussed
at pages 133 to 134 and pages 136 to 137 of the EIR. The
EIR notes that Stone Valley Road is designated as a scenic
route, and Alamo Ridge is designated as a scenic ridge.
Consequently, views along the Stone Valley Road frontage of
the site, as well as views of the southern portion of the
site take on special importance. In addition, the Project
would impact long-range and trail views of the Project site.
2. Mitigation Measures
The EIR proposed eight specific mitigation
measures, including restrictions on grading, fencing, slope
gradients, contour rounding, limiting height of cut slopes,
limiting residences on lots 1 , 2 and 3 to one-story; and
limiting grading in the area of lots 20 to 26 to that needed
to construct the road and cul-de-sac.
3 . Findings
Based upon the EIR and the entire record before
this Board, this Board finds that the visual impacts of the
33
Project will be avoided or substantially lessened by the
mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and
imposed upon the Project in the Conditions of Approval . The
Revised Plan incorporates most of mitigation measures
relating to visual quality suggested by the EIR. In
addition, the Conditions of Approval impose numerous
additional mitigation measures, as discussed above regarding
Plans, Ordinance and Policies , including placement of the
majority of the undeveloped hillside area in a common area
to be owned and maintained by a Project homeowners
association, with a scenic easement covering that area
dedicated to the County, development of Residential Design
Guidelines text and graphic based on the residential design
standards identified in the final development plan, and
other residential design standards , attached to and
referenced in the CC & Rs, and special measures to ensure
visual quality is preserved along Stone Valley Road. The
environmental , economic, social and other . benefits of the
Project override any remaining visual impacts, as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
V. CEQA FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH-INDUCING
IMPACTS
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to
11[d]iscuss the ways in which the proposed project could
foster economic or population growth, or the construction of
additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the
surrounding environment. " CEQA Guidelines § 15126(g) .
The EIR states that the Project is located on a
site designated -for residential development and is located
in an area where urban services are readily available.
Thus, the EIR states, the Project could be viewed as an "in-
fill" development that is consistent with the general plan.
The EIR, however, states that the Project is not sensitive
to several environmental goals of the SRVAGP, including
density of development on steep slopes. The EIR concludes
that the Project could be considered growth inducing if it
is not sensitive to the goals and objectives of the SRVAGP.
As discussed above regarding Plans, Ordinances and
Policies , many of the concerns raised in the EIR regarding
SRVAGP policies have been avoided or substantially lessened
as a result of mitigation measures incorporated into the
Project under the Revised Plan and imposed on the Project
through conditions of approval . Accordingly, the Board-
finds the Project is sensitive to the goals and objectives
of the SRVAGP. Based on the EIR and the entire record
before this Board, this Board finds that the environmental,
34
social , and other benefits of the Project override the any
remaining growth-inducing impacts of the Project, as more
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
VI. CEQA FINDINGS REGARDING UNAVOIDABLE AND
IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to
describe any significant irreversible environmental changes
which would be involved in a proposed project if it were
implemented.
The EIR identifies twelve impacts of the Project
that would be unavoidable even if all impact mitigation
measures recommended in the EIR were adopted. The EIR
states that in some instances , such impacts would be
irreversible. With respect to these impacts , this Board
finds as follows:
A. Loss of Agricultural Productivity
1 . Impacts
The Project impacts regarding loss of agricultural
productivity are discussed at page 136 of the EIR. The EIR
states that Alamo Ridge historically has been used for
grazing, and portions are suitable for dryland farming of
small grains. The EIR states that the Project would result
in an incremental loss of the agricultural lands. In
addition, the EIR states that the Project site is not
designated prime farmland on the Important Farmland Map.
issued by the State.
2. Findings
Based on the EIR and the entire record before this
Board, this Board finds that the environmental , social , and
other benefits of the Project override the impacts of the
Project regarding loss of agricultural land, as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
B. Community Facilities
1 . Impacts
The EIR states that development of residential
subdivisions on the Project site would require a variety of
community services, which may result in long-term costs to
the Town of Danville and the community generally, without
adequate revenues.
35
2. Findings
Based on the EIR and the entire record before this
Board, this Board finds that the environmental, social , and
other benefits of the Project override the impacts of the
Project regarding community facilities, as more fully stated
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
C. Traffic and Circulation
1. Impacts
The EIR states that the Project would generate an
estimated 300 average daily trips , representing a minor
increase in traffic volumes on roadways linking the site to
I-680 and on I-680.
2 . Findings
Based on the EIR and the entire record before this
Board, this Board finds that the environmental , social , and
other benefits of the Project override the impacts of the
Project regarding traffic and circulation, as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
D. Loss of Visual Open Space
1 . Impacts
The EIR states that portions of the Project would
be visible from Stone Valley Road and from some locations
within the Stone Valley area. The EIR states that following
development, short-range views of the Project site would be
dominated by engineered slopes and residential development.
In addition, the EIR states that no long-range views are
available from the scenic route, but the Project will be
highly visible from the EBRPD trail and numerous locations
in the Stone Valley area.
2. Findings
Based on the EIR and the entire record before this
Board, this Board finds, as set forth above, the visual
impacts of the Project have been substantially lessened by
mitigation measures adopted by this Board. With regard to
the unavoidable visual impacts, including loss of visual
open space, this Board finds that the environmental, social,
and other benefits of the Project override the impacts of
the Project regarding loss of visual open space, as more
fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
36
E. Loss of Wildlife Habitat
1 . Impacts
The EIR states that, although rare and endangered
species and plants are not known to occur on the Project
site, the cumulative impacts of the Project on loss of
habitat is an unavoidable impact of the Project.
2. Findings
Based on the EIR and the entire record before this
Board, this Board finds that the environmental , social , and
other benefits of the Project override the impacts of the
Project regarding loss of wildlife habitat, as more fully
stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
F. Water Quality
1 . Impacts
The EIR identifies as a "minor, adverse cumulative
impact' of the Project the impact of surface runoff from the
Project site. The EIR states that contents of such runoff,
including detergents , grease, oil , litter and other
substances are not toxic to fish and wildlife and would be
of concentrations common to suburban development.
2. Findings
Based on the EIR and the entire record before this
Board, this Board finds that the environmental , social , and
other benefits of the Project override the impacts of the
Project regarding water quality, as more fully stated in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
G. Construction-Related Problems
1. Impacts
The EIR states that construction-related impacts of
the Project include noise, dust, erosion, siltation and
construction traffic. The EIR states that through use of
best management practices, these problems can be controlled
and kept to a minimum.
37
2. Findings
Based on the EIR and the entire record before this
Board, this Board finds that the environmental , social , and
other benefits of the Project override the construction-
related impacts of the Project, as more fully stated in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
H. Earthquake Hazards
1. Impacts
The EIR states that potential earthquake-caused
damage is an unavoidable impact of the Project.
2. Findings
As discussed above, regarding seismic shaking, the
earthquake-related impacts of the Project will be
substantially lessened by implementation of recommended
mitigation measures. Based on the EIR and the entire record
before this Board, this Board finds that the environmental ,
social , and other benefits of the Project override the
remaining impacts of the Project regarding earthquake
hazards, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
I. Energy Consumption
1 . Impacts
The EIR states that the Project will involve direct
use of energy for construction and indirect use for
production of materials. In addition, the EIR states that
long-term energy input will be required for the operation of
households, operation of public utilities, maintenance of
Project facilities and operation of automobiles.
2. Findings
Based on the EIR and the entire record before this
Board, this Board finds that the environmental , social, and
other benefits of the Project override the impacts of the
Project regarding energy consumption, as more fully stated
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
38
J. Air Quality
1. Impacts
As discussed above regarding air quality, the EIR
identifies the vehicular emissions that will result from the
Project as minor, cumulative impacts.
2. Findings
Based on the EIR and the entire record before this
Board, this Board finds that the environmental , social , and
other benefits of the Project override the impacts of the
Project regarding air quality, as more fully stated in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
K. Noise
1. Impacts
The EIR identifies noise-related impacts of the
Project as unavoidable, indicating that as traffic increases
on the roads serving the Project site, areas experiencing
excessive noise incrementally increase.
2. Findings
As discussed above regarding noise-related impacts
of the Project, such impacts will be substantially lessened
by implementation of the adopted mitigation measures. Based
on the EIR and the entire record before this Board, this
Board finds that the environmental , social , and other
benefits of the Project override the noise-related impacts
of the Project as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
L. Loss of Wetlands
1. Impacts
The EIR states that the Project would result in the
loss of two natural water courses, along with the loss of a
man made pond. The EIR states that, based on the Corps'
criteria , these areas can be considered wetlands.
Consequently, loss of these areas is an unavoidable and
irreversible impact of the Project.
39
2. Findings
The Project, as modified under the Revised Plan,
largely preserves the existing stream channels. Prior to
filing a final map, the Project will have to comply with the
requirements of the Corps and California Department of Fish
and Game. If wetland mitigation proves necessary, it will
have to be provided, either on-site or off-site, according
to those requirements. Based on the EIR and the entire
record before this Board, this Board finds that the
remaining environmental , social , and other benefits of the
Project override the impacts of the Project regarding loss
of wetlands , as more fully stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
VII. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE
PROJECT
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to
"[d]escribe a range of reasonable alternatives to the
project, or to the location of the project, which could
feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project ."
CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d) . The EIR evaluates and compares
several alternatives to the Project, including the "No
Project Alternative," the "Environmentally Superior
Alternative, " the 11R-20 and R-40 Alternative," and the
"Access Alternative. " This Board's findings relating to the
alternatives discussed in the EIR are set forth below.
A. General
This Board finds that the EIR sets forth a
reasonable range of alternatives to the Project so as to
foster informed public participation and decisionmaking and
to permit a reasoned choice. This Board finds that the
alternatives are adequately discussed and evaluated in the
EIR.
B. No-Project Alternative
The No-Project Alternative would retain the three
residences currently existing on the 37-acre Project site.
The EIR states that the advantage of the No-Project
Alternative is that it would allow the Project site to
continue to serve as wildlife habitat, visual open space and
watershed. The EIR states that the Project offers the
following advantages over the No-Project Alternative (i) the
long-range land use contemplated for the Project site is
"single-family residential-low density"; (ii) the Project
provides the opportunity to upgrade the Stone Valley Road
frontage of the Project site and implement the general plan;
40
(iii ) the Project is consistent with surrounding land uses;
( iv) the Project would resolve the long-range land use for
the site and establish permanent open space on the site.
This Board finds that the No-Project Alternative is
infeasible and less desirable than the Project and rejects
the No-Project Alternative for the following reasons:
1 . The No-Project Alternative is
inconsistent with land use designations and surrounding
uses. In contrast, the Project is consistent with the land
use designations for the Project site, and provides an
opportunity to implement the general plan. Moreover, the
Project is consistent with surrounding land uses.
2 . As stated elsewhere in these findings,
Project impacts relating to wildlife habitat, visual open
space and watershed are avoided or substantially lessened by
mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and
imposed on the Project. Moreover, the Project will provide
numerous benefits, including providing 27 units of in-fill
housing, resolving the long-range land use for the site and
establishing permanent open space on the site. Such
benefits will not result if the No-Project Alternative is
adopted.
C. No-Project Variation Alternative
The EIR analyzes variation on the No-Project
Alternative ("No-Project Variation Alternative" ) , calling
for subdivision of the property into 5-acre ranchettes under
the prevailing A-2 zoning (holding capacity 7 lots) . The
EIR states that the advantage of the No-Project Variation
Alternative is that it would reduce many of the
environmental impacts of the Project, including reductions
in grading, traffic generation, disturbance to trees , runoff
from the site. The EIR identifies the following advantages
of the Project over the No-Project Variation Alternative:
( i ) under the No-Project Variation Alternative, some owners
of the 5+ acre lots could be expected to apply for further
subdivision of their property, unless the general plan land
use categories were modified so that further subdivision
would be precluded; (ii ) The No-Project Variation
Alternative is not consistent with the general plan land use
designation for the site, or the surrounding land uses.
This Board finds that the No-Project Variation
Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the
Project and rejects the No-Project Alternative for the
following reasons:
41
1 . In contrast with the Project, the
No-Project Variation Alternative is inconsistent with land
use designations and surrounding uses. Moreover, unless the
general plan is modified to preclude further subdivision,
the No-Project Variation Alternative likely would result in
further subdivision of property is likely. Such a change to
the general plan would be problematic in that it would raise
takings questions and would be inconsistent with land uses
and land use designations in the surrounding area.
2. As stated elsewhere in these findings,
many environmental impacts of the Project, including impacts
related to grading, and tree displacement, are avoided or
substantially lessened by mitigation measures incorporated
into the Project and imposed on the Project. Moreover, the
Project will provide more housing than that provided by the
No-Project Variation Alternative.
D. Environmentally Superior Alternative
The Environmentally Superior Alternative is a
planned unit development that is consistent with the
community goals contained in the general plan, as well as
the density guidelines contained in the Slope and Hillside
Combining District Ordinance, which was adopted in 1979 but
never applied to the San Ramon Valley Planning Area. The
EIR states that the Environmentally Superior Alternative is
based on the Project's development concept, but incorporated
mitigation measures developed in the EIR. Features
incorporated into this 19-lot development alternative
include: ( i ) maximum height of cut slope 30 feet and
maximum depth of cut 30 feet; and (ii ) hillside residences
that would conform to the natural terrain.
The EIR states that the Environmentally Superior
Alternative has advantages over the Project in that it is
consistent with the guidelines represented by the Slope
Density Ordinance and that reducing the density would allow
more opportunity to downscope the grading, tree loss and
other aspects of the Project.
This Board finds that the Environmentally Superior
Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the
Project and rejects the Environmentally Superior Alternative
for the following reasons:
1. Although this alternative would have
somewhat less environmental impacts than the Project, under
the Revised Plan, many environmental impacts of the Project,
including impacts related to grading on slopes , knolls and
ridgelines, are avoided or substantially lessened by
42
mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and
imposed on the Project. For example, under the Revised
Plan, proposed cuts and fills are generally less than
30-feet in height except as necessary for landslide repair.
In addition, the Revised Plan provides for a greater
concentration of units in the valley floor area. The
mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and
imposed on the Project render insignificant the differences
in environmental impacts between the Project and this
alternative.
2. Consistent with the goals and policies of
the SRVAGP and the County, the Project will provide a
greater number of in-fill housing units than would the
Environmentally Superior Alternative.
E. R-20 and R-40 Alternative
This alternative is based on the concept of a
mass-graded subdivision that would conform with the lot
width, lot area and other standards of the respective zoning
districts, rather than requiring the adoption of a P-1
district as called for under the Project. The grading
concept is essentially identical to the Project, as are the
areas proposed for development. The EIR states that a
subdivision of the type proposed in the Project could be
developed under conventional zoning districts , but the lot
yield would be reduced to approximately 23-lots.
This Board finds that the R-20 and R-40 Alternative
is infeasible and less desirable than the Project and
rejects the R-20 and R-40 Alternative for the following
reasons:
1 . Mitigation measures incorporated into the
Project under the Revised Plan and imposed on the Project by
the Conditions of Approval make the Project substantially
superior to this alternative in terms of adverse
environmental impacts.
2. Consistent with the goals and policies of
the SRVAGP and the County, the Project will provide a
greater number of in-fill housing units than would the R-20
and R-40 Alternative.
F. Access Alternative
The Access Alternative would shorten the length of
the cul-de-sac and provide an emergency access at the
southwest corner of the Project site. This alternative also
would preserve the intermittent stream channel on the
43
Project site. As presented in the EIR, this alternative
would provide advantages over the Project in that the
addition of emergency access would increase safety. In
addition, biological resources would benefit from retention
of the intermittent stream channel . The EIR states that
implementation of this alternative would produce traffic
impacts by generating an estimated 120 average daily trips
on Valley Oak Drive.
This Board finds that the Access Alternative is
infeasible and less desirable than the Project and rejects
the Access Alternative. As discussed in the Plans,
Ordinances and Policies section of these findings and in the
Traffic and Circulation section of these findings,
modification of the cul-de-sac is infeasible.
G. Alternative Site
This alternative contemplates the development on a
parcel located on the north side of Stone Valley Road,
approximately 0 . 5 miles west of its intersection with Green
Valley Road. The alternative site is zoned General
Agriculture (A-2 ) , but the general plan designates the lower
elevation of the property as "Single Family Residential-Low
Density. $' The alternative site is 91+ acres , which is
approximately 2. 5 times larger than the Project site.
The EIR indicates that similar environmental
impacts would result from implementation of this alternative
and from the Project with respect to: (i ) Plans , Ordinances
and Policies; ( ii ) Public Services and Utilities;
(iii ) Flood Hazards and Drainage; ( iv) Geology, Seismicity
and Soils; and (v) Biotic Resources. This alternative would
result in greater environmental impacts than the Project
with respect to traffic and circulation, air quality, and
noise because the Alternative Site is further from the Stone
Valley Road/I-680 interchange.
This Board finds that the Alternative Site is
infeasible and less desirable than the Project and rejects
this alternative on the basis that the Project would have
less adverse impacts on the environment than the Alternative
Site development with respect to traffic and circulation,
air quality, and noise.
VIII. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts are defined as "two or more
individual effects which, when considered together, are
considerable or which compound or increase other
environmental impacts. ' CEQA Guidelines § 15355.
44
The cumulative impacts of the Project on the
regional community are discussed at pages 151 to 152 of the
EIR. The EIR indicates that the Project will have
cumulative impacts with respect to the following areas:
( i ) geology and seismicity; ( ii ) biologic resources;
(iii ) land use, with respect to conversion of open space
lands ; ( iv) conversion of agricultural lands; (v) visual
quality, resulting from changes in visual character and loss
of pastoral views; (v) traffic and circulation; (vi) demand
for public utilities.
Mitigation measures for each of these impacts are
addressed above. Implementation of mitigation measures
incorporated into the Project under the Revised Plan and
imposed upon the Project through the Conditions of Approval
will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative impacts of
the Project. The environmental , economic, social and other
benefits of the Project override any -remaining cumulative
impacts of the Project.
IX. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 , this
Board adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations regarding the remaining, unavoidable and
irreversible impacts of the Project, as discussed above, and
the anticipated economic, social and other benefits of the
Project:
A. Findings and Statement
The remaining , unavoidable and irreversible impacts
of the Project are acceptable in light of the environmental ,
social , economic and other considerations set forth below,
because the benefits of the Project outweigh such impacts.
Each of the matters set forth below is, independent of the
other matters , an overriding consideration warranting
approval of the Project despite each and every unavoidable
impact.
1 . SRVAGP Implementation
The Project presents an opportunity to further key
land use goals in the SRVAGP. Although the property
currently is zoned for agricultural uses, the long-range
land use contemplated for the Project site is single family
residential , low density, as reflected in the SRVAGP. Thus ,
the Project would implement the SRVAGP designation, and will
help eliminate conflicts between agricultural and
residential uses in the area. In addition, the Project is
45
consistent with surrounding land uses and will contribute
positively to the character of the community.
2 . Furtherance of Land Use Goals and
Objectives
As an in-fill development, the Project will help
alleviate problems associated with urban sprawl , including
traffic congestion, air pollution, noise and access to
public services. In addition, the Project as mitigated will
protect visual quality by, among other things, employing
design standards that are consistent with the natural
character of the site, limiting development on the
ridgeline, providing landscape improvements along Stone
Valley Road, and implementing a tree preservation plan.
Dedication of a scenic easement/wildlife corridor to the
County will further goals relating to visual quality,
wildlife and open space. In addition, the Project will
further SRVAGP goals regarding erosion and landslides by
repairing landslides on the site.
3 . Jobs/Housing Balance
The Project, as an in-fill development, will
further the County goals for jobs/housing balance. The
Association of Bay Area Governments ("ABAG" ) projects that
36 , 800 jobs will be created in the San Ramon Valley during
the 20-year period, 1985 to 2005 , and the population of the
Valley will increase by 33 ,000 . The Project will provide
new housing an area expected to experience significant
population growth, thereby promoting a balance of jobs and
housing.
X. FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
Section 21081 . 6 of the California Public Resources
Code requires this Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting
program regarding mitigation measures adopted in connection
with these findings. A mitigation monitoring program has
been prepared for the Project and is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference. This Board hereby adopts
the attached mitigation monitoring program in fulfillment of
the requirement of Section 21081. 6.
46
XI. FINDINGS REGARDING REZONING TO P-1 AND
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Pursuant to the requirements of County Ordinance
Section 84-66 . 1406 , the Board makes the following findings
with respect to the rezoning of the Project site and the
final development plan:
A. The Applicant intends to commence construction
of the Project within two and one-half years of the
effective date of the rezoning and final development plan
approval .
B. The Project, as conditioned, is consistent
with the 1977 San Ramon Valley Area General Plan, which
governs the review of the Project. The Project also is
consistent with the County General Plan, adopted in 1991 .
As noted above in Section IX of these findings , although the
Project site currently is zoned for agricultural uses , it is
designated under the SRVAGP for single family residential ,
low density development. Adequate design and regulations
are provided to assure aesthetic protection of the scenic
ridge and upper hillside and tree canopy in the southern and
eastern portions of the Project site. Special measures are
provided to allow for reasonably safe development (interior
sprinklers, fire breaks around houses , Class A roofs) to
guard against fire hazards.
C. The Project will constitute a residential
environment of sustained desirability, and will be in
harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood
and community. Lot sizes are comparable to existing lots in
the area. Most nearby residents will have little visual
disruption from the Project. Through the mitigation
measures incorporated into and imposed upon the Project,
including the dedication of a scenic easement, much of the
visible hillside area will retain its natural vegetation.
D. The Board finds that the development of a
harmonious and integrated plan, such as the Project,
justifies exceptions for the normal application of the
County Code, including variations in parcel configuration
and design to provide better conformity with existing
natural terrain features.
XII. FINDINGS REGARDING VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473 , the
Board finds that the subdivision proposed to implement the
Project (the "Subdivision" ) meets and performs all of the
47
requirements and conditions imposed by the Subdivision Map
Act, California Government Code § 66410, et seq. , and the
County Subdivision Ordinance, County Code, Title 9 , as more
fully set forth in the findings incorporated herein.
B. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473 . 5 ,
the Board finds that the Subdivision, together with its
provisions for design and improvement, is consistent with
the 1977 San Ramon Valley Area General Plan, which governs
the review of the Project. As noted above in Section IX of
these findings , although the Project site currently is zoned
for agricultural uses , it is designated under the SRVAGP for
single family residential , low density development. The
Subdivision also is consistent with the County General Plan,
adopted in 1991 . Adequate design and regulations are
provided to assure aesthetic protection of the scenic ridge
and upper hillside and tree canopy in the southern and
eastern portions of the Project site: Special measures are
provided to allow for reasonably safe development (interior
sprinklers , fire breaks around houses, Class A roofs) to
guard against fire hazards.
C. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66412. 3 ,
the Board has considered the effect of the Subdivision and
the Project on the housing needs of the region. In doing
so , the Board has attempted to balance the regional housing
needs against the public service needs of area residents and
available fiscal and environmental resources, and the
Project, as conditioned, properly balances the competing
needs of the region. The Board finds the Project has
substantial benefits and that there is a need for comparable
high quality housing in the Project area.
D. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473 . 1 ,
the Board finds that the design of the Subdivision provides,
to the extent feasible given the configuration, orientation
and topography of the Project site, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities within the
Subdivision.
E. The Board finds that the Project site is
physically suitable for the type of development and the
density of development that will result from the Project.
F. As set forth above in Section IV of these
findings, the Board finds that the design of the Subdivision
and the Project, as conditioned, is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. To the
extent that the Subdivision and the Project will adversely
affect the environment or injure fish and wildlife or their
48
habitat, the environmental , economic, social and other
benefits of the Project override such effects , as set forth
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
G. As set forth above in Section IV of these
findings , the Board finds that the design of the Subdivision
and the Project, as conditioned, is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
H. As set forth in Section IV of these findings ,
the Board finds that the Subdivision and the Project, as
conditioned, will not conflict with public easements for
access through or use or, property within the Subdivision.
I . The Board finds that no substantial evidence
has been presented before the Board which requires a finding
pursuant to Government Code Section 66474 mandating denial
of the Subdivision.
49
Y68346[22969/11
D rp r• p o r• m 0 r- ° O r ° Mm
p n 0 a i e• r• n a r a i yob n m e
• O rt rt P rt a m 0 1- r 0 ° r• n
nnn oa" " a � as rl m °
a S n a A r• m M r• (�
M p R r• n m 0 m �i1 n r• 00 0 c rt
��qrq• 0 ° o m a wm pops
O C 7 to
m Om 0
p n io r m M r• ,'7 0mm O nQ p, w
qaf S@m0 to pR
g e M a • rl r R r O r• K "o pr
D
K rt 4 N R 7 0 K 0
M O r ryry 0 p m o K O 9 rt
r••C 0 ►' 'G n a 'O S
0 0 n P R
p m n b
0 p P. r a roe w
n rt a O v g
g
° g 0 4m
o a dad d � a a o,
m r^ :5 to " n " " 0 d r
to r- m b rt m
'� b r• < m 'O b '0 r-
M
n m rt n
.j
0 m m m r• ° m m m 0 m m m
f• < t t ins E n t E < t t O n
Q M M T7 M M M 1 M 1% OMS
R n 'O m q no R to ~
n r• c r r• n z n
p° a
7
o • ra " A A Q
m 0 L W
bb 'y
T7 M M n m M n 'C n K1 n n M n
�p r• r• rr{{ r• '0 r• b r• �p r• r•
0 a 0 3 m 0 0 0 0 to 0 y
O K n n r G n 0 n O n 0 n n nr
< P rt r• < < < P • 0 9
p r, a R m w R0 rt P r, p rt a rt M W.
r0 0 a0 r, 0 r0 " 0 a 0 w
'O 10 Y• 9 W. •q RI •O 10 r-
r- m IC m r• r- r• m
o mryry c c n6 a amy pe
'O m ° ° b 43 'O m °
ov can on
P r' O m B p O H Y O B 0 1 Y m 9 P 0 9 m
R m R ^ R :3 R ^ R R rT R rt R Q
m
n
• r
r•
S
• n
m
v �+ r N ►�+ c b m
p O a 0 O M M 4 L �0 �t M O ►1
' cams ov ov • " " m t ►+ aS a � " S sm a S n < oo � " r•�n
n m rr m ►+ m 0+ W. 0 r- r• s p C
n0ry � o n Mn � vaaf01 "0 o10, 04 nn °Ltf n m5Cal0 " Sav°
m < rm S " S nmmSw fatma n OH90 rtg " v-
7 ►• a rt rt m pp " R p, O M m 0 ►� 9 P 00 rt H O m a S O •
�O 0 0 O m X o a LL71 P Q, m ti R " r• C L a s
c a R r� rt m a m r• O r r- O O a r• m or n
m n o •. o nn r• rtaa oa • tortor0 • vw
r• ro0a m r0 a pt
a ►' m 'O N
pfp P r• P a • A r• � m O R P S M r & S a
rt n � a • r. a v a0 o m a ■
mom n " n gm � 0• ~ c � m 0 91 1400 a' r,
C6 rf
O rt a r- p w ►eP rt 0 66 $ O r• m r rrt � 7
" m r5• n < O r• •+ rt rp O OO O C n r p
�O r- r•
SIC. n Orn a ° "r°• m au a o ertrtpoon
a R Or a s d r• 1 S a • a v p
O " r � L0 0 OL • rt n r a r• Pv
7a n n ti 0 .. w ' 0v o01
a � M S a •
o e 0 gi :3to
~ a e a
�• a a w g n a n M
� spto .10
10 a
o m 00 n
n ~ ~ A 7
ry
R
m � � m m o m Em 0mo
< v < v < e v < v < � <
04
y. r. r. � r• M. r. a M• a r R
r- 0 O O r• 0 O O m 0m • or
N rty t i t Ry t t t p t p t 8
'0 ro ro ro '0 � °w M M o ro m h 0
vp
r• C r- r• r• L r• � S p
nr• a a nr a a
r• r- r- r•
0 a 0 a
a
to a Lo y
M n n n ►°e n !7 K 'O "m '0 -C,r- '0 r• 10 r- r• M r• b r• -0 r- -0 v
W O " O " 0 0 0 " 0 " O " O " 0 H
L " 0 " O " L " 0 " 0 " O M 0 " ►'•
r- < < r• < < < < . 0 9
w rt 0 R 0 R r rt O rt p rt 0 rtrt h r•
aa
0 w0 r0 0 r O r0 ►+ O- P r0 0
7 r• a0 'O a r- +o m
-
to m r• r• i0 m aar• r• r• r-
'O GOi 7 mC
0 p �•+ ro O ►gc+ r r ►+
� • b c � o �6 C � 'O
Ow am 0 Von 0 n Von on Von
-00w '00 9 1.0 9 < 9 0 0 Y O 9 m 9
n a W A W.6 M r rpt r M r C " O " w
n a a
rt R R " R a R a rt a rt 0 rt a O•
p rt rt R f* R ~
O
n
• r
r-
S
n
s
N N N N r r r M
W N r O 10 m y 0%
oaC pnc� ggrw . K nn oKK an
rt �• i n m o u.
o rc O a O m m o x topsp ry o o a R P r• m n
r• P n C 0 0 R A � O n � m rt f} n
R a h n 6.r• � P 0 0 a m Cp
- a C h • rt C M NRR^ ° IC ph O m O A �
P R R m • n m • r°i •K R K tP► rt rP+ rt p f- ° r•r
mlam aa� or anmw nag $ n • r• n
? n rt P R h r n r• ; o ] r o b n r R h
m V. P R O • g w r°i I o m m m ° e .•O C rt m m w
V. r P < 0
rt r• n,
P r r O r s n pr is R rt r�
q aRa �cpm �
0 'w n ~ ~ C ~ 0 0 0 6 $ h wrt P so pw
B $ v a � °1M o ° •" m o 0.- rt
6 m r• rC ¢ R p � 'a 0 rRC � $ m e � � r• � n
°
to a a
ry
tv
pr
02
R r-
o R r "s9 °
0
cs c Vqsi qm gNgq
w r
w
n M n rr• W. rr• r
lb V
tG rq LOr • r • r m r m w too 5 S7
ryq yyq hhq�� n rt
9 9 B g g
N r
r• r- r• '6 'O Sf p
< < g< R
Oa
��p g R �Rp 04
R
{ � M- 0 < � < ro < C < • S3 4
rt
M M ro M O r0'! M to M M
O o O
. 0
ry r%• R R R r0Pb
�
to
to
ran M rOn M ro n S7 ►qt S n R7 ►fir R7 M C M
N 0 h 0 h M °06 M 06 r• '6 M- 'a r• KS w
0 0 � 0 rw * 0 � 0 n 0 N0 rt .
w � wm a ,o
q m yyR7 m yq m +��y r' r'• r• w
�" � 9• � H � Pr �Nc
rta rr+ a ns r6
is
noaar n �ianrr- �C
gR h r. * h w h age �gT�ppr in r. p❑ w
Z 8. 'Rr. SR „w, 1L�� i' i i" O H R O sc m
J R Off, rt °R`+C rrf R M c•
f?
• r
pw
P
• h
°
W W W N N 1J tJ W N
w Y- n ,K m O K 7 r- 0 0 r• 0 0 M n o S r " m m n m Q� prtp
y • m p O < b M O " n R r' p, m r. O p n P Cp m C 0 7s' rt r
R 7 ro O rt r• M r rt 0 ►+ L r• r r a r O
m o rt o o m r
rt ° a a m e a " ° b w R O " n11 g
n m 1S O n m m r m a Y•t0 p' p m r• r• rt LO O n o
p r r• r 7 P 7 O 5 e K R rt p M O M L O b ro
m 0 9 QJ, �O7 0 p r p ro 'C m p o m s o 6 p K rt
m L R r•
rt P r• K 7 S � p
r ro r O m o 'C P n r•0 n r• 0 a C
N• r R r• 0 a 0 A C M �+ r P O r O r 8 t o rr
rf
0 n
7 ° 7 F9Fn ° g 0. ° eoC o " BNno 10
�hi0 $ap �V � O �°+
m O N 8 pr ►reg M m a O °
►. a R7 < m P t7 I.- °
Mt
°K a m `� °• n n �a a �� $ s S' 0 °"
n ry O p a
n < m O A a - oF' c O
Mp °r• m ►8'1 t�� �O
f1 @ 0n0on p0Oacon o 0 r 0 r rt s aKs
s <a ap o r• aa
r• 0 0 K r• m N < e R C m 0-+ C
a p 0 O S O O
m r r• r• n rt ra- O a r• n n
n " r ° a 0
10, g m rl g $ a
a a Q n Q m
O O N n K K
m \10 10 10 40 t0 toto
'�{ '• O
F m m b O m O '� r•
" � n
gr•
a 'ti 0 0
m m mto
m m m
0
5
y n
'b o r m � o r O r 0 O O " O ►+ � 1r m N
" w r• r• r• r• r• r• r• K ►'• R
r• r• m 0 O m 0 m 0 r• O m 0 m 0 m 0 O m 7
+ p n t t t t rt t t i t t O
n c 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 G
pr ro ro ro ro 10 1.
10 ro ro ' ro . 0
A a Q m Ct 0 r w Q 0 6) R '"
° t0 0. r p O n K P P P 'C
r a a 0 a a a 5
w Q w 0 w to m
La
4
V0 0 $ �0 0 b O -o �v 0 R7 0 '0 O -0O v 7
O O ro n K ro K ro M O ro K ro n ro n M M K
.ry� rry� r• �0 r• r• ry�y r• r• r• b r•
9 8 QO K O O L) r•O 9 tD0r- � O L] O C) O K O H
r• r- n n 0 K M K n K 0-Ir K K K n n n nO K r•
n n P < P P R r• p 0 p < - 0 8
m m art P n an art m ►+ n an art an Pn ror•
0 w O 0 ? 0 a 0 0 a 0 a 0 r 0
40
tp a - 40 r• �0 r• W r• 'E
C m r• m m �0 m m m m r•
r• m a am am m bm nom nom
af.
05 � � 5 "
a n r• n r• n n r n r• n r• n
�p m nm rto o n0 no no '0
vapgn vvpgn vvpgnp vvn aNao von vopgnp W w vvono
P O GL9 P O C 6 P 0 9 p 93
° r•+ p m � P
rt " 7
' 0
A K O � MMr O K � d �n ►+ ���nrrr r C ��Krr n a K r 0
M• ' '0 r r• r R
R g R rt n r•1p n O n m r-{Q n m
a 'G 0 b �� a '! OQs
n ^ R R n n n rt n n R n0 n .n R F+
m
n
r•
n
0
C �p m .i 01 VI � W •
e" 5 $ r.,law � a1 - $ off g � 2 �
p b n r• O b n p �0m b K b < ►'
K O n a W. rt ~ n a p ~ 7 K K '°6 r+ n n t p M
■ �o K C O rt rt b rt K o rt a
•� � °a Ls Im5 rt a8n Ke K �C � S Ke � s r' aea
m rt b r• rt p 00 K e rt p rt O 6 rt rt W "
��pp 0 n n r• r• rt < rt - rt 'C a
r, ! m rt O a m 6 rt p rt m e W
m 0 7 O p C 7 r 0 111
P
rt a m rt a K O n ■ K n K m a rt P e b 'o
r+ r p µ µ r+ p, P n r• r• ° X p p, 0 r r+ n K
mpgnpg9c r0i � ■ nr0i :smOm � �C°{ "0 o onnc
9 'O n r• < pK 0 rt M 9 < K 0 e K
r. ►°� 0 K n 0. r rt r f1 r rf ■prot
a w m
n
Y rt• m o 0 Gap `C n F Cr rta rt b a
rt rt m W i n b b It p K p n ■ O K r °
r• V M na r• 0 K & O
10,
n o rt n d
gm or`� b° `own d °° a sn
to r r• r. r. O r. µ rt m 9 • 7 r- p o r m rt
e ° n a ° a 0 R g a
Me Q
rt K O r r+ r• n r• r r• K
m m a s S o + a o a
m r• r• r• m v
LO 0 fir a `a
rr C6 bI � b O 0 0
P '� ryry Q m g Mg 0g4 a rt
i n 9• O I- 0 0
b n m °• o o
CCg rt rt
<
G� < pro < by M 'n
a �
e r• m 0 me m 0 0 e O 0 0 m e ^
Ln t o s Z t < t s
O ro 0 ro O ro M n ie ft M
O
iKc' 0 r 0 N n •q b n 0 F^
io io m
Ph n roe n t7 o 101. 140 Sf n •� I
r• r•5 b r� r• b r. b r- b r• b r r•r+ O 0 0 M H 0 0 K0 K O K O K O 0 0 r7
m 9 K K M 0 ►'• K K 0 K 0 K O K O K K Kr•
a . O 9
K rt 6 rt P m d rt p rt O rt p rt P rt p, rt n P.
9 R7 �G m pr•�O mr- RI 7f �q
L0
m
rt < S a 6
opoo $ v $ �C0 $ ac $ n a
V
li
p rte+ ssp r+ pgg O pgg r gp O pgg r p r p b r+ O 9 O
Sn in S � Sn S ' � Sn gn grt0 0
r` r' rt a r- a
a o a $ a a o a a o a o a Wi° rt
rt rt rt pr rt p rt pr rt rt rt pr rt it rt tr
m K r
m ■ m ■ m e
n
. r.
r-
• n
o
•< r r r r r r r
co w N r .
N
r
+• N Oo Gr K 7L m 4 p y K W i8y r• 0gC m MM O 0 ar• 11 n m W
mO ' n rm O "t+ 4 ✓ • N Ym a 0 e b rt 4r7• Mm 'yC7
r• O K O mI.-
m m n m
or 0 6 m 6 r• m R n ~o n m n ~ m m 7
r aat� am a $ m e ngR 5 nSEn R
' .� n r• n r ] r s r• S a r p m n
rpiwcn an �SSa � pram Rn `• 0 .0Sn
R n ► r• P „R O a 207 O t �pp QQQQ 0 K r• a R r
0 < n 7 m Q A m b n n p '0
rp r npp R M P rtN m m pJ K m rt$0 O 0 r
IO o D M S n O a rf 0 r• 0 40 as O P N n 7
e Mrt A a •G o O •'
to n �' m O < K
nRnR � µ a00n cav noo
o a
�awo pnza oao Am r < � a
eR K a 9 0.1 P.
Sa ' R 9
r 6 c �. � ° o " R
n a n 40 F �a
s a 0 m a m a a Q
e m n C ►• r• o e n r v � r•
all a a � o 0b
rt n a r n n D G) < 3 a r
m \to tom \W p O e F rt9
ID 10 0 a < I 'O ' r• m
Y• e M Y• 0 w R a R
N N {0
C6 0 a m c �°, to
to ta
rt m
] m
R
S < 5 < b < .0
r- m m r• m O e r• m m m m 0 m m R
nyto
L nb t g< t nb i i < E L ?
�C C0. M �b M b 0 L 9 M a M M M O�,
r0. Q rQJ R FwcaQ m0 R m M
r• r• n r- c r• F K rp• K r-
ooa nr• a pnr• a PO a
Cn ra pn 6 p~pp 7 a r r a r
a L0 p w n m i0 to m
LO
L 0 or W
M c m r• K t! K C M K 47 M M 'Dn R7 n
r• r• rm 0 r• �0 r• r• r• b O. r• �O r• �O r•
r CI O r 0 0 n 0 N Cf O n C) 0 K O n 0 �]
Q n n Q n O K Q n n O m K K O K 0 n w
r A r• < r P < r• p < < O 9
Ra a R P o a n 0 fT 0 rr M r•
�O ? O �O e O r 0 �O O ►' ? O Y' 0 ►+ O
b�0 r• C O M m �o a0 r• t0 w m m
O m O M p r• r• O m � m !'- r-
06 06 r
m a 10 m e s 10
oon oogn mmac $ " mac
C b m r• e
n W IQ Rn r-
�a
rto ppr•O0 o M P-IQ 0.
R 0 R R " R D R m K R A
r
m m M m
n
pr•
7
• n
m